Rhymes Reasoning
Over at The Black Commentator There is an article entitled"Acting White: Afican American Students and Education" This is a good read and I encourage all perusers of this blog to take a look. Dr. Rhymes suggests that a possible reason for the lack of achievement of AA students, even in the absence of poverty is a phenomenon refered to as "Involuntary Minority" status.
quote:
nvoluntary minorities are those who did not immigrate to a country by choice. They became minorities through enslavement, colonization or conquest, a status that continues to shape how they are treated by the dominant group and how they perceive and respond to that treatment. Involuntary minorities developed their identity in opposition to the majority group that had oppressed them. As a result, they are often suspicious of societal institutions run by the dominant group, including the schools, believing that the curriculum threatens and denigrates their heritage.
Voluntary minorities, on the other hand, are those who have chosen to immigrate in hopes of a better future. These minorities see education as a path to success in their new country. They are willing to embrace the new language and new ways, no matter how dissimilar to their own, in order to reap the benefits of an American education.
This phenomenon is the brainchild of one John Ogbu who has done 30 years of research on the subject. To bolster his argument Ogbu points out the Baraku of Japan
quote:
Ogbu points to the Buraku people of Japan as a comparison. They are ethnically identical to other Japanese. During Japan's feudal ages, the emperor designated the Buraku to be the laborers, the lowest class. They were freed from this designation in 1871; a few years after American blacks were freed from slavery.
To this day, the Buraku lag behind their Japanese counterparts in academic achievement. Yet when they immigrate to other countries, where they are seen simply as Japanese and not Buraku, the gap gradually disappears. Their school achievement rises.
Now I am not even going to begin to dispute the findings of Dr. Ogbu. However should we accept the conclusion then there are a few things that are worth examining. In the cases of the Baraku and Koreans in Japan, each group prospered and achieved once they left the country of their once masters and exploiters. This would strongly hint that individuals such as Marcus Garvey, Martin Delany, the early Nation of Islam were right in suggesting that Blacks would not meet thier potential unless they looked to Africa or some other geographic location to set up shop separate from the white man. That would also imply that the Civil Rights movement was largely..well..wrong. If the Baraku and Koreans who physically resemble Japanese can still have problems, then clearly African Americans are going to have an even harder time here in the US.
But let's look at Dr. Rhymes other assertion that he has not seen the so called "being smart is acting white" phenomenon.
Dr. Rhymes claimes:
quote:
have heard a lot of static concerning African Americans and their supposed disregard for education. “Our black kids look down on education” say many of the black pundits, “they tease the black kids who are doing well school and say they are acting white.” I’ve heard this repeated over and over again by African-American personalities and celebrities (none of which, by the way, have any extensive, classroom teaching experience). Let me also add, that in all my years as an educator and youth program specialist, I have never heard any student equating scholastic achievement with whiteness.
Well I don't expect that he would. most discussions of this type are not held with adults but between children and thier peers. Here's an exchange between a 9 year old and his peers on a recent field trip with other black students:
Scott is just 9. Scott is very friendly and tried to talk with the kids. Some of the responses were:
Nigga, what is you talkin' 'bout?
How da hell you know dat? You'se a lyin' muchfucka. I'm goin' inta 5th an' we ain't had that, so quit makin' shit up.
Naw muhfucka I aint goneta no gotdamned science center this summer. We gone on a fiel' trip and dat muhfucka borin' as hell, nigga.
Nigga you aint shit.
Nigga Ima give you fiddy cent fo' yo' glove. Whatchu mean, you ain't go'n sell it? Whatchu mean, yo' uncle gave it to you? Shit he ain't yo' daddy, bitch. Act like I an't got no uncle, nigga!
Nigga you thank you so damn smart. Nigga!
Dang nigga you soun' jus' like yo muhfuckin' uncle. Where ya'll from nigga, Africa? Black Africa muhfucka niggas!
Nigga, nigga, nigga!
So cleary Dr. Rhymes is in need of expanding his sphere of experience. Fact is that most of us "educated" blacks do not come into contact with people who hold education in disdain just as most poor people never run in the same circle as the rich.
Top be clear, I never heard my peers talk about scholarship in a negative light. But my peers were not the type to do so. I knew people who did have such attitudes and they were not in my classes or a part of my social circle. This goes back to my critique of Tim Wise who assumes to know what black people think or say simply because some blacks inform him of things.
But let's get to another point he tries to make. Dr. Rhymes is trying to Shed light on the the "why's and hows" and faults the "pundits' ,a current indirect means of saying "Bill Cosby," for not offering the whys. BUt in reality Dr. Rhymes offers just as little as Bill Cosby does in terms of solutions. His claims are no different than the usual Black establlishment mantra to beg the system (they call it making demands, but exactly what consequences are in the offing?) to treat black children better and wth more respect. We've seen what that has done.
In the end, despite vieled swipes at Cosby, which for some reason the Black Commentator has taken to, Dr. Rhymes ends up agreeing with Bill Cosby:
quote:
Although Ogbu’s studies offer some compelling reasons for the gap between African-Americans and whites in education, he also cautioned that we should not allow our righteous zeal to fight discrimination (and to break down barriers in education and in the opportunity structure), to cause us to ignore the personal behavior and attitudes that are conducive to academic success.
That at the end of the day that was Cosby's point. We've been and continue to get on the case of those who oppress us, but we act like thier is nothing we are doing to contribute to our own oppression.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Homicide
This was supposed to be a part of that previous post but I had a hard time refinding the article in question.
The Pittsbburgh Tribune-Review has an article entitled Homicide plagues minority areas. that discusses the homicide rates of blacks in Pittsburgh, a place I visited in February 2004 and had no clue as to what was going on.
quote:
A wave of street killings is sweeping through Pittsburgh's black neighborhoods, leaving a trail of grieving families, overworked police and bewildered community leaders.
The onslaught pushed the murder rate in Pittsburgh last year to ninth-highest among cities in the biggest U.S. metropolitan areas, higher than in Miami and Los Angeles and triple New York's rate.
Ouch. But it gets "better."
One-fourth of Pittsburgh's population is black, but 22 of the city's 25 homicide victims this year have been black. Ten men have been charged in 11 of the black killings. All are black, though charges in one case were dropped...
...Murder in Pittsburgh and other American cities peaked during the crack-fueled gang wars of the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, the killings had begun a steady decline as death and prison wore down the crack trade.
But the body count is creeping back up. The increase here is due almost entirely to murders of blacks, which have doubled in Allegheny County since 2000.
Turf battles over cheap heroin spur many killings, police and experts say...
..Statistics can't describe the pain of Clifford Wilson, 45, a Homewood resident for 35 years. His son, Preston Wilson, 19, was gunned down in North Braddock in September.
"When I was coming up as a kid, it was nowhere like the way it is now," he said. "There was unity in the community. There were fights, but we settled them with our fists. But then crack got in, and it just went crazy."
Wilson said his son was a drug dealer and gang member who lived on his own. The teen had a metal rod in his hip from a previous shooting and was on crutches when he was killed.
So that first shooting was not warning enough that his life was at risk? He just did not care.
Only one in eight residents of Allegheny County is black. But three in four of the county's murder victims last year were black, and the imbalance is growing.
Whites kill whites too, but the number of white murders has changed little since 1990, hovering at about 30 a year. Fewer than 10 percent of homicides last year involved whites killing blacks, or vice versa.
And while murders of innocent bystanders draw more attention, most black victims here and across the nation are men in their late teens or early 20s, usually involved in selling drugs, shot by other young black men in neighborhoods like Homewood, the Hill District and the North Side.
About 70 percent of Pittsburgh murder victims last year had criminal records, according to police statistics. Those victims averaged more than five arrests, mostly for drugs.
So let's put the theory to bed, once and for all, about how whites are killing each other too. The fact of the matter is that blacks (at least here) at killing each other at a higher rate than whites. let's do the math:
Pittsburgh PA has a population of 350,363 people. Allegheny County has a population od 1.3 million people. According to the article only 1/8 of the population is black. That's 162,500 people. 125 people were killed in Al. county last year, 30 of which were white meaning 95 were black ( or at least non-white) which is 75%. Since less than 10 percent of involve black victims of white pepetrators (<10) then we can see that the number one killer of blacks, and specifcally black males are in fact other black males. Most of these murders are done by people who are involved in drugs. This is not to say that black males are inherently violent. I personally know this to not be true. even with the large 75% numbers we must me mindful that 95 represent only .05% of the total black population of Allegheny county.
But why do these murders keep happening? simple:
"I've been on the job long enough now that a lot of people who didn't hear nothing, see nothing, know nothing -- now I'm standing over their son's body, and they're (asking), 'Why won't somebody come forward?'" he said.
"And you almost want to say, 'Well, remember I interviewed you last year? Now you want everybody to come forth, but when I talked to you last summer, you said, "I ain't no snitch. I ain't got nothing to do with that."'"
Sometimes witnesses are scared, Logan said. Many times, they want vengeance and prefer to take care of the matter themselves.
Some dumb, Street code that protects absolutely nobody. When this so called "code of the streets is broken:
In an infamous case from 2002, masked men sprayed a Homewood sandwich shop with gunfire, killing 8-year-old Taylor Coles, her father and another man and wounding her mother.
After neighbors and authorities responded with indignation, the shootings subsided. Only one more person was killed in Homewood that year.
So clearly the reason for the high rates of murder in some black communities is simply because the community tolerates it. "That's the way niggas is." It's not the schools. It's not the jobs it is simply the willingness of the people to accept the actions of the few.
Remember a few posts back I discussed the ideology of recent bantu refugees from Somalia. Here's an example of the sharp contrast in attitude:
quote:
Philadelphia native Ron "Karim" Watson Jr., 43, said he moved to Pittsburgh to turn his life around after four years in prison for armed robbery.
Watson said he makes a decent living now as a crane operator. He goes to bars in Homewood and elsewhere to recruit workers for the union, with varying success.
"Some guys will pull out $2,000," he said. "They say, 'This is my job.' I say to them, 'But you might not live to be 30.'"
There you have it. unwilling to make the long buck. Rather have large money now and take a few people out when you go. And these are the individuals that people would rather Cosby talk nice about?
A last comment too for those parents of the largely teen perps and victims:
Adrienne Young founded Tree of Hope, a group that helps families who have lost loved ones to murder. Her son, Javon, was a freshman at Carnegie Mellon University when he died in 1994 during a robbery. He had no police record and was an excellent student, she said.
"There's lots of mothers out there who think as long as their son is helping them pay the light bill or make a car payment, or buy a house -- and I know people like this -- that whatever he's doing is all right, until he gets killed," she said. "I say to them, 'Don't you realize you were a part of your son's demise?'"
Links:
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_203987.html
This was supposed to be a part of that previous post but I had a hard time refinding the article in question.
The Pittsbburgh Tribune-Review has an article entitled Homicide plagues minority areas. that discusses the homicide rates of blacks in Pittsburgh, a place I visited in February 2004 and had no clue as to what was going on.
quote:
A wave of street killings is sweeping through Pittsburgh's black neighborhoods, leaving a trail of grieving families, overworked police and bewildered community leaders.
The onslaught pushed the murder rate in Pittsburgh last year to ninth-highest among cities in the biggest U.S. metropolitan areas, higher than in Miami and Los Angeles and triple New York's rate.
Ouch. But it gets "better."
One-fourth of Pittsburgh's population is black, but 22 of the city's 25 homicide victims this year have been black. Ten men have been charged in 11 of the black killings. All are black, though charges in one case were dropped...
...Murder in Pittsburgh and other American cities peaked during the crack-fueled gang wars of the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, the killings had begun a steady decline as death and prison wore down the crack trade.
But the body count is creeping back up. The increase here is due almost entirely to murders of blacks, which have doubled in Allegheny County since 2000.
Turf battles over cheap heroin spur many killings, police and experts say...
..Statistics can't describe the pain of Clifford Wilson, 45, a Homewood resident for 35 years. His son, Preston Wilson, 19, was gunned down in North Braddock in September.
"When I was coming up as a kid, it was nowhere like the way it is now," he said. "There was unity in the community. There were fights, but we settled them with our fists. But then crack got in, and it just went crazy."
Wilson said his son was a drug dealer and gang member who lived on his own. The teen had a metal rod in his hip from a previous shooting and was on crutches when he was killed.
So that first shooting was not warning enough that his life was at risk? He just did not care.
Only one in eight residents of Allegheny County is black. But three in four of the county's murder victims last year were black, and the imbalance is growing.
Whites kill whites too, but the number of white murders has changed little since 1990, hovering at about 30 a year. Fewer than 10 percent of homicides last year involved whites killing blacks, or vice versa.
And while murders of innocent bystanders draw more attention, most black victims here and across the nation are men in their late teens or early 20s, usually involved in selling drugs, shot by other young black men in neighborhoods like Homewood, the Hill District and the North Side.
About 70 percent of Pittsburgh murder victims last year had criminal records, according to police statistics. Those victims averaged more than five arrests, mostly for drugs.
So let's put the theory to bed, once and for all, about how whites are killing each other too. The fact of the matter is that blacks (at least here) at killing each other at a higher rate than whites. let's do the math:
Pittsburgh PA has a population of 350,363 people. Allegheny County has a population od 1.3 million people. According to the article only 1/8 of the population is black. That's 162,500 people. 125 people were killed in Al. county last year, 30 of which were white meaning 95 were black ( or at least non-white) which is 75%. Since less than 10 percent of involve black victims of white pepetrators (<10) then we can see that the number one killer of blacks, and specifcally black males are in fact other black males. Most of these murders are done by people who are involved in drugs. This is not to say that black males are inherently violent. I personally know this to not be true. even with the large 75% numbers we must me mindful that 95 represent only .05% of the total black population of Allegheny county.
But why do these murders keep happening? simple:
"I've been on the job long enough now that a lot of people who didn't hear nothing, see nothing, know nothing -- now I'm standing over their son's body, and they're (asking), 'Why won't somebody come forward?'" he said.
"And you almost want to say, 'Well, remember I interviewed you last year? Now you want everybody to come forth, but when I talked to you last summer, you said, "I ain't no snitch. I ain't got nothing to do with that."'"
Sometimes witnesses are scared, Logan said. Many times, they want vengeance and prefer to take care of the matter themselves.
Some dumb, Street code that protects absolutely nobody. When this so called "code of the streets is broken:
In an infamous case from 2002, masked men sprayed a Homewood sandwich shop with gunfire, killing 8-year-old Taylor Coles, her father and another man and wounding her mother.
After neighbors and authorities responded with indignation, the shootings subsided. Only one more person was killed in Homewood that year.
So clearly the reason for the high rates of murder in some black communities is simply because the community tolerates it. "That's the way niggas is." It's not the schools. It's not the jobs it is simply the willingness of the people to accept the actions of the few.
Remember a few posts back I discussed the ideology of recent bantu refugees from Somalia. Here's an example of the sharp contrast in attitude:
quote:
Philadelphia native Ron "Karim" Watson Jr., 43, said he moved to Pittsburgh to turn his life around after four years in prison for armed robbery.
Watson said he makes a decent living now as a crane operator. He goes to bars in Homewood and elsewhere to recruit workers for the union, with varying success.
"Some guys will pull out $2,000," he said. "They say, 'This is my job.' I say to them, 'But you might not live to be 30.'"
There you have it. unwilling to make the long buck. Rather have large money now and take a few people out when you go. And these are the individuals that people would rather Cosby talk nice about?
A last comment too for those parents of the largely teen perps and victims:
Adrienne Young founded Tree of Hope, a group that helps families who have lost loved ones to murder. Her son, Javon, was a freshman at Carnegie Mellon University when he died in 1994 during a robbery. He had no police record and was an excellent student, she said.
"There's lots of mothers out there who think as long as their son is helping them pay the light bill or make a car payment, or buy a house -- and I know people like this -- that whatever he's doing is all right, until he gets killed," she said. "I say to them, 'Don't you realize you were a part of your son's demise?'"
Links:
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_203987.html
Who's Fault? and Other Observations
Over the last few days I read a few articles that really underscored how we Africans are simply not doing what we need to do to get ourselves together. The first article I need to bring to our attention is one of a seriesfeatured in the LA Times by reporter Dava Maharaj entitled Living on Pennies Part 4: Living on 100 Square Feet. This article covers a slum in Kenya and the living conditions ( If you want to call it that) there.
quote:
Plastic bags, knotted and sagging, soar across the slum late at night.
They bounce off tin roofs, splatter against mud walls patched with tin cans and tumble down the steep hillside, where they sprout every few feet like plastic weeds. In the morning, they are trampled into the ground.
After 33 years in this shantytown known as Deep Sea, Cecilia Wahu barely notices the bags anymore. They are called "flying toilets," and because no one here has a bathroom, everyone has thrown a few...
Survival in Deep Sea is a matter of staying above an endless tide of mud and waste. All that separates Wahu from the filth is a dirt floor, thin plank doors and a stubborn sense that even this place is a neighborhood.
About 1,500 people are crammed into this treacherously steep four-acre warren. They live on less than a dollar a day, and this is the best shelter they can afford.
There is one water faucet, one toilet and no electricity. The homes are jumbles of tin, red-baked mud and sticks that barely keep from tumbling into the fetid Gitathuru River below.
Tropical rains eat away at the walls. Roving bands of thugs threaten to break down homes unless they are paid protection money. Wealthy neighbors across the river lobby the government to clear the hillside.
Now let's ask an important question: Who own these slums?
quote:
Nairobi's slums, where more than half of the city's 3 million people live on 5% of the land, are the first stop for the new arrivals. Despite the wretched conditions, most people must pay to live here. As the slums grow more crowded and destitute, the land becomes more precious. A network of tribal leaders, government officials and other slumlords profits handsomely.
According to a U.N. survey, 57% of the dwellings in one Nairobi slum are owned by politicians and civil servants, and the shacks are the most profitable housing in the city. A slumlord who pays $160 for a 100-square-foot shack can recoup the entire investment in months.
Next question: How do these 57% think about the people that they make live in these conditions?
quote:
Loud Congolese Lingala music blares from Deep Sea's shacks and wafts over the river to intrude on the splendor and solitude of the rich.
"They only make noise and cause trouble," says one longtime Muthaiga homeowner. "We will get them out … at any cost."
But much as they complain, Muthaiga residents need Deep Sea for the cheap labor it provides.
From the kitchens and gardens of Muthaiga where they work, the slum dwellers see rolling coffee plantations, lush forest and monkeys swinging over fences into backyards.
It is a stark contrast to Deep Sea, which is barren of vegetation and dotted with litter.
How else are these individuals exploited:
quote:
in some months they are able to set aside a dollar for access to the single water faucet that a Catholic church recently installed near the entrance to Deep Sea.
Many of his neighbors, unable to afford access to the faucet, pay peddlers the equivalent of 8 cents for a 5-gallon container of water. That's about 20 times what the city charges for tap water in better neighborhoods, according to a recent United Nations study.
To use the toilet, Mutua pays the church another dollar a month.
The faucet and toilet are in a small wooden structure at the top of the hill. The building, with a concrete floor and walls painted lime green, is the sturdiest piece of Deep Sea.
Now there is no word as to who owns the other 43% of the slums but that is of little consequence. It appears to me that these relatively well off people could really care less about the conditions in these slums. Perhaps it was errant reporting by Mr. Maharaj. Perhaps he left out the parts where the landlords said they were saving up to put in some plumbing and trying to make the living conditions better. But I'm inclined to believe that they are not doing so. so to quote a poet: "Explain to me just how the white man make you do that."
Catastrophic
Bob Herbert's recent OP ED piece in the NYT entitled An Emerging Catastophe puts Bill Cosby's apaprent angst into sharp perspective.
quote:
A new study of black male employment trends has come up with the following extremely depressing finding: "By 2002, one of every four black men in the U.S. was idle all year long. This idleness rate was twice as high as that of white and Hispanic males."...
Among black male dropouts, for example, 44 percent were idle year-round, as were nearly 42 of every 100 black men aged 55 to 64.
"I was surprised by the magnitude of the population that was idle all year-round," said Professor Sum. "Typically, some groups will find work part of the year, but not the other part, and you end up with a high joblessness rate. But here we've got a growing number of men just not working at all."
Black men, already in an employment crisis, were hit particularly hard by the last recession and have not done well in the fitful recovery that followed. Jobless rates for some subgroups, black teenagers for example, have been all but off the charts.
Education is one of the keys here. As Professor Sum found, 44 percent of black men with no high school diploma were idle year-round versus 26 percent of those with a diploma, and 13 percent of those with a bachelor's (or higher) degree.
That last statement is extremely instructional for those who are quick to dismiss Mr. Cosby and others. When a Black male child "decides" that he does not want to finish High School for reasons other than extremely deprivation, he has set himself up for all kinds of nonsense. I'm talking about people who will be seated all day long. Who will stand on a corner from sun up to sun down but will not go to school. And what of our daughters? Who will they marry? yo ucan't knocvk off 44% of the Black male population and not put the black family in a serious bind.
next:
AIDS in Lesotho
Also in the NYT is a startling article about HIV in Lesotho and how the globalisation of the textile industry that produces the Gap pants I have on right now, among other articles that we purchase at incredibly marked up prices, have contributed to a pandemic that seems the threaten the very existance of the African woman:
quote:
Ha Thetsane is home to thousands of women who have fled Lesotho's impoverished countryside to seek jobs as garment workers. But the average wage for such jobs, about 70 cents an hour, is seldom enough to both sustain a worker and allow her to send money to the family she left behind.
Thus the detergent boxes in the windows. They signal that the women's husbands or boyfriends are visiting - and that the men who have been supporting them in exchange for sex should lie low.
"One woman will go out with four or five men," said Bolelwa Falten, a 26-year-old former seamstress. "One will help with the rent. One, maybe, will drive a taxi and take her to and from work. One will help with food. One will help her pay her installments."
Experts refer to such desperate arrangements by the dry term "transactional sex." This is one reason, though hardly the only one, that in Lesotho H.I.V. infects one in four men aged 15 to 24 - and one in two women...
..."There's a growing feminization of this epidemic," Tim Rwabuhemba, the Lesotho coordinator for the United Nations Program on H.I.V./AIDS, said in an interview. "More and more women are becoming infected at an earlier and earlier age."
In an interview in Bangkok, Stephen Lewis, the United Nations envoy on AIDS in Africa, said he envisioned a southern Africa 20 years from now in which "you are going to sense and see the loss of women."
"There will be portions of Africa," he added, that "will be depopulated of women. "
The article attempts to lay the blame for the transmission of HIV directly on Africans themselves. it states:
Those battling this trend face two intractable forces: biology and African tradition.
H.I.V. easily passes through vaginal mucous membranes, especially the immature membranes of girls and young women - and in much of sub-Saharan Africa, early sex is the norm.
The larger reason, however, is that few African women have a say in sex, or in any other life-changing decisions.. In Lesotho, married women are legally minors, unable to open a bank account or own property without a husband's approval. Men decide all sexual matters, down to the number of children a wife will bear.
"Once you get married, you become a child, in a way, of your husband," said Dr. Itumelang Kimane, a senior lecturer in social anthropology at the National University of Lesotho. "You cannot use devices like condoms and contraceptives without the husband agreeing."
While I Agree that the rights of women ( not neccessarily their roles) need to be changed yesterday, such commentary still does not address why the women are paid so little by Taiwanees, Chinese, and "Western" companies as to need to sell themselves in order to "Survive.
quote:
AIDS arrived here during apartheid, when Lesotho's men brought H.I.V. home from South Africa, where many worked in mines. But after 1994, democratic South Africa shunned foreign labor, the mines became mechanized and Lesotho's mining work force shriveled.
The garment industry, however, has staved off economic collapse. Fueled by an American program that slashes duties on African clothing imports, more than 50 Taiwanese-owned clothing factories grew here, shipping $400 million of jeans, T-shirts and other apparel to American stores last year alone. They also brought the second great wave of migration - 55,000 textile jobs, four-fifths of them held by women, largely from drought-ravaged rural areas where farming has collapsed.
Clearly 70 cent a day to make Gap Khaki's is insuficient top live on. these companies can easily pay a living wage to their factory workers. If they did so, then women would not need to resort to sexaul trading to get by. The effect would be immediate. What should be clear is that unlike in the US AIDS in Africa is largely man made and a direct result of the so called "new" global economy and post colonialism.
When does it stop?
Over the last few days I read a few articles that really underscored how we Africans are simply not doing what we need to do to get ourselves together. The first article I need to bring to our attention is one of a seriesfeatured in the LA Times by reporter Dava Maharaj entitled Living on Pennies Part 4: Living on 100 Square Feet. This article covers a slum in Kenya and the living conditions ( If you want to call it that) there.
quote:
Plastic bags, knotted and sagging, soar across the slum late at night.
They bounce off tin roofs, splatter against mud walls patched with tin cans and tumble down the steep hillside, where they sprout every few feet like plastic weeds. In the morning, they are trampled into the ground.
After 33 years in this shantytown known as Deep Sea, Cecilia Wahu barely notices the bags anymore. They are called "flying toilets," and because no one here has a bathroom, everyone has thrown a few...
Survival in Deep Sea is a matter of staying above an endless tide of mud and waste. All that separates Wahu from the filth is a dirt floor, thin plank doors and a stubborn sense that even this place is a neighborhood.
About 1,500 people are crammed into this treacherously steep four-acre warren. They live on less than a dollar a day, and this is the best shelter they can afford.
There is one water faucet, one toilet and no electricity. The homes are jumbles of tin, red-baked mud and sticks that barely keep from tumbling into the fetid Gitathuru River below.
Tropical rains eat away at the walls. Roving bands of thugs threaten to break down homes unless they are paid protection money. Wealthy neighbors across the river lobby the government to clear the hillside.
Now let's ask an important question: Who own these slums?
quote:
Nairobi's slums, where more than half of the city's 3 million people live on 5% of the land, are the first stop for the new arrivals. Despite the wretched conditions, most people must pay to live here. As the slums grow more crowded and destitute, the land becomes more precious. A network of tribal leaders, government officials and other slumlords profits handsomely.
According to a U.N. survey, 57% of the dwellings in one Nairobi slum are owned by politicians and civil servants, and the shacks are the most profitable housing in the city. A slumlord who pays $160 for a 100-square-foot shack can recoup the entire investment in months.
Next question: How do these 57% think about the people that they make live in these conditions?
quote:
Loud Congolese Lingala music blares from Deep Sea's shacks and wafts over the river to intrude on the splendor and solitude of the rich.
"They only make noise and cause trouble," says one longtime Muthaiga homeowner. "We will get them out … at any cost."
But much as they complain, Muthaiga residents need Deep Sea for the cheap labor it provides.
From the kitchens and gardens of Muthaiga where they work, the slum dwellers see rolling coffee plantations, lush forest and monkeys swinging over fences into backyards.
It is a stark contrast to Deep Sea, which is barren of vegetation and dotted with litter.
How else are these individuals exploited:
quote:
in some months they are able to set aside a dollar for access to the single water faucet that a Catholic church recently installed near the entrance to Deep Sea.
Many of his neighbors, unable to afford access to the faucet, pay peddlers the equivalent of 8 cents for a 5-gallon container of water. That's about 20 times what the city charges for tap water in better neighborhoods, according to a recent United Nations study.
To use the toilet, Mutua pays the church another dollar a month.
The faucet and toilet are in a small wooden structure at the top of the hill. The building, with a concrete floor and walls painted lime green, is the sturdiest piece of Deep Sea.
Now there is no word as to who owns the other 43% of the slums but that is of little consequence. It appears to me that these relatively well off people could really care less about the conditions in these slums. Perhaps it was errant reporting by Mr. Maharaj. Perhaps he left out the parts where the landlords said they were saving up to put in some plumbing and trying to make the living conditions better. But I'm inclined to believe that they are not doing so. so to quote a poet: "Explain to me just how the white man make you do that."
Catastrophic
Bob Herbert's recent OP ED piece in the NYT entitled An Emerging Catastophe puts Bill Cosby's apaprent angst into sharp perspective.
quote:
A new study of black male employment trends has come up with the following extremely depressing finding: "By 2002, one of every four black men in the U.S. was idle all year long. This idleness rate was twice as high as that of white and Hispanic males."...
Among black male dropouts, for example, 44 percent were idle year-round, as were nearly 42 of every 100 black men aged 55 to 64.
"I was surprised by the magnitude of the population that was idle all year-round," said Professor Sum. "Typically, some groups will find work part of the year, but not the other part, and you end up with a high joblessness rate. But here we've got a growing number of men just not working at all."
Black men, already in an employment crisis, were hit particularly hard by the last recession and have not done well in the fitful recovery that followed. Jobless rates for some subgroups, black teenagers for example, have been all but off the charts.
Education is one of the keys here. As Professor Sum found, 44 percent of black men with no high school diploma were idle year-round versus 26 percent of those with a diploma, and 13 percent of those with a bachelor's (or higher) degree.
That last statement is extremely instructional for those who are quick to dismiss Mr. Cosby and others. When a Black male child "decides" that he does not want to finish High School for reasons other than extremely deprivation, he has set himself up for all kinds of nonsense. I'm talking about people who will be seated all day long. Who will stand on a corner from sun up to sun down but will not go to school. And what of our daughters? Who will they marry? yo ucan't knocvk off 44% of the Black male population and not put the black family in a serious bind.
next:
AIDS in Lesotho
Also in the NYT is a startling article about HIV in Lesotho and how the globalisation of the textile industry that produces the Gap pants I have on right now, among other articles that we purchase at incredibly marked up prices, have contributed to a pandemic that seems the threaten the very existance of the African woman:
quote:
Ha Thetsane is home to thousands of women who have fled Lesotho's impoverished countryside to seek jobs as garment workers. But the average wage for such jobs, about 70 cents an hour, is seldom enough to both sustain a worker and allow her to send money to the family she left behind.
Thus the detergent boxes in the windows. They signal that the women's husbands or boyfriends are visiting - and that the men who have been supporting them in exchange for sex should lie low.
"One woman will go out with four or five men," said Bolelwa Falten, a 26-year-old former seamstress. "One will help with the rent. One, maybe, will drive a taxi and take her to and from work. One will help with food. One will help her pay her installments."
Experts refer to such desperate arrangements by the dry term "transactional sex." This is one reason, though hardly the only one, that in Lesotho H.I.V. infects one in four men aged 15 to 24 - and one in two women...
..."There's a growing feminization of this epidemic," Tim Rwabuhemba, the Lesotho coordinator for the United Nations Program on H.I.V./AIDS, said in an interview. "More and more women are becoming infected at an earlier and earlier age."
In an interview in Bangkok, Stephen Lewis, the United Nations envoy on AIDS in Africa, said he envisioned a southern Africa 20 years from now in which "you are going to sense and see the loss of women."
"There will be portions of Africa," he added, that "will be depopulated of women. "
The article attempts to lay the blame for the transmission of HIV directly on Africans themselves. it states:
Those battling this trend face two intractable forces: biology and African tradition.
H.I.V. easily passes through vaginal mucous membranes, especially the immature membranes of girls and young women - and in much of sub-Saharan Africa, early sex is the norm.
The larger reason, however, is that few African women have a say in sex, or in any other life-changing decisions.. In Lesotho, married women are legally minors, unable to open a bank account or own property without a husband's approval. Men decide all sexual matters, down to the number of children a wife will bear.
"Once you get married, you become a child, in a way, of your husband," said Dr. Itumelang Kimane, a senior lecturer in social anthropology at the National University of Lesotho. "You cannot use devices like condoms and contraceptives without the husband agreeing."
While I Agree that the rights of women ( not neccessarily their roles) need to be changed yesterday, such commentary still does not address why the women are paid so little by Taiwanees, Chinese, and "Western" companies as to need to sell themselves in order to "Survive.
quote:
AIDS arrived here during apartheid, when Lesotho's men brought H.I.V. home from South Africa, where many worked in mines. But after 1994, democratic South Africa shunned foreign labor, the mines became mechanized and Lesotho's mining work force shriveled.
The garment industry, however, has staved off economic collapse. Fueled by an American program that slashes duties on African clothing imports, more than 50 Taiwanese-owned clothing factories grew here, shipping $400 million of jeans, T-shirts and other apparel to American stores last year alone. They also brought the second great wave of migration - 55,000 textile jobs, four-fifths of them held by women, largely from drought-ravaged rural areas where farming has collapsed.
Clearly 70 cent a day to make Gap Khaki's is insuficient top live on. these companies can easily pay a living wage to their factory workers. If they did so, then women would not need to resort to sexaul trading to get by. The effect would be immediate. What should be clear is that unlike in the US AIDS in Africa is largely man made and a direct result of the so called "new" global economy and post colonialism.
When does it stop?
Thursday, July 15, 2004
Corporate Welfare
Those who know me know that I'm all for playing the corporate game for community needs. There are things I won't do and handing out 600Mil to a very profitable organization is one of them. I haven't commented on the proposal for NYC and NYS to give the Jets $600 Mil. and the nets $400 Mil. because it is obvious to me that it should not happen. over at the Black Commentator Margertte Kimberly breaks it down lovely. To see how foolish the claims of "many jobs created" are. Simply look at how a stadium works. The management jobs in any organization are few and far between. So there aren't any jobs at the top. The Jets and Nets already have mid level workers in place in their current locations so those jobs are not going to be opening up. Next down are concession stands, janitorial, ticket sale booths, security and parking lot attendants. These are not high paying jobs and they have a high rate of turnover. What about businesses? Well if you already have a business in Midtown or downtown Brooklyn then you're set. But since the stadium will no doubt increase the property values of the surrounding area ( amybe not seeing what is around Yankee Stadium), who among the "job seekers' will be able to rent property and start a business? The people who are going to benefit in the short term are contractors. Black men have a difficult time getting work on contruction in Harlem. What says they are going to get work at the Javits? In the long term, Union contractors will see a windfall when conventions come to town ( I know I got vicked by a few myself. $75 for an electrical outlet for a booth?) The Nets and Jets will make a killing while passing off minimum wage to the 'support staff." The city will make a killing on the parking tickets and taxes. the people who sell confectionary to the stadiums will continue to make large amounts of money and of course the cable operators who broadcast the games will make thier dough. And all they want from you is $600 million to make all this dough.
Links:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/99/99_freedom_rider_corporate_welfare.html
Those who know me know that I'm all for playing the corporate game for community needs. There are things I won't do and handing out 600Mil to a very profitable organization is one of them. I haven't commented on the proposal for NYC and NYS to give the Jets $600 Mil. and the nets $400 Mil. because it is obvious to me that it should not happen. over at the Black Commentator Margertte Kimberly breaks it down lovely. To see how foolish the claims of "many jobs created" are. Simply look at how a stadium works. The management jobs in any organization are few and far between. So there aren't any jobs at the top. The Jets and Nets already have mid level workers in place in their current locations so those jobs are not going to be opening up. Next down are concession stands, janitorial, ticket sale booths, security and parking lot attendants. These are not high paying jobs and they have a high rate of turnover. What about businesses? Well if you already have a business in Midtown or downtown Brooklyn then you're set. But since the stadium will no doubt increase the property values of the surrounding area ( amybe not seeing what is around Yankee Stadium), who among the "job seekers' will be able to rent property and start a business? The people who are going to benefit in the short term are contractors. Black men have a difficult time getting work on contruction in Harlem. What says they are going to get work at the Javits? In the long term, Union contractors will see a windfall when conventions come to town ( I know I got vicked by a few myself. $75 for an electrical outlet for a booth?) The Nets and Jets will make a killing while passing off minimum wage to the 'support staff." The city will make a killing on the parking tickets and taxes. the people who sell confectionary to the stadiums will continue to make large amounts of money and of course the cable operators who broadcast the games will make thier dough. And all they want from you is $600 million to make all this dough.
Links:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/99/99_freedom_rider_corporate_welfare.html
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Dumbthink
on occasion i read the NYT Op Ed pieces. I usually avoid William Safire, cause, well... I'll not say. http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hpHis latest piece is an illustration as to why I avoid him:
quote:
Consider the official pressure to get with the latest groupthink: the 9/11 commission staff assured us recently that repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda (including the presence in Baghdad and Kurdistan of the reigning terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), "did not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." This week, the Senate Intelligence Committee chimed in, saying these contacts "did not add up to an established formal relationship." (Italics mine.)
Think about that. Do today's groupthinkers believe that Osama bin Laden would sit down with Saddam in front of the world's cameras to sign a mutual assistance pact, establishing a formal relationship? Terrorists and rogue states don't work that way. Mass killers collaborate informally, without a photo op, even secretly.
Ready? Remember after the Collapse of the Twin Towers when it was determined that the Taliban of Afghanistan were formally protecting Osama as a guest of thier country? That sir is what an "established formal relationship" looks like.
So while he carps about "groupthink" it appears that Mr. Safire is a victim of "dumbthink."
links:
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hp-The New Groupthink By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: July 14, 2004
on occasion i read the NYT Op Ed pieces. I usually avoid William Safire, cause, well... I'll not say. http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hpHis latest piece is an illustration as to why I avoid him:
quote:
Consider the official pressure to get with the latest groupthink: the 9/11 commission staff assured us recently that repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda (including the presence in Baghdad and Kurdistan of the reigning terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), "did not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." This week, the Senate Intelligence Committee chimed in, saying these contacts "did not add up to an established formal relationship." (Italics mine.)
Think about that. Do today's groupthinkers believe that Osama bin Laden would sit down with Saddam in front of the world's cameras to sign a mutual assistance pact, establishing a formal relationship? Terrorists and rogue states don't work that way. Mass killers collaborate informally, without a photo op, even secretly.
Ready? Remember after the Collapse of the Twin Towers when it was determined that the Taliban of Afghanistan were formally protecting Osama as a guest of thier country? That sir is what an "established formal relationship" looks like.
So while he carps about "groupthink" it appears that Mr. Safire is a victim of "dumbthink."
links:
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hp-The New Groupthink By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: July 14, 2004
Cosby Quotables
Given that everyone and their momma claims to know what Cosby means and says; Here is a set of quotes from Cosby from his appearance on NPR ( Thanks D-sekou for the link)
"We take it for granted..I do anyway, that what I'm talking about is not all of them. If I say 55 % or 50% it means that. it doesn't mean everyone..."
" The Children should be guided. now the parents happen to be children also, then they too need to be guided."
" We're not listening to our children and they're telling us something."
Given that everyone and their momma claims to know what Cosby means and says; Here is a set of quotes from Cosby from his appearance on NPR ( Thanks D-sekou for the link)
"We take it for granted..I do anyway, that what I'm talking about is not all of them. If I say 55 % or 50% it means that. it doesn't mean everyone..."
" The Children should be guided. now the parents happen to be children also, then they too need to be guided."
" We're not listening to our children and they're telling us something."
Facts? What Facts?
Today I ran across Earl Ofari Hutchison's critique of Bill Cosby's commentary. I usually ignire much of what Mr. Hutchison wrotes because I was put off by the illogical position he took that Black clergy were responsible for the rise in AIDS in black communities. However, since I'm still arguing with people over the stats and actuality of Cosby's comments, I find myself again, picking apart critique of Cosby's words. The problem with most of the critique against Cosby is that none of it, thus far, has been done by presenting facts that contradict Cosby's positions. And some of it has been simply pointing out that one of his daughters was a crackhead. As if that somehow invalidates Cosby's message. So let's look at Mr. Hutchison's facts:
quote:
Cosby myth: "You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, and you want to get an education and now you're minimum wage."
Truth: It's not clear what bed and living rooms in poor black households Cosby peeped in to make that charge, but a Justice Department study in 2000 found that since 1993, domestic violence plunged among all groups. It further found that the murder rate of black females killed by their partners sharply dropped, while the murder rate jumped among white females killed by their partners. The Justice Department study and a UCLA School of Public Health study in 1996, however, found that blacks are more likely to report domestic violence than whites, Hispanics and Native Americans.
In the UCLA study, the blacks who physically abused their partners were young (under 30), lived in urban areas, had lower income and were less educated.
The fact that domestic violence is supposedly dropping does not mean that it is not happening. Cosby did not say that domestic violence is on the rise, he simply pointed out that in black communities a significant amount of domestic abuse happens because black men feel powerless in other areas of thier lives and take it out on thier women. it also does not help with the glorification of Pimpin' on popular black music. And for the record, beating women is part and parcel of the pimp game. What is worse about Hutchison's critique is that after claiming a "Cosby myth" he goes on to site that the UCLA study were the exact group to which Cosby was referring to. Did anyone call this to Hutchison's attention?
quote 2
Cosby Myth: "They think they're hip, they can't read; they can't write, they're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
Truth: But many do think it is hip to read and write. The U.S. Dept. of Education found that in the decades since 1975, more blacks had enrolled in school, had improved their SAT scores by nearly 200 points and had lowered their dropout rate significantly. It also found that one in three was in college, and that the number of blacks receiving bachelors and masters degrees had nearly doubled. A survey of student attitudes by the Minority Student Achievement Network, an Illinois-based educational advocacy group in 2002, found that black students were as motivated, studied as hard, and were as serious about graduating as whites.
Many of the blacks that now attend historically black colleges – and probably other colleges – are from lower income, disadvantaged homes. In a majority of cases, they are the first members of their family to attend college.
What we will note here is that except for the 'one in three" comment, Hutchison offers no numbers. He can't offer numbers and bolster his case. Fact is that in NYC ( which is where Cosby was referring to) the drop out rates of blacks is 51%. It is worse in some other states. You can't go to college unless you complete High School ( or get a GED) Therefore in NYC it is simply impossible to say that "one in three" blacks of college age are in colllege. Also it has been recently exposed in the Black Commentator that in Illinois (specifically Chicago) there are more Black males in prison than enrolled in undergraduate studies at state institutions of Higher Education. So again the "one in three" comment is false for that area too. And these are the people that Cosby is talking about. Those of us who were/are not well off and attended Black colleges or any college are not the target of Cosby's commentary so why even bring us up?
quote 3:
Cosby Myth: "Well, Brown versus Board of Education: Where are we today. They paved the way, but what did we do with it." They ...don't hold up their part of the deal."
Truth: The ones who aren't holding up their part of the deal are Cosby's lower income whites and middle-income blacks, not the black poor. According to the latest census figures, a higher percentage of lower income blacks were registered to vote, and actually voted, than lower income whites. The same can't be said for their more well to do black brethren. The census found that a lower percentage of higher income blacks were registered, and voted, than their higher income white counterparts. The quantum leap in the number of black elected officials in the past two decades could not have happened without the votes of thousands of poor blacks.
What is this talk of Voter registration? That has nothing to do with Brown V Board. Brown v. Board was prior to the Voting Rights Act. furthermore it is agreed by most black educators that the logic behind Brown v. Board was seriously flawed. Furthermore, as is pointed out by many analysts, the higher the amount of education a person has, not only are the more likely to be iinformed of politics but are less likely to engage in voting because they know that voiting is perhaps the least effective means to influence the political process. remember that the upper 10% of the US population ( and a few outside nations) pour millions into the respective political parties and largely determine who get's heard and who does not, The poor simply vote for those who they have been told they can choose from Anyways... that has nothing to do with Brown v. Board. So that whole line was simply irrelevant.
Quote 4
Some poor young blacks can't read or write, join gangs, deal drugs, terrorize their communities and beat up their wives or partners. Many whites, Hispanics and Asians also engage in the same type of dysfunctional and destructive behavior. Cosby did not qualify or provide any factual context for his blanket indictment of poor blacks. He made the negative behavior of some blacks a racial rather than endemic social problem. In doing so, he did more than break the alleged taboo against publicly airing racial dirty laundry; he fanned dangerous and destructive stereotypes.
Like almost everyone else, Hutchison not only assumes what Cosby said (probably from the same news sources as everyone else...except me), but he assumes wrong. Cosby, on Like It Is, with Gil Noble, which aired on ABC Channel 7 in New York Stated that he did not mean to imply all black poor do the things that he said AND that he was wrong to imply such a thing. Why is it that Cosby has been big enough to admit is error (he had another error which he has not owned up too) but none of his critics can do so? Furthermore; Cosby made it clear that he was talking to and about blacks and could care less about whites think or do. So he didn't racialise the issue. He made the issue within' the race. I know it's hard to see the difference, but surely someone of Hutchison's education can tell the difference. Perhaps not.
links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/19216/
Today I ran across Earl Ofari Hutchison's critique of Bill Cosby's commentary. I usually ignire much of what Mr. Hutchison wrotes because I was put off by the illogical position he took that Black clergy were responsible for the rise in AIDS in black communities. However, since I'm still arguing with people over the stats and actuality of Cosby's comments, I find myself again, picking apart critique of Cosby's words. The problem with most of the critique against Cosby is that none of it, thus far, has been done by presenting facts that contradict Cosby's positions. And some of it has been simply pointing out that one of his daughters was a crackhead. As if that somehow invalidates Cosby's message. So let's look at Mr. Hutchison's facts:
quote:
Cosby myth: "You've got to stop beating up your women because you can't find a job, and you want to get an education and now you're minimum wage."
Truth: It's not clear what bed and living rooms in poor black households Cosby peeped in to make that charge, but a Justice Department study in 2000 found that since 1993, domestic violence plunged among all groups. It further found that the murder rate of black females killed by their partners sharply dropped, while the murder rate jumped among white females killed by their partners. The Justice Department study and a UCLA School of Public Health study in 1996, however, found that blacks are more likely to report domestic violence than whites, Hispanics and Native Americans.
In the UCLA study, the blacks who physically abused their partners were young (under 30), lived in urban areas, had lower income and were less educated.
The fact that domestic violence is supposedly dropping does not mean that it is not happening. Cosby did not say that domestic violence is on the rise, he simply pointed out that in black communities a significant amount of domestic abuse happens because black men feel powerless in other areas of thier lives and take it out on thier women. it also does not help with the glorification of Pimpin' on popular black music. And for the record, beating women is part and parcel of the pimp game. What is worse about Hutchison's critique is that after claiming a "Cosby myth" he goes on to site that the UCLA study were the exact group to which Cosby was referring to. Did anyone call this to Hutchison's attention?
quote 2
Cosby Myth: "They think they're hip, they can't read; they can't write, they're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."
Truth: But many do think it is hip to read and write. The U.S. Dept. of Education found that in the decades since 1975, more blacks had enrolled in school, had improved their SAT scores by nearly 200 points and had lowered their dropout rate significantly. It also found that one in three was in college, and that the number of blacks receiving bachelors and masters degrees had nearly doubled. A survey of student attitudes by the Minority Student Achievement Network, an Illinois-based educational advocacy group in 2002, found that black students were as motivated, studied as hard, and were as serious about graduating as whites.
Many of the blacks that now attend historically black colleges – and probably other colleges – are from lower income, disadvantaged homes. In a majority of cases, they are the first members of their family to attend college.
What we will note here is that except for the 'one in three" comment, Hutchison offers no numbers. He can't offer numbers and bolster his case. Fact is that in NYC ( which is where Cosby was referring to) the drop out rates of blacks is 51%. It is worse in some other states. You can't go to college unless you complete High School ( or get a GED) Therefore in NYC it is simply impossible to say that "one in three" blacks of college age are in colllege. Also it has been recently exposed in the Black Commentator that in Illinois (specifically Chicago) there are more Black males in prison than enrolled in undergraduate studies at state institutions of Higher Education. So again the "one in three" comment is false for that area too. And these are the people that Cosby is talking about. Those of us who were/are not well off and attended Black colleges or any college are not the target of Cosby's commentary so why even bring us up?
quote 3:
Cosby Myth: "Well, Brown versus Board of Education: Where are we today. They paved the way, but what did we do with it." They ...don't hold up their part of the deal."
Truth: The ones who aren't holding up their part of the deal are Cosby's lower income whites and middle-income blacks, not the black poor. According to the latest census figures, a higher percentage of lower income blacks were registered to vote, and actually voted, than lower income whites. The same can't be said for their more well to do black brethren. The census found that a lower percentage of higher income blacks were registered, and voted, than their higher income white counterparts. The quantum leap in the number of black elected officials in the past two decades could not have happened without the votes of thousands of poor blacks.
What is this talk of Voter registration? That has nothing to do with Brown V Board. Brown v. Board was prior to the Voting Rights Act. furthermore it is agreed by most black educators that the logic behind Brown v. Board was seriously flawed. Furthermore, as is pointed out by many analysts, the higher the amount of education a person has, not only are the more likely to be iinformed of politics but are less likely to engage in voting because they know that voiting is perhaps the least effective means to influence the political process. remember that the upper 10% of the US population ( and a few outside nations) pour millions into the respective political parties and largely determine who get's heard and who does not, The poor simply vote for those who they have been told they can choose from Anyways... that has nothing to do with Brown v. Board. So that whole line was simply irrelevant.
Quote 4
Some poor young blacks can't read or write, join gangs, deal drugs, terrorize their communities and beat up their wives or partners. Many whites, Hispanics and Asians also engage in the same type of dysfunctional and destructive behavior. Cosby did not qualify or provide any factual context for his blanket indictment of poor blacks. He made the negative behavior of some blacks a racial rather than endemic social problem. In doing so, he did more than break the alleged taboo against publicly airing racial dirty laundry; he fanned dangerous and destructive stereotypes.
Like almost everyone else, Hutchison not only assumes what Cosby said (probably from the same news sources as everyone else...except me), but he assumes wrong. Cosby, on Like It Is, with Gil Noble, which aired on ABC Channel 7 in New York Stated that he did not mean to imply all black poor do the things that he said AND that he was wrong to imply such a thing. Why is it that Cosby has been big enough to admit is error (he had another error which he has not owned up too) but none of his critics can do so? Furthermore; Cosby made it clear that he was talking to and about blacks and could care less about whites think or do. So he didn't racialise the issue. He made the issue within' the race. I know it's hard to see the difference, but surely someone of Hutchison's education can tell the difference. Perhaps not.
links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/19216/
Monday, July 12, 2004
Hip Hop Cointelpro?
I was over at alternet and ran across This Article on Hip Hop and the police. While much of the article was on point regarding the police surveliance of Hip Hop artists (I'm not surprised), what got me was the idea that Hip Hop is unders surveliance much like Dr. King and Malcolm X, the Black Panter Party, US or other Black organizations.
quote:
ome see motives that are even more nefarious. Cedric Muhammad, publisher of the webzine BlackElectorate.com and former manager of the hip-hop collective Wu-Tang Clan, ran a series linking police harassment of rappers to the infamous COINTELPRO programs of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Muhammad recently wrote a public letter to the Miami Herald, suggesting that reporters should shift the focus of attention beyond police harassment and racial profiling, "properly placing it where it belongs – at the federal level."
The feds already have used antiterrorism strategies to crack down on domestic street gangs, and some officials have even linked such gangs to terrorism. Muhammad writes that linking gangsta rappers to genuine gangsters allows a COINTELPRO-like program to continue under the guise of homeland security, thus preempting the potential for a militant mass movement of black people.
There is no doubt in my mind that COINTELPRO exists in black communities, but Hip Hop artists of today, with very few exceptions are anywhere near the caliber of a Malcolm X or Huey Newton. COINTELPRO was made to prevent the rise of a Black messiah, The only place where most Hip Hop artists are leading black youth, are to jewelry stores, car dealerships, the local Mall and music stores and consumer debt. I don't care how talented Tupac or Biggie Smalls were, they were no Malcom X's. Period. This goes back to a yet to be posted write up I am doing on the Hip Hop summit. Hip Hop may be the voice of a generation of black folks, but It isn't political. Many political blacks may listen to hip hop, but most of us who are intelligent only view Hip Hop (or we shoudl specify Rap music) as entertainment and seek mental stimulation elsewhere. I'll end this with two quotes:
"It's bigger than Hip Hop" -Dead Prez
"it won't teach you how to raise a child or treat your wife"- Tribe Called Quest.
I was over at alternet and ran across This Article on Hip Hop and the police. While much of the article was on point regarding the police surveliance of Hip Hop artists (I'm not surprised), what got me was the idea that Hip Hop is unders surveliance much like Dr. King and Malcolm X, the Black Panter Party, US or other Black organizations.
quote:
ome see motives that are even more nefarious. Cedric Muhammad, publisher of the webzine BlackElectorate.com and former manager of the hip-hop collective Wu-Tang Clan, ran a series linking police harassment of rappers to the infamous COINTELPRO programs of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Muhammad recently wrote a public letter to the Miami Herald, suggesting that reporters should shift the focus of attention beyond police harassment and racial profiling, "properly placing it where it belongs – at the federal level."
The feds already have used antiterrorism strategies to crack down on domestic street gangs, and some officials have even linked such gangs to terrorism. Muhammad writes that linking gangsta rappers to genuine gangsters allows a COINTELPRO-like program to continue under the guise of homeland security, thus preempting the potential for a militant mass movement of black people.
There is no doubt in my mind that COINTELPRO exists in black communities, but Hip Hop artists of today, with very few exceptions are anywhere near the caliber of a Malcolm X or Huey Newton. COINTELPRO was made to prevent the rise of a Black messiah, The only place where most Hip Hop artists are leading black youth, are to jewelry stores, car dealerships, the local Mall and music stores and consumer debt. I don't care how talented Tupac or Biggie Smalls were, they were no Malcom X's. Period. This goes back to a yet to be posted write up I am doing on the Hip Hop summit. Hip Hop may be the voice of a generation of black folks, but It isn't political. Many political blacks may listen to hip hop, but most of us who are intelligent only view Hip Hop (or we shoudl specify Rap music) as entertainment and seek mental stimulation elsewhere. I'll end this with two quotes:
"It's bigger than Hip Hop" -Dead Prez
"it won't teach you how to raise a child or treat your wife"- Tribe Called Quest.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Fahrenheit 9-11
So I finally saw the documentary. Well done. Let me take on some of the critism of the film. First off Many critiques pointed to the fact that Moore didn't state that Senator Kennedy (I believe it was him) actually had a child in the military. Instead he used the Senator's bewildered look as exclamation point behind his point that none of the Senators wanted to sign up their kids ( or more likely didn't want to deal with Moore). Well before that particular senator Moore repeatedly states that only 1 Senator had a child in the military. He said it at least three times so unless you have ADD how could you not remember that only one Senator had a child in the Military.
Next was a critique that I saw at Alternet that Moore indulged in racist imagery to make his point about the so called 'coalition of the willing." Well I saw it, And I got the point and I don't think it was racist. yes it did use stereotypes but it wasn't racist why? because Moore took an equally "low" blow at Denmark with a national lighting his Weed pipe. Was that racist too? Methinks the white reviewer was trying to win "multi-culti" points. I don't give out those types of points.
What I did appreciate about the film was how Moore humanised the Iraqis. It was a stroke of genius to show the lives of Iraqies as they may have been right before the "bombs went over Baghdad." Yes, believe it or not people actually lived normal lives under Saddam. Not all, and that doesn't excuse Saddams behaviour, but it's an outright lie to make it seem like Iraq was like say.. Haiti, prior to the US bombing them for 10 years. Saddams stupidness aside, Iraq had one of the highest living standards in the Middle East prior to the Gulf Wars.
I do wish Moore spent more time on the recruiting techniques of the military and done as he had done in Bowling for Columbine where he took a long view of the racist nature of gun control. Perhaps though, Moore just didn't have the time. It is very evident to me that Moore had to ruch the film. There is very recent footage in the documentary and having done a documentary trying to get everything in somehow can be painful. But it's a credit to Moore that though Republicans have problems with him, they have not thus far shown Moore to be lying in the material he produced. He caught UNOCAL out there and well as Enron and Haliburton. If Kerry and Edwards are unable to capitalise on the PR bonanza that F-9-11 is then they don't deserve to sit in the White House.
So I finally saw the documentary. Well done. Let me take on some of the critism of the film. First off Many critiques pointed to the fact that Moore didn't state that Senator Kennedy (I believe it was him) actually had a child in the military. Instead he used the Senator's bewildered look as exclamation point behind his point that none of the Senators wanted to sign up their kids ( or more likely didn't want to deal with Moore). Well before that particular senator Moore repeatedly states that only 1 Senator had a child in the military. He said it at least three times so unless you have ADD how could you not remember that only one Senator had a child in the Military.
Next was a critique that I saw at Alternet that Moore indulged in racist imagery to make his point about the so called 'coalition of the willing." Well I saw it, And I got the point and I don't think it was racist. yes it did use stereotypes but it wasn't racist why? because Moore took an equally "low" blow at Denmark with a national lighting his Weed pipe. Was that racist too? Methinks the white reviewer was trying to win "multi-culti" points. I don't give out those types of points.
What I did appreciate about the film was how Moore humanised the Iraqis. It was a stroke of genius to show the lives of Iraqies as they may have been right before the "bombs went over Baghdad." Yes, believe it or not people actually lived normal lives under Saddam. Not all, and that doesn't excuse Saddams behaviour, but it's an outright lie to make it seem like Iraq was like say.. Haiti, prior to the US bombing them for 10 years. Saddams stupidness aside, Iraq had one of the highest living standards in the Middle East prior to the Gulf Wars.
I do wish Moore spent more time on the recruiting techniques of the military and done as he had done in Bowling for Columbine where he took a long view of the racist nature of gun control. Perhaps though, Moore just didn't have the time. It is very evident to me that Moore had to ruch the film. There is very recent footage in the documentary and having done a documentary trying to get everything in somehow can be painful. But it's a credit to Moore that though Republicans have problems with him, they have not thus far shown Moore to be lying in the material he produced. He caught UNOCAL out there and well as Enron and Haliburton. If Kerry and Edwards are unable to capitalise on the PR bonanza that F-9-11 is then they don't deserve to sit in the White House.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
A critical Error in a Critique of Fahrenheit 9/11
Long title eh? Over at counterpunch is an article entitled Stupid White Movie: What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire by Robert Jensen. Among Jensen's critique are the following:
Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan was to secure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and at one point Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiating table. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single pipeline, but even if that were plausible it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans alike have been mixed up in that particular scheme.
and
When the film addresses this question directly, what analysis does Moore offer of the reasons for the Iraq war? A family member of a soldier who died asks, "for what?" and Moore cuts to the subject of war profiteering. That segment appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature of businesses that benefit from war. But does Moore really want us to believe that a major war was launched so that Halliburton and other companies could increase its profits for a few years? Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is not the reason nations go to war. This kind of distorted analysis helps keep viewers' attention focused on the Bush administration, by noting the close ties between Bush officials and these companies, not the routine way in which corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department of Defense, no matter who is in the White House.
Apparently Mr. Jensen does not believe that the US or any other imperial power is going to waste resources over such small things as oil and money. It is clear that Mr. jensen is not familiar with history. The English in the 1800's did just this. At the begininng of the Industrial Revolution the lubrication for machines was Palm Oil. This Palm oil was souced from Nigeria. A clever Nigerian (who's name escapes me but I'll find it) Discovered that the British liked to play divide and conquer and would pit various sellers against each other to get the best price. This Nigerian made a pact with all the sellers that they would not sell below a certain price that he determined. The British were livid. How dare this "Negar" mess with their profits. So the crown decided to send a contingent of warships to Nigeria and they made war against this king and establlished a monopoly presence in Nigeria until of course petroleum came around.
Thus we have a clear example, among many, of where military might was used against black people (and other people of color) for the express purpose of feeding the energy and financial needs of the conquering country.
Everyone who is keeping up with events knows that China is the #2 consumer of Oil and is a large reason why Oil Prices have gone up. This coupled with drying reserves, means that there is a great incentive to "secure" US interests in the Middle East and having compliant governments in places with large reserves or land where oil must be piped over to reach ports, is extremely important.
It's not that far fetched
Links:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
Long title eh? Over at counterpunch is an article entitled Stupid White Movie: What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire by Robert Jensen. Among Jensen's critique are the following:
Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush administration in attacking Afghanistan was to secure a gas pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and at one point Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997 when Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiating table. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to war for a single pipeline, but even if that were plausible it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans alike have been mixed up in that particular scheme.
and
When the film addresses this question directly, what analysis does Moore offer of the reasons for the Iraq war? A family member of a soldier who died asks, "for what?" and Moore cuts to the subject of war profiteering. That segment appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature of businesses that benefit from war. But does Moore really want us to believe that a major war was launched so that Halliburton and other companies could increase its profits for a few years? Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is not the reason nations go to war. This kind of distorted analysis helps keep viewers' attention focused on the Bush administration, by noting the close ties between Bush officials and these companies, not the routine way in which corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department of Defense, no matter who is in the White House.
Apparently Mr. Jensen does not believe that the US or any other imperial power is going to waste resources over such small things as oil and money. It is clear that Mr. jensen is not familiar with history. The English in the 1800's did just this. At the begininng of the Industrial Revolution the lubrication for machines was Palm Oil. This Palm oil was souced from Nigeria. A clever Nigerian (who's name escapes me but I'll find it) Discovered that the British liked to play divide and conquer and would pit various sellers against each other to get the best price. This Nigerian made a pact with all the sellers that they would not sell below a certain price that he determined. The British were livid. How dare this "Negar" mess with their profits. So the crown decided to send a contingent of warships to Nigeria and they made war against this king and establlished a monopoly presence in Nigeria until of course petroleum came around.
Thus we have a clear example, among many, of where military might was used against black people (and other people of color) for the express purpose of feeding the energy and financial needs of the conquering country.
Everyone who is keeping up with events knows that China is the #2 consumer of Oil and is a large reason why Oil Prices have gone up. This coupled with drying reserves, means that there is a great incentive to "secure" US interests in the Middle East and having compliant governments in places with large reserves or land where oil must be piped over to reach ports, is extremely important.
It's not that far fetched
Links:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
Monday, July 05, 2004
Who 50 Cent Think He Foolin'
I just finished reading an interview 50 cent gave to The Guardian UK back in Sep, 2003. In this interview 50 cent makes some statements that were just plain dumb.
quote:
One of the weirdest things about becoming successful, he says, has been hearing commentators and critics, academics and journalists analysing life in his old neighbourhood from their position of luxury outside it. "I was really closed in. I'm from Queens, New York City, and I hadn't seen very much more than that. I mean, I've been places where I've heard references to 'gun culture'. And, um, where I'm from, we don't even speak like that. It's just a part of that environment."
Full Disclosure here: I grew up in Queen, NY. Southside Off Rockaway Blvd and the Conduit. Yeah, there were some knuckleheads as there are in just about every black neighborhood but by no means was it all guns and drugs. 50 cent is merely 4 years younger than me and from his bio, grew up a mere 10 blocks from me. Trouble was to be found if you wanted to find it (like anything else), but to make it sound like Queens, by it's nature is all 'hood is plain and simple wrong
Next:
When he was 12, Fifty started hustling on the street to take the financial pressure off his grandparents. It was, he says, a simple case of economics. "My grandparents had nine children, and they raised them at a time when shoes might cost $10. And times have changed: your shoes will cost you $125. Big difference. I wasn't comfortable asking them to provide for me like that. So I asked the people who appeared to have it, who I had met through my mother's activities. People who had really nice cars and seemed to have the finances. They gave me an opportunity to hustle. So I started that early."
Ok...what type of BS is this? Full disclosure, again 50 cent is merely 4 years my junior which means the sneakers (shoes) that I had access to he did. I didn't have a pair of sneakers that cost more than $21.64 (19.99 plus NYC sales tax of .25%) until my junior year in High School ( Which would have put 50 in JHS at that time). So what is the $120 shoes he's talking about? He could have hit Models on Jamaica Ave (right off Guy Brewer Ave). What he should have said was that he didn't have the guts to wear the $19.99 Lottos or Skore (Shell top Addidas knock offs which I got teased about when I had a pair) so he felt himself above...ohhh..the Bantus spoken about earlier. And, not a few blocks away there were landscapers who would hire local kids to but lawns and such for a few bucks....but anyways
quote:
All smart kids at Andrew Jackson High did the same. "Someone says to you, if you stay in school, in eight years you can have a new car. And the kid looks round his neighbourhood and sees someone who got it in six months. Hustling doesn't seem like one of the options, it seems like the only option. My grandparents thought I was in after-school club. The only time I could hustle was between three and six."
Andrew Jackson High School. Take the Q44 Bus past John Bowne HS. No all the smart kids stayed off the corner and in thier books. How many hustlers and dealers are alive today and living large? Just 50 cause the people I knew that wanted to be high rollers are now living at home with parents. Some are just out of the clink, some stand vy the corner store getting their chemical escape on. So 50 cent is tryin' to say that hustlin' was smarter than hitting the books? And the main motivation is a fancy car? Cars that now are worth maybe $500? That's smart?
Look I'm not hating on 50 cent. He's doing the American thing and getting paid. But some of the things he's saying makes no sense. The Blacks in Queens NY currently have a higher per-capita income than whites (Mostly from dual employment). There are hood sections of Queens, but to act like there were no Jobs to get to ( The airport always hired) and the like is just plain wrong. I grew up there and I'm calling him on it.
Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1051777,00.html
I just finished reading an interview 50 cent gave to The Guardian UK back in Sep, 2003. In this interview 50 cent makes some statements that were just plain dumb.
quote:
One of the weirdest things about becoming successful, he says, has been hearing commentators and critics, academics and journalists analysing life in his old neighbourhood from their position of luxury outside it. "I was really closed in. I'm from Queens, New York City, and I hadn't seen very much more than that. I mean, I've been places where I've heard references to 'gun culture'. And, um, where I'm from, we don't even speak like that. It's just a part of that environment."
Full Disclosure here: I grew up in Queen, NY. Southside Off Rockaway Blvd and the Conduit. Yeah, there were some knuckleheads as there are in just about every black neighborhood but by no means was it all guns and drugs. 50 cent is merely 4 years younger than me and from his bio, grew up a mere 10 blocks from me. Trouble was to be found if you wanted to find it (like anything else), but to make it sound like Queens, by it's nature is all 'hood is plain and simple wrong
Next:
When he was 12, Fifty started hustling on the street to take the financial pressure off his grandparents. It was, he says, a simple case of economics. "My grandparents had nine children, and they raised them at a time when shoes might cost $10. And times have changed: your shoes will cost you $125. Big difference. I wasn't comfortable asking them to provide for me like that. So I asked the people who appeared to have it, who I had met through my mother's activities. People who had really nice cars and seemed to have the finances. They gave me an opportunity to hustle. So I started that early."
Ok...what type of BS is this? Full disclosure, again 50 cent is merely 4 years my junior which means the sneakers (shoes) that I had access to he did. I didn't have a pair of sneakers that cost more than $21.64 (19.99 plus NYC sales tax of .25%) until my junior year in High School ( Which would have put 50 in JHS at that time). So what is the $120 shoes he's talking about? He could have hit Models on Jamaica Ave (right off Guy Brewer Ave). What he should have said was that he didn't have the guts to wear the $19.99 Lottos or Skore (Shell top Addidas knock offs which I got teased about when I had a pair) so he felt himself above...ohhh..the Bantus spoken about earlier. And, not a few blocks away there were landscapers who would hire local kids to but lawns and such for a few bucks....but anyways
quote:
All smart kids at Andrew Jackson High did the same. "Someone says to you, if you stay in school, in eight years you can have a new car. And the kid looks round his neighbourhood and sees someone who got it in six months. Hustling doesn't seem like one of the options, it seems like the only option. My grandparents thought I was in after-school club. The only time I could hustle was between three and six."
Andrew Jackson High School. Take the Q44 Bus past John Bowne HS. No all the smart kids stayed off the corner and in thier books. How many hustlers and dealers are alive today and living large? Just 50 cause the people I knew that wanted to be high rollers are now living at home with parents. Some are just out of the clink, some stand vy the corner store getting their chemical escape on. So 50 cent is tryin' to say that hustlin' was smarter than hitting the books? And the main motivation is a fancy car? Cars that now are worth maybe $500? That's smart?
Look I'm not hating on 50 cent. He's doing the American thing and getting paid. But some of the things he's saying makes no sense. The Blacks in Queens NY currently have a higher per-capita income than whites (Mostly from dual employment). There are hood sections of Queens, but to act like there were no Jobs to get to ( The airport always hired) and the like is just plain wrong. I grew up there and I'm calling him on it.
Links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1051777,00.html
Of Bantus and Bill
Bill Cosby was on the mic recently at a Rainbow Coalition meeting. He repeated much of his critique of "certain" Blacks for not doing their part. Again I had disagreements with many people over Cosby's points. The most common argument made being that schools are poor, the people are poor, racism and other things like that. Today the NY Times had an excellent article entitled: For Bantu Refugees, Hard-Won American Dreams, by William L Hamilton which is about some "Bantu" refugees from Somalia now living in Tuscon Arizona. One point that was brought up was:
quote:
The children, a 15-year-old and two 8-year-olds, are in school, earning good grades and, like other Bantu children, school officials say, outperforming the general student population. Mr. Edow is saving money to buy a house...they make a wary peace with African-Americans at home and at school who consider them foreign.
Now Arizona does not keep graduation rate records, but it's neighbor New Mexico does, The black graduation rate in NM is 50% and Nevada's is 40.5%. So why are the Bantu children, who mind you have parents who were illiterate AND skillless prior to coming to the United States, outperforming their peers? AND they did not say they were outperforming their black peers they said all their peers. So here we have a large part of the critique against Cosby falling apart.
Mind you, these individuals have received much help from various agencies that may or may not be available to citizens. However, I seriously doubt that such services ( job training, etc) are not available to American blacks. But apparently, the attitude and behaviors of these Bantu are so odd to previously imported "Bantu ( African Americans)" that we have a tenuous relationship with these arrivals.
quote:
at Mission Vista one Friday, Ms. Osman's son, Abdullahi Osman, 15, sat at home at the dining table, homework assignments and an English-Somali dictionary in his lap...Until I finish my education, I don't want to do anything else," said Abdullahi, who dreams of becoming a doctor. He said that books were his most valued possessions, though he checks them out of the public library. ...Hamadi, who goes to school and helps his brother at his job at a Boston Market restaurant, said of his new life, "I don't have time for watching TV"
The "Bantu" exhibit the behaviors that many young AA's, and specifically the ones Bill Cosby was referring to:
1) Doing Homework on A Friday. Not playing basketball or looking for some "late night Basketball program."
2) Valuing education (books) above all else
3) Working low paying food service jobs as a means of income (exercising collective work and responsibility) rather than sell drugs and shoot up thier own neighborhoods.
So for those who want to rail against Bill Cosby for trying to hold up "white standards" or of infairly targeting the (as the Black Commentator termed them) Downwardly Mobile. Take a look at the Black Bantu Africans are doing with their black selves,
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/05/national/05SETT.html?pagewanted=2&8hpib
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
The DeskRat Strikes again
D-sekou has struck again with an excellent post on the goings on in the Sudan
D-sekou has struck again with an excellent post on the goings on in the Sudan
Filming While Innnocent
In America one can be stopped, searched, arrested, put in police line ups for simply, walking while black. Since 9-11 one can be detained for simply Walking While Turbaned. Today the NYT gave us an example of Filming While Innocent. This is a nice example of why the Supreme Court is asleep at the wheel.
quote:
e was a Buddhist from Nepal planning to return there after five years of odd jobs at places like a Queens pizzeria and a Manhattan flower shop. He was taping New York street scenes to take back to his wife and sons in Katmandu. And he had no clue that the tall building that had drifted into his viewfinder happened to include an office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation..
the Nepalese man, who spoke almost no English, had been placed in solitary confinement at a federal detention center in Brooklyn just because of his videotaping...
Mr. Bajracharya was finally returned to Nepal on Jan. 13, 2002. By then he had spent almost three months in a 6-by-9-foot cell kept lighted 24 hours a day. The unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where he was kept has become notorious for the abuses documented there by the Justice Department's own inspector general, who found a pattern of physical and mental mistreatment of post-9/11 detainees. Videotapes showed officers slamming detainees into walls, mocking them during unnecessary strip-searches, and secretly taping their conversations with lawyers....
Mr. Bajracharya recalled the fear, humiliation and despair he had experienced in prison. "I had nothing but tears in my eyes," he said through a translator. "The only thing I knew, I was innocent, but I didn't know what was happening."
He said he was stripped naked in the federal jail. "I was manhandled and treated badly," he said, becoming agitated. "I was very, very embarrassed even to look around, because I was naked."
The ordeal began when his videotaping aroused the suspicions of two detectives from the Queens district attorney's office, which has space in the same 12-story building where the F.B.I. occupies three floors. After taking him inside for questioning, they called upstairs to the F.B.I., and Mr. Wynne was dispatched to take over the interrogation. With no translator, Mr. Bajracharya tried to explain himself to half a dozen law enforcement officers, including two federal agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service who verified his illegal immigration status.
It was Mr. Wynne, as the lead F.B.I. agent, who sent him to the federal detention center in Brooklyn pending a thorough investigation. The F.B.I. agent, now 50, describes himself as a lifelong New Yorker who does not take illegal immigration lightly. His specialty is international art fraud, not terrorism.[but he apparently is qualified enough to grab up a man off the street -GG] But at a time of heightened anxiety about another terrorist attack, he maintained, it was reasonable to suspect the worst until he could check the man's history, discrepancies in his identity documents and questions about money wired to Nepal....
How is this really different from KGB secret police that Americans loved to thumb thier noses at Russia about? The whole thing stinks because he did not commit a crime. There was no probable cause to even take the man inside. Filming, regardless of purpose is not a crime. Why not just arrest people for driving their cars since driving could be a way to kill many people at one time. You think that won't happen?
Check This from Alternet:
Quote:
Legislation weaving its way through the US Congress demands all 50 states pass laws granting police the power to drug test drivers and arrest anyone found to have "any detectable amount of a controlled substance ... present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance." Though the expressed purpose of the law is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from US roadways, the proposal would do nothing of the sort.
Most troubling, the proposed law -- H.R. 3922 -- does not require motorists to be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged with the crime of "drugged driving." Rather, police have only to demonstrate that the driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug metabolites in their blood, sweat, saliva or urine. As many pot smokers know, marijuana metabolites are fat soluble, and remain identifiable in the urine for days and sometimes even weeks after past use. Consequently someone who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested on Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though they are perfectly sober!
Again, Where is the probable cause? So you're speeding and an officer will demand a sample of your blood or urine? For what? Speeding is not indicative of illicit drug use. In fact other than a demonstrated impairment of ability you cannot have probable cause to believe someone may be on drugs. But ahaaa we gave that one up when we approved of random DUI checks didn't we? And we thought it would stop there. it is a very dangerous thing when government get's expanded "judicial" and "enforcement" powers. to paraphrase an IBM commercial:
"But you don't get it, so you fret"
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19008/
http://nytimes.com/2004/06/30/nyregion/30deport.final.html?hp
In America one can be stopped, searched, arrested, put in police line ups for simply, walking while black. Since 9-11 one can be detained for simply Walking While Turbaned. Today the NYT gave us an example of Filming While Innocent. This is a nice example of why the Supreme Court is asleep at the wheel.
quote:
e was a Buddhist from Nepal planning to return there after five years of odd jobs at places like a Queens pizzeria and a Manhattan flower shop. He was taping New York street scenes to take back to his wife and sons in Katmandu. And he had no clue that the tall building that had drifted into his viewfinder happened to include an office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation..
the Nepalese man, who spoke almost no English, had been placed in solitary confinement at a federal detention center in Brooklyn just because of his videotaping...
Mr. Bajracharya was finally returned to Nepal on Jan. 13, 2002. By then he had spent almost three months in a 6-by-9-foot cell kept lighted 24 hours a day. The unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn where he was kept has become notorious for the abuses documented there by the Justice Department's own inspector general, who found a pattern of physical and mental mistreatment of post-9/11 detainees. Videotapes showed officers slamming detainees into walls, mocking them during unnecessary strip-searches, and secretly taping their conversations with lawyers....
Mr. Bajracharya recalled the fear, humiliation and despair he had experienced in prison. "I had nothing but tears in my eyes," he said through a translator. "The only thing I knew, I was innocent, but I didn't know what was happening."
He said he was stripped naked in the federal jail. "I was manhandled and treated badly," he said, becoming agitated. "I was very, very embarrassed even to look around, because I was naked."
The ordeal began when his videotaping aroused the suspicions of two detectives from the Queens district attorney's office, which has space in the same 12-story building where the F.B.I. occupies three floors. After taking him inside for questioning, they called upstairs to the F.B.I., and Mr. Wynne was dispatched to take over the interrogation. With no translator, Mr. Bajracharya tried to explain himself to half a dozen law enforcement officers, including two federal agents from the Immigration and Naturalization Service who verified his illegal immigration status.
It was Mr. Wynne, as the lead F.B.I. agent, who sent him to the federal detention center in Brooklyn pending a thorough investigation. The F.B.I. agent, now 50, describes himself as a lifelong New Yorker who does not take illegal immigration lightly. His specialty is international art fraud, not terrorism.[but he apparently is qualified enough to grab up a man off the street -GG] But at a time of heightened anxiety about another terrorist attack, he maintained, it was reasonable to suspect the worst until he could check the man's history, discrepancies in his identity documents and questions about money wired to Nepal....
How is this really different from KGB secret police that Americans loved to thumb thier noses at Russia about? The whole thing stinks because he did not commit a crime. There was no probable cause to even take the man inside. Filming, regardless of purpose is not a crime. Why not just arrest people for driving their cars since driving could be a way to kill many people at one time. You think that won't happen?
Check This from Alternet:
Quote:
Legislation weaving its way through the US Congress demands all 50 states pass laws granting police the power to drug test drivers and arrest anyone found to have "any detectable amount of a controlled substance ... present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance." Though the expressed purpose of the law is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from US roadways, the proposal would do nothing of the sort.
Most troubling, the proposed law -- H.R. 3922 -- does not require motorists to be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged with the crime of "drugged driving." Rather, police have only to demonstrate that the driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug metabolites in their blood, sweat, saliva or urine. As many pot smokers know, marijuana metabolites are fat soluble, and remain identifiable in the urine for days and sometimes even weeks after past use. Consequently someone who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested on Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though they are perfectly sober!
Again, Where is the probable cause? So you're speeding and an officer will demand a sample of your blood or urine? For what? Speeding is not indicative of illicit drug use. In fact other than a demonstrated impairment of ability you cannot have probable cause to believe someone may be on drugs. But ahaaa we gave that one up when we approved of random DUI checks didn't we? And we thought it would stop there. it is a very dangerous thing when government get's expanded "judicial" and "enforcement" powers. to paraphrase an IBM commercial:
"But you don't get it, so you fret"
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19008/
http://nytimes.com/2004/06/30/nyregion/30deport.final.html?hp
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
The Supreme Court: What Constitution are they Upholding?
The Supreme Court of the US made few light decisions recently. I say light because it was clear to me that not much thinking went on in the justices heads. Not that there should have been much thinking because the cases were quite clear, but methinks that the Justices plain forgot that it is there job to make sure that the government abides by the constitution. Over at counterpunch There is an article entitled: Hamdi, Padilla and Rasul v. Rumsfeld and Bush Who Really Won? By ELAINE CASSEL which explains how the Supreme Court completely messed up.
Quote 1:
Padilla, recently vilified by a highly-placed Department of Justice attorney, is the American citizen arrested on a material witness warrant in Chicago two years ago. The government's story then was that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb. Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference and announced the incarceration of Padilla and told us what a dangerous man he was. Of course, if they had evidence that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb, they would have charged him with a host of crimes, and tried him. But they never charged him with anything. What does that tell you? A couple of weeks ago, Ashcroft sent out one of his top deputies to change the story on Padilla. That story may have influenced the Court's decision, though we will never know this. Though the official denied that the press conference-at which he announced that Padilla had "confessed" to plotting to blow up high-rise apartment buildings-may have been held when it was to punctuate the government's belief that Padilla was a very, very dangerous man. So if he is so dangerous, why is he not being charged.
This is very important to understand. Padilla, and thereby anyone, can be arrested and detained, without being charged for being "suspected" of anything. Lest one think I am being alarmist, remember that Blacks travelling along InterState 95 are stopped more times than whites travelling the same route and have thier property searched for drugs even though Blacks use and yes, sell, drugs less than whites do AND blacks make up far less a proportion of those travelling that corridor. Hence the government is already apt to "illegally" stop people on unspecified "suspicion." In any case, the law (used to) require(s) that you be given a timely trial and due process regardless of what crime you have supposedly been charged with. The Bush administration has thrown this out by detaining people and not charging them with anything. How is this possible?
Quote 2:
The majority opinion was written by Justice O'Connor, and we all know what that means-a tortured crafting of facts cobbled to law that tries to give everybody something. A little here, a little there. He is what we got: The Congress gave the President the authority to detain anyone involved with fighting with al Qaeda or the Taliban when it voted for war in Afghanistan.
Ahaaaaa. See This is why every and anyone must be declared a part of the All inclusive Al-Q. Let's remember the nice quote given by representative Conyers to Michael Moore: "Son sit down, we don't read most bills.." There we have it. The persons voted into office (not by me) to protect "our" interests handed Bush the ability to suspend Habeus Corpus when they handed him the wide powers to "deal with" Al-Q. So by giving Bush the ability to detain without charging anyone with a crime, Congress, in one fell swoop gave up the power to declare war AND suspended Habeus Corpus. Now the Supreme Court steps in a validates what happend. Clearly the Supreme Court should have exercized it's power to negate such a decision by Congress but it did not. in doing so they failed to uphold the basic principles of the constitution. They did not do their jobs ( second time for everything).
Lastly, the Supreme Court turned the supposition of innocence on it's head:
Quote 3:
he can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention. Ah, but the government gets the benefit of the doubt in such a hearing. It puts forth is conclusory affidavit, like the one cranky Judge Doumar in Richmond did not like one bit, and Hamdi gets to try-just try, if he can-to prove them wrong. Yes, the burden will be on Hamdi to prove the government's allegations against him to be wrong. Now that will be kind of difficult, won't it, since Hamdi has been incarcerated for going on three years, has no contact with anyone in the outside world, and will have a hell of a time coming up with the witnesses to refute the conclusion of the government that he was indeed fighting with the Taliban or al Qaeda against the U.S. Let's see, even if he knew people to subpoena to support an alibi-if he has one-federal marshals don't serve subpoenas in Afghanistan.
Here lies the third leg of the conspiracy. once detained, but not charged, the (what do we call them) can petition a court. But all the government has to do is say the magoc phrase: Al-Q and "terrorism suspect" and that's it. The court assumes the government to be right simply because...well..it's the government. Never mind that the founder explictly wrote the constitution to prevent the very actions mentioned above. this is the problem with Pre-emptive detention. No one has committed any crime. They are being held for what they think, say or believe. None of these are crimes. If Padilla was in fact going to blow up apartment buildings then the FBI or whatever org. should have tailed him until he was almost ready to commit the crime in question and then move in arrest and charge him for what he did.
But that makes too much sense.
Links:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
The Supreme Court of the US made few light decisions recently. I say light because it was clear to me that not much thinking went on in the justices heads. Not that there should have been much thinking because the cases were quite clear, but methinks that the Justices plain forgot that it is there job to make sure that the government abides by the constitution. Over at counterpunch There is an article entitled: Hamdi, Padilla and Rasul v. Rumsfeld and Bush Who Really Won? By ELAINE CASSEL which explains how the Supreme Court completely messed up.
Quote 1:
Padilla, recently vilified by a highly-placed Department of Justice attorney, is the American citizen arrested on a material witness warrant in Chicago two years ago. The government's story then was that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb. Attorney General John Ashcroft held a press conference and announced the incarceration of Padilla and told us what a dangerous man he was. Of course, if they had evidence that he was planning to detonate a dirty bomb, they would have charged him with a host of crimes, and tried him. But they never charged him with anything. What does that tell you? A couple of weeks ago, Ashcroft sent out one of his top deputies to change the story on Padilla. That story may have influenced the Court's decision, though we will never know this. Though the official denied that the press conference-at which he announced that Padilla had "confessed" to plotting to blow up high-rise apartment buildings-may have been held when it was to punctuate the government's belief that Padilla was a very, very dangerous man. So if he is so dangerous, why is he not being charged.
This is very important to understand. Padilla, and thereby anyone, can be arrested and detained, without being charged for being "suspected" of anything. Lest one think I am being alarmist, remember that Blacks travelling along InterState 95 are stopped more times than whites travelling the same route and have thier property searched for drugs even though Blacks use and yes, sell, drugs less than whites do AND blacks make up far less a proportion of those travelling that corridor. Hence the government is already apt to "illegally" stop people on unspecified "suspicion." In any case, the law (used to) require(s) that you be given a timely trial and due process regardless of what crime you have supposedly been charged with. The Bush administration has thrown this out by detaining people and not charging them with anything. How is this possible?
Quote 2:
The majority opinion was written by Justice O'Connor, and we all know what that means-a tortured crafting of facts cobbled to law that tries to give everybody something. A little here, a little there. He is what we got: The Congress gave the President the authority to detain anyone involved with fighting with al Qaeda or the Taliban when it voted for war in Afghanistan.
Ahaaaaa. See This is why every and anyone must be declared a part of the All inclusive Al-Q. Let's remember the nice quote given by representative Conyers to Michael Moore: "Son sit down, we don't read most bills.." There we have it. The persons voted into office (not by me) to protect "our" interests handed Bush the ability to suspend Habeus Corpus when they handed him the wide powers to "deal with" Al-Q. So by giving Bush the ability to detain without charging anyone with a crime, Congress, in one fell swoop gave up the power to declare war AND suspended Habeus Corpus. Now the Supreme Court steps in a validates what happend. Clearly the Supreme Court should have exercized it's power to negate such a decision by Congress but it did not. in doing so they failed to uphold the basic principles of the constitution. They did not do their jobs ( second time for everything).
Lastly, the Supreme Court turned the supposition of innocence on it's head:
Quote 3:
he can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging his detention. Ah, but the government gets the benefit of the doubt in such a hearing. It puts forth is conclusory affidavit, like the one cranky Judge Doumar in Richmond did not like one bit, and Hamdi gets to try-just try, if he can-to prove them wrong. Yes, the burden will be on Hamdi to prove the government's allegations against him to be wrong. Now that will be kind of difficult, won't it, since Hamdi has been incarcerated for going on three years, has no contact with anyone in the outside world, and will have a hell of a time coming up with the witnesses to refute the conclusion of the government that he was indeed fighting with the Taliban or al Qaeda against the U.S. Let's see, even if he knew people to subpoena to support an alibi-if he has one-federal marshals don't serve subpoenas in Afghanistan.
Here lies the third leg of the conspiracy. once detained, but not charged, the (what do we call them) can petition a court. But all the government has to do is say the magoc phrase: Al-Q and "terrorism suspect" and that's it. The court assumes the government to be right simply because...well..it's the government. Never mind that the founder explictly wrote the constitution to prevent the very actions mentioned above. this is the problem with Pre-emptive detention. No one has committed any crime. They are being held for what they think, say or believe. None of these are crimes. If Padilla was in fact going to blow up apartment buildings then the FBI or whatever org. should have tailed him until he was almost ready to commit the crime in question and then move in arrest and charge him for what he did.
But that makes too much sense.
Links:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Monday, June 28, 2004
Fahrenheit 9/11
No. I have not seen the movie. Why? I hate and despise lines. I knew it would be packed so I didn't even bother. I will probably see it this week. What I wanted to point out was the following found at Alternet in an article entitled: Moore Light, Moore heat.
quote:
DISNEY'S EFFORT TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE: At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign contributor), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The company enjoys a cozy relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides."
...DAVID BOSSIE'S HYPOCRISY: The conservative front group "Citizens United," which is headed by Clinton attacker David Bossie, is trying to get the Federal Election Commission to intervene and censor advertising for "Fahrenheit 9/11". Just two years ago, however, it was Bossie who led the charge against FEC interventions. On 6/12/02, The Hill newspaper reported him saying his group feels "FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent...they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics."
The first paragraph had a big 'duh" factor about it. but that second one was a nice surprise. As soon as the news broke last week that certain republicans wanted the ads for F-9:11 to be pulled ahead of the Presidential Elections, I smelled a rat. To have these people exposed for the two faced rats they are is nice. "it's about the rules" said David on ABCNews. yes I'm sure it is.
links:
http://www.alternet.org/movies/19062/
No. I have not seen the movie. Why? I hate and despise lines. I knew it would be packed so I didn't even bother. I will probably see it this week. What I wanted to point out was the following found at Alternet in an article entitled: Moore Light, Moore heat.
quote:
DISNEY'S EFFORT TO CENSOR MICHAEL MOORE: At the direction of CEO Michael Eisner (who is a Bush campaign contributor), the Walt Disney Company prohibited its Miramax division from distributing "Fahrenheit 911." The company enjoys a cozy relationship with President Bush's brother, Jeb. As governor of Florida, Jeb Bush serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund. That fund owns approximately 7.3 million shares of Disney stock. Eisner told reporters he was refusing to distribute the film because Disney is "such a nonpartisan company, do not look for us to take sides."
...DAVID BOSSIE'S HYPOCRISY: The conservative front group "Citizens United," which is headed by Clinton attacker David Bossie, is trying to get the Federal Election Commission to intervene and censor advertising for "Fahrenheit 9/11". Just two years ago, however, it was Bossie who led the charge against FEC interventions. On 6/12/02, The Hill newspaper reported him saying his group feels "FEC rules and regulations are abhorrent...they restrict the American people's ability to have an influence in politics."
The first paragraph had a big 'duh" factor about it. but that second one was a nice surprise. As soon as the news broke last week that certain republicans wanted the ads for F-9:11 to be pulled ahead of the Presidential Elections, I smelled a rat. To have these people exposed for the two faced rats they are is nice. "it's about the rules" said David on ABCNews. yes I'm sure it is.
links:
http://www.alternet.org/movies/19062/
Back at the Ranch
D-sekou over at The Deskrat has an excellent post regarding the "culling" of the Black voter roles. Check him out.
D-sekou over at The Deskrat has an excellent post regarding the "culling" of the Black voter roles. Check him out.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
The Color Complex
Those of us who are of African descent know that due to the desire of whites to be "pure" they disowned their own offspring. as a result "black" people (and I use the term loosely here) come in "all shades" (very contradictory but...). Some spec of humanity in those early folks caused a general attitude that showed a preference for these persons, not necessarily because they were light but but at the very least because they were in fact children of whites. There are many exceptions to this but I'm not trying to write a thesis on the matter. As a result of this and other social issues there became in many ex-slave and ex-colonial societies a color system that also generally demarcated a economic and social status where the darker one was the more likely one was poor and of a lower economic status. Indeed in the United States Marcus Garvey noted that the NAACP had a habit of putting light skinned men and women in the front offices. This also resulted in friction between members of this "race." Please do note that it was not the decision by the blacks in the US to included any person with some black in them as black but rather a socially imposed decision by whites. Thus it is in fact a continuation of that imposition, when blacks discuss unity "within the race" when it concerns the "many shades." One way to confirm this would be to read the interview of Thandee Newton, who's mother is from southern Africa ( The exact location escapes me) and she stated that she was not considered black by her mothers people. However upon moving to England she was considered African, and in the states "mistook" for an African American. Confusing indeed. Anyway, many blacks are unaware of how pervasive the color complex is. Today I read an article in Indo Link entitled Color Complex In The South Asian Diaspora where author Francis C. Assi discusses interviews he had with woman and men from South Asia:
Quote:
Nasir, a twenty-two year old from New York has this to say of his preference for fair skin: “Would I personally be attracted to lighter-skinned Desi girls? Of course. I mean, it’s natural to find those girls more beautiful, to tell you the truth.”
Sahar, a nineteen-year-old Desi from New Jersey, bemoans the plight of the single girl deemed unattractive: “If a girl has a major flaw, she’s just stuck. It’s sad but . . . in society, if a girl is extremely overweight or extremely underweight, if she’s very, very dark complected. These are all physical things, just physical abnormalities.”
Grewal has noted in her study that ‘particular physical qualities are always fetishized in constructions of beauty. However, in these communities, the stigma attached to dark color intersects with broader racial discourses in the U.S. That’s why a Desi mother of three daughters in their twenties, explicitly refers to dark coloring as a physical abnormality and deficiency.’
As another informant, Sultana, says: “Well, in [South] Asian communities, because there are so many shades, most everyone prefers light skin. And if they are dark, they have to at least be charming and pleasant looking. If they are not, then they are in big trouble. And it is much, much worse here than in India and Pakistan because over there if you are ugly . . . if you have any kind of deficiency than at least you can make it up with money. “O.K. my daughter’s not beautiful, but I can give you a house.” But here no one needs money. They all have money and so they can’t compensate deficiency with money. See, we parents are afraid [of our children marrying dark skinned mates] because, if not for this generation, then the next generation, our grandchildren. Because dark color is dominant over light color . . . and the children will carry the dark color [because it] is a dominating feature . . . and it stays over the generations.”
What I found revealing about this article was how dark skin was spoken of as a physical deformity. It is quite clearly known that the non-production of skin pigment is not only a genetic recessive, it is also a type of albinism ( as any person with vitiligo can tell you). As much as I've heard blacks talk about skin color I have never ever heard it referred to as a physical deformity. Clearly there are higher levels of self-hate out there.
Links:
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=062204065913
Those of us who are of African descent know that due to the desire of whites to be "pure" they disowned their own offspring. as a result "black" people (and I use the term loosely here) come in "all shades" (very contradictory but...). Some spec of humanity in those early folks caused a general attitude that showed a preference for these persons, not necessarily because they were light but but at the very least because they were in fact children of whites. There are many exceptions to this but I'm not trying to write a thesis on the matter. As a result of this and other social issues there became in many ex-slave and ex-colonial societies a color system that also generally demarcated a economic and social status where the darker one was the more likely one was poor and of a lower economic status. Indeed in the United States Marcus Garvey noted that the NAACP had a habit of putting light skinned men and women in the front offices. This also resulted in friction between members of this "race." Please do note that it was not the decision by the blacks in the US to included any person with some black in them as black but rather a socially imposed decision by whites. Thus it is in fact a continuation of that imposition, when blacks discuss unity "within the race" when it concerns the "many shades." One way to confirm this would be to read the interview of Thandee Newton, who's mother is from southern Africa ( The exact location escapes me) and she stated that she was not considered black by her mothers people. However upon moving to England she was considered African, and in the states "mistook" for an African American. Confusing indeed. Anyway, many blacks are unaware of how pervasive the color complex is. Today I read an article in Indo Link entitled Color Complex In The South Asian Diaspora where author Francis C. Assi discusses interviews he had with woman and men from South Asia:
Quote:
Nasir, a twenty-two year old from New York has this to say of his preference for fair skin: “Would I personally be attracted to lighter-skinned Desi girls? Of course. I mean, it’s natural to find those girls more beautiful, to tell you the truth.”
Sahar, a nineteen-year-old Desi from New Jersey, bemoans the plight of the single girl deemed unattractive: “If a girl has a major flaw, she’s just stuck. It’s sad but . . . in society, if a girl is extremely overweight or extremely underweight, if she’s very, very dark complected. These are all physical things, just physical abnormalities.”
Grewal has noted in her study that ‘particular physical qualities are always fetishized in constructions of beauty. However, in these communities, the stigma attached to dark color intersects with broader racial discourses in the U.S. That’s why a Desi mother of three daughters in their twenties, explicitly refers to dark coloring as a physical abnormality and deficiency.’
As another informant, Sultana, says: “Well, in [South] Asian communities, because there are so many shades, most everyone prefers light skin. And if they are dark, they have to at least be charming and pleasant looking. If they are not, then they are in big trouble. And it is much, much worse here than in India and Pakistan because over there if you are ugly . . . if you have any kind of deficiency than at least you can make it up with money. “O.K. my daughter’s not beautiful, but I can give you a house.” But here no one needs money. They all have money and so they can’t compensate deficiency with money. See, we parents are afraid [of our children marrying dark skinned mates] because, if not for this generation, then the next generation, our grandchildren. Because dark color is dominant over light color . . . and the children will carry the dark color [because it] is a dominating feature . . . and it stays over the generations.”
What I found revealing about this article was how dark skin was spoken of as a physical deformity. It is quite clearly known that the non-production of skin pigment is not only a genetic recessive, it is also a type of albinism ( as any person with vitiligo can tell you). As much as I've heard blacks talk about skin color I have never ever heard it referred to as a physical deformity. Clearly there are higher levels of self-hate out there.
Links:
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=062204065913
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Welcome D-Sekou
Our good friend D-Sekou who has graced us with commentary every now and then has joined us in blogdom. You can check him out via our links section he's the DeskRat
Our good friend D-Sekou who has graced us with commentary every now and then has joined us in blogdom. You can check him out via our links section he's the DeskRat
Friday, June 18, 2004
What is a "civilian'
Today it appears that Paul M. Johnson was beheaded by "Al-Qaida Militants.' Many people are very disgusted by this and understandably so. However once one has gotten over the queasiness of beheading we need to realize something. Mr/. Johnson worked for Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest defense contractors in America ( if not the world). It supplies the US with the infamous Apache helicopter such as those used to kill Iraqis. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson worked directly on this killing machine and is therefore, by US definition, indirectly responsible for any and all killing done with that machine. He aides and abets the US Military. In other words He is no civilian as say you and I ( maybe) who have no contact with the military other than our taxes (and that right there is another debate). The "Al-Qaida militants" even made this very statement:
quote:
"Let him taste something from what Muslims tasted who were long reached by Apache helicopter fire and missiles," the statement said, according to the A.P.
Mr. Johnson, 49, worked in Saudi Arabia for the past decade in cooperation with Lockheed Martin on the Apache helicopter.
You really can't argue with that logic. We have seen it in Palestine and Iraq and elsewhere. Who knows if the missile that has killed many a Palestinian was not in fact worked on by Mr. Johnson.
"But" you may say, "HE wasn't in the military." That is true but one must realize that the US has involved many private "enterprises" to do work that the military would do. Simply because an organization falls outside the Armed Services does not make the people in it civilians. If you want protection as a civilian I suggest not working for a company that does work on military projects and be careful of where you relocate. After all, we are expected to not have any sympathy for those that help terrorists and in a reversal of fortune Mr. Johnson, seen as a terrorist by others has been caught up. Perhaps the people of the US will stop ego tripping and understand that this is not some game and there are better solutions to what is going on.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2004/06/18/international/middle-east/18CND-SAUDI.html?hp
Today it appears that Paul M. Johnson was beheaded by "Al-Qaida Militants.' Many people are very disgusted by this and understandably so. However once one has gotten over the queasiness of beheading we need to realize something. Mr/. Johnson worked for Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest defense contractors in America ( if not the world). It supplies the US with the infamous Apache helicopter such as those used to kill Iraqis. Furthermore, Mr. Johnson worked directly on this killing machine and is therefore, by US definition, indirectly responsible for any and all killing done with that machine. He aides and abets the US Military. In other words He is no civilian as say you and I ( maybe) who have no contact with the military other than our taxes (and that right there is another debate). The "Al-Qaida militants" even made this very statement:
quote:
"Let him taste something from what Muslims tasted who were long reached by Apache helicopter fire and missiles," the statement said, according to the A.P.
Mr. Johnson, 49, worked in Saudi Arabia for the past decade in cooperation with Lockheed Martin on the Apache helicopter.
You really can't argue with that logic. We have seen it in Palestine and Iraq and elsewhere. Who knows if the missile that has killed many a Palestinian was not in fact worked on by Mr. Johnson.
"But" you may say, "HE wasn't in the military." That is true but one must realize that the US has involved many private "enterprises" to do work that the military would do. Simply because an organization falls outside the Armed Services does not make the people in it civilians. If you want protection as a civilian I suggest not working for a company that does work on military projects and be careful of where you relocate. After all, we are expected to not have any sympathy for those that help terrorists and in a reversal of fortune Mr. Johnson, seen as a terrorist by others has been caught up. Perhaps the people of the US will stop ego tripping and understand that this is not some game and there are better solutions to what is going on.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2004/06/18/international/middle-east/18CND-SAUDI.html?hp
Two Stories continued
I guess I would have to change the title to "Three Stories" if I wanted to be accurate. Today I stumbled on an article in the Philladelphia Inquirer entitiled: Minority firms lag in city deals wherein' the following statistics were offered:
quote:
Today, that program has long since been ruled unconstitutional. In a city where well more than half the population is African American, Hispanic or Asian, minorities' percentage share of the government's business is still stuck in single digits, according to a city study....
According to the U.S. Census, the Philadelphia area has fewer black-owned firms per capita than any other major metropolitan area with a substantial minority population.
Those businesses, which numbered 17,863 at last count, generate less than one-half of 1 percent of all the revenue from firms based in the city and eight neighboring counties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
So of all the economic production in Philladelphia, black businesses generate less than .5% of that production. So if the total revenue from all businesses on Philly was say $10 Billion that black take on that would be $50 Million. Spread out over 17,863 black businesses AND assuming that all these businesses generate the same revenue (not) The take for each business would be: $2799.00. YOu read that right. Clearly then many of these black businesses are operating at a loss. Again this is the progress from 1912.
Links:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/8950642.htm?1c
I guess I would have to change the title to "Three Stories" if I wanted to be accurate. Today I stumbled on an article in the Philladelphia Inquirer entitiled: Minority firms lag in city deals wherein' the following statistics were offered:
quote:
Today, that program has long since been ruled unconstitutional. In a city where well more than half the population is African American, Hispanic or Asian, minorities' percentage share of the government's business is still stuck in single digits, according to a city study....
According to the U.S. Census, the Philadelphia area has fewer black-owned firms per capita than any other major metropolitan area with a substantial minority population.
Those businesses, which numbered 17,863 at last count, generate less than one-half of 1 percent of all the revenue from firms based in the city and eight neighboring counties in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
So of all the economic production in Philladelphia, black businesses generate less than .5% of that production. So if the total revenue from all businesses on Philly was say $10 Billion that black take on that would be $50 Million. Spread out over 17,863 black businesses AND assuming that all these businesses generate the same revenue (not) The take for each business would be: $2799.00. YOu read that right. Clearly then many of these black businesses are operating at a loss. Again this is the progress from 1912.
Links:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/8950642.htm?1c
Thursday, June 17, 2004
So it's Official
Confirming what most conscious people knew since..oh...Oct 2001, the 9-11 commission has reported that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9-11-01. Furthermore it appears that Saddam didn't give Mr. Bin Laden the time of day.
quote:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States," the commission's statement reads.
The statement says bin Laden did explore possible cooperation with Saddam Hussein, asking for space for training camps and help getting weapons, but Saddam never replied to bin Laden's requests.
So again we have facts that directly contradict what President G. Bush has claimed about Iraq and still there is no impeachment proceeding being planned. Iraq is now in the throes of urban gurilla civil war. The Kurds are threatening to cede from Iraq unless they retain veto power over the new iraqi "government" and Iraq "security forces" and government officials are being killed left, right and center. And what is there to show for it? Weapons of Mass Destruction? No. Terrorist hideouts? No. Proof of alliances with so called Al _Qaida? No. Just a bunch of US businesses making off with millions of Dollars. I'm going to repost a portion of one of my poems:
"As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence only breeds more violence.
but
this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
crashing planes
or buildings falling in flames.
It's all a game
and
Those that know the rules
play the average citizens for fools."
Links:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040617-070457-7073r.htm
Confirming what most conscious people knew since..oh...Oct 2001, the 9-11 commission has reported that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9-11-01. Furthermore it appears that Saddam didn't give Mr. Bin Laden the time of day.
quote:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States," the commission's statement reads.
The statement says bin Laden did explore possible cooperation with Saddam Hussein, asking for space for training camps and help getting weapons, but Saddam never replied to bin Laden's requests.
So again we have facts that directly contradict what President G. Bush has claimed about Iraq and still there is no impeachment proceeding being planned. Iraq is now in the throes of urban gurilla civil war. The Kurds are threatening to cede from Iraq unless they retain veto power over the new iraqi "government" and Iraq "security forces" and government officials are being killed left, right and center. And what is there to show for it? Weapons of Mass Destruction? No. Terrorist hideouts? No. Proof of alliances with so called Al _Qaida? No. Just a bunch of US businesses making off with millions of Dollars. I'm going to repost a portion of one of my poems:
"As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence only breeds more violence.
but
this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
crashing planes
or buildings falling in flames.
It's all a game
and
Those that know the rules
play the average citizens for fools."
Links:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040617-070457-7073r.htm
Monday, June 14, 2004
Two Stories..One Moral
Today while perusing www.blackelectorate.com I found two articles. One entitled State marker to honor 'Black Wall Street' contained the following reference:
Quote;
Two years later W.E.B. DuBois came to town. He was Washington's ideological rival, but his reaction to Durham was similarly effusive. In the journal World's Work of January 1912, DuBois wrote:
"There is in this small city a group of five thousand or more colored people, whose social and economic development is perhaps more striking than that of any similar group in the nation. ...
"A singular group in Durham where a black man may get up in the morning from a mattress made by black men, in a house which a black man built out of lumber which black men cut and planed; he may put on a suit which he bought at a colored haberdashery and socks knit at a colored mill; he may cook victuals from a colored grocery on a stove which black men fashioned; he may earn his living working for colored men, be sick in a colored hospital, and buried from a colored church; and the Negro insurance society will pay his widow enough to keep his children in a colored school. This is surely progress."
Now check the date. According to the late WEB Dubois, head negro for the NAACP clearly stated where black, social and economic ( And therefore political) independence was a sign of progress in 1912. Later there would be a great push by the NAACP to "integrate" America. As a result of the integration push and a rejection of so called 'black power" politics, The scene described above does not exist. And let's be clear Phat Farm, and Sean John, have their clothing manufactured in Asia and shipped here, the only thing 'black: about most black clothing companies is the audience that gives it cred ( on a side note, according to Black Enterprise, Sean John, is not, by BE's standards a black owned company. Neither is HARPO).
Anyways, let's look at story number 2. The Art Newspaper has an article about the financial straights that the Wright Museum of African-American History. It appears that the museum has fallen far short of it's projected visitation goals and has no endowment How come this museum has no endowment?
Quote:
The museum, named after the founder of Detroit%92s first African-American museum, was set up in the late 1980s as the world%92s largest museum of its kind. Those who had campaigned for its establishment had argued that although Detroit%92s population is predominantly black, the city was largely spending its money on projects that, they said, catered to the tastes of white suburbanites. The scheme to establish the African-American museum sailed through government, voters rubber-stamped a bond for its construction, and the museum was built.
When the huge 120,000-square-foot $38.4-million structure opened in 1997, it had no endowment and an annual budget of $6.8 million. It was expected to draw 500,000 visitors annually, but had a poorly installed collection of mediocre quality and failed to gain the stability necessary to attract gifts. Visitors have fallen dramatically from 200,000 in the inaugural year to 38,000 last year.
There is still no endowment and the museum reported a deficit of more than $2 million in 2001. Despite trimming staff, programmes, and opening hours, the museum has more than once failed to pay its employees.
With a record number of black millionairs, and a relatively large black middle class and those "Black CEO's." Why has there not been an endowment set up? Is this Museum not important to Winfrey, Parsons, Aaron or Johnson? So while we here at GG agree with Cosby's commentary, we'll send equal scorn on these rich blacks who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing as people that high on the totem pole.
But lets be real here, why are the two stories connected? Simply put, there is no longer a real concern about black economic or social development in the independent sphere. Integration has sucked out no only the talent of black communities, but it has also instilled a "could care less" attitude in the population where such things as AA museums are not only unimportant, but when done, done poorly. So we move from the excellence of Black Wall Street of 1912 to a half-assed black museum of 2004. Where's the progress in that?
links:
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=11688
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-490583.html
Today while perusing www.blackelectorate.com I found two articles. One entitled State marker to honor 'Black Wall Street' contained the following reference:
Quote;
Two years later W.E.B. DuBois came to town. He was Washington's ideological rival, but his reaction to Durham was similarly effusive. In the journal World's Work of January 1912, DuBois wrote:
"There is in this small city a group of five thousand or more colored people, whose social and economic development is perhaps more striking than that of any similar group in the nation. ...
"A singular group in Durham where a black man may get up in the morning from a mattress made by black men, in a house which a black man built out of lumber which black men cut and planed; he may put on a suit which he bought at a colored haberdashery and socks knit at a colored mill; he may cook victuals from a colored grocery on a stove which black men fashioned; he may earn his living working for colored men, be sick in a colored hospital, and buried from a colored church; and the Negro insurance society will pay his widow enough to keep his children in a colored school. This is surely progress."
Now check the date. According to the late WEB Dubois, head negro for the NAACP clearly stated where black, social and economic ( And therefore political) independence was a sign of progress in 1912. Later there would be a great push by the NAACP to "integrate" America. As a result of the integration push and a rejection of so called 'black power" politics, The scene described above does not exist. And let's be clear Phat Farm, and Sean John, have their clothing manufactured in Asia and shipped here, the only thing 'black: about most black clothing companies is the audience that gives it cred ( on a side note, according to Black Enterprise, Sean John, is not, by BE's standards a black owned company. Neither is HARPO).
Anyways, let's look at story number 2. The Art Newspaper has an article about the financial straights that the Wright Museum of African-American History. It appears that the museum has fallen far short of it's projected visitation goals and has no endowment How come this museum has no endowment?
Quote:
The museum, named after the founder of Detroit%92s first African-American museum, was set up in the late 1980s as the world%92s largest museum of its kind. Those who had campaigned for its establishment had argued that although Detroit%92s population is predominantly black, the city was largely spending its money on projects that, they said, catered to the tastes of white suburbanites. The scheme to establish the African-American museum sailed through government, voters rubber-stamped a bond for its construction, and the museum was built.
When the huge 120,000-square-foot $38.4-million structure opened in 1997, it had no endowment and an annual budget of $6.8 million. It was expected to draw 500,000 visitors annually, but had a poorly installed collection of mediocre quality and failed to gain the stability necessary to attract gifts. Visitors have fallen dramatically from 200,000 in the inaugural year to 38,000 last year.
There is still no endowment and the museum reported a deficit of more than $2 million in 2001. Despite trimming staff, programmes, and opening hours, the museum has more than once failed to pay its employees.
With a record number of black millionairs, and a relatively large black middle class and those "Black CEO's." Why has there not been an endowment set up? Is this Museum not important to Winfrey, Parsons, Aaron or Johnson? So while we here at GG agree with Cosby's commentary, we'll send equal scorn on these rich blacks who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing as people that high on the totem pole.
But lets be real here, why are the two stories connected? Simply put, there is no longer a real concern about black economic or social development in the independent sphere. Integration has sucked out no only the talent of black communities, but it has also instilled a "could care less" attitude in the population where such things as AA museums are not only unimportant, but when done, done poorly. So we move from the excellence of Black Wall Street of 1912 to a half-assed black museum of 2004. Where's the progress in that?
links:
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=11688
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-490583.html
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
The Police State is Now in View
Mark today on your calendar. Today the Transit Police in Boston Mass. started to "randomly" search commuters. This is in response to the train bombings in Spain. There is a saying that those who would discard liberty for security deserve neither. I agree. Apparently Americans are so bull headed, so arrogant. So..racist that they are willing to live in a police state in order to feel "safe." And be clear this is now a police state (until the Supreme Court steps in and does with it is mandated to do: uphold the constitution). And do not think for a minute that this will stop with "random" commuter searches. Soon you may be pulled off a bus or train for no apparent reason. You may soon find that you may be accosted in your house and have your house searched for no apparent reason. And what if you refuse? Well given what happens at Airports around the nation, You can expect Abu Gharib type treatment. I'm Black. Black people have been here and done this. Some apologists will say that they have nothing to hide and if you don't then you should not be worried or concerned. That's not the point. The reason the 4th and 5th Amendments exist is to maintain the citizens presumed innocence. Innocence that is legally presumed until conviction of some crime by a Judge and/or Jury. Unfortunately, America, ( besides it clear breech of constitutionality in regards to black people), has been moving very quickly in the direction of guilty upon suspicion. Thus anyone can be treated as a criminal simply for being percieved as suspicious. The other reason for the 4th Amendment is that one is protected by the forces of the State to not only sieze your property but to also prevent the state from attempting to use your property to frame you. Thus the law specifies that a warrant must be for specific items. Clearly a search on an innocent person for possible contraband in order to determine "guilt." is in violation of ones constitutional rights. For example, If a search wielded a knife, would that person be suspected of being a terrorist? A murderer? Does not a citizen have a constitutional right to bear arms? What law is a person in a public place on a publicly funded transport system, breaking by having a knife? Furthermore, If such "random"searches are upheld? Soon Police would be able to grab up anyone on any suspicion.
Full text follows:
OSTON (AP) -- Transit police will begin randomly stopping riders on Boston's subways and commuter trains next month to search their bags and packages, a procedure transportation officials say was largely prompted by the March 11 train bombings in Spain.
The new policy is set to be in place for July's Democratic National Convention, MBTA Police Chief Joseph Carter told The Boston Globe for a story in Tuesday editions. It will include explosive-sniffing dogs and all 247 uniformed Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority police officers, he said.
"I have no trepidation about being first (in the nation with the policy)," Carter said. "I don't want to be the first to do an interview about having a serious incident that may have some terrorist indications to it. ... We want to do this to encourage people to feel safe on the MBTA, to utilize public transportation."
Carter said MBTA has not announced the new policy formally because officials still are working out the details on how to balance security and privacy concerns.
Last month, MBTA police announced the entire force has been receiving counterterrorism training that includes spotting suspicious behavior. MBTA police already can request to see the identification of passengers they perceive to be acting suspiciously.
Last month, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration unveiled a pilot program to screen the bags of all passengers at a single Maryland Rail Commuter station in suburban New Carrollton.
MBTA Deputy Police Chief John Martino, who is overseeing the development and implementation of the search policy, said police, sometimes accompanied by explosive-sniffing dogs, will randomly pick out riders for inspection throughout the transit system daily. He said the number of inspections would increase dramatically during the convention July 26-29.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said that while she understands the need for security, the MBTA plan is deeply flawed and may violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
"The Fourth Amendment doesn't stop at your wrist when you carry a briefcase; it includes your bag," Rose said. "It either has to be truly random, or it has to have a root in a reasonable basis of suspicion."
The March terror bombings in Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people and were blamed on Islamic militants with possible links to al-Qaeda.
Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/06/08/boston.transit.search.ap/index.html
Mark today on your calendar. Today the Transit Police in Boston Mass. started to "randomly" search commuters. This is in response to the train bombings in Spain. There is a saying that those who would discard liberty for security deserve neither. I agree. Apparently Americans are so bull headed, so arrogant. So..racist that they are willing to live in a police state in order to feel "safe." And be clear this is now a police state (until the Supreme Court steps in and does with it is mandated to do: uphold the constitution). And do not think for a minute that this will stop with "random" commuter searches. Soon you may be pulled off a bus or train for no apparent reason. You may soon find that you may be accosted in your house and have your house searched for no apparent reason. And what if you refuse? Well given what happens at Airports around the nation, You can expect Abu Gharib type treatment. I'm Black. Black people have been here and done this. Some apologists will say that they have nothing to hide and if you don't then you should not be worried or concerned. That's not the point. The reason the 4th and 5th Amendments exist is to maintain the citizens presumed innocence. Innocence that is legally presumed until conviction of some crime by a Judge and/or Jury. Unfortunately, America, ( besides it clear breech of constitutionality in regards to black people), has been moving very quickly in the direction of guilty upon suspicion. Thus anyone can be treated as a criminal simply for being percieved as suspicious. The other reason for the 4th Amendment is that one is protected by the forces of the State to not only sieze your property but to also prevent the state from attempting to use your property to frame you. Thus the law specifies that a warrant must be for specific items. Clearly a search on an innocent person for possible contraband in order to determine "guilt." is in violation of ones constitutional rights. For example, If a search wielded a knife, would that person be suspected of being a terrorist? A murderer? Does not a citizen have a constitutional right to bear arms? What law is a person in a public place on a publicly funded transport system, breaking by having a knife? Furthermore, If such "random"searches are upheld? Soon Police would be able to grab up anyone on any suspicion.
Full text follows:
OSTON (AP) -- Transit police will begin randomly stopping riders on Boston's subways and commuter trains next month to search their bags and packages, a procedure transportation officials say was largely prompted by the March 11 train bombings in Spain.
The new policy is set to be in place for July's Democratic National Convention, MBTA Police Chief Joseph Carter told The Boston Globe for a story in Tuesday editions. It will include explosive-sniffing dogs and all 247 uniformed Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority police officers, he said.
"I have no trepidation about being first (in the nation with the policy)," Carter said. "I don't want to be the first to do an interview about having a serious incident that may have some terrorist indications to it. ... We want to do this to encourage people to feel safe on the MBTA, to utilize public transportation."
Carter said MBTA has not announced the new policy formally because officials still are working out the details on how to balance security and privacy concerns.
Last month, MBTA police announced the entire force has been receiving counterterrorism training that includes spotting suspicious behavior. MBTA police already can request to see the identification of passengers they perceive to be acting suspiciously.
Last month, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration unveiled a pilot program to screen the bags of all passengers at a single Maryland Rail Commuter station in suburban New Carrollton.
MBTA Deputy Police Chief John Martino, who is overseeing the development and implementation of the search policy, said police, sometimes accompanied by explosive-sniffing dogs, will randomly pick out riders for inspection throughout the transit system daily. He said the number of inspections would increase dramatically during the convention July 26-29.
Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said that while she understands the need for security, the MBTA plan is deeply flawed and may violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
"The Fourth Amendment doesn't stop at your wrist when you carry a briefcase; it includes your bag," Rose said. "It either has to be truly random, or it has to have a root in a reasonable basis of suspicion."
The March terror bombings in Madrid, Spain, killed 191 people and were blamed on Islamic militants with possible links to al-Qaeda.
Links:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/06/08/boston.transit.search.ap/index.html
Friday, June 04, 2004
Andre Crouch: 2004 Negro
The term Negro never really sat well with me. Linguistically it was either a color descriptor derived from the Portuguese or it was a coined term to refer to the people who live among the Niger River devolving into "Nigger." Either way it was in my mind a label put upon Black people by whites for their own use. Of course at the end of the 60's most of us relegated that title to the dustbin of history and only used the term in historical context or as a reference to those whom we felt were less than men or women when dealing with black issues. We call them "Knee-grows." Today most Blacks in the United States are referred to as "African-American." This goes along with every other group that now has some hyphenated name. An unfortunate side effect of this name is that many Blacks have gotten into the habit of calling any and every black person they see "African-American." Furthermore; very few people seem to realize that technically, African-American would include any and all people in the Americas, including those in the Caribbean, and Latin-America. Me I do like Malcolm X and refer to myself as an African in America. I often get silly questions like what tribe I come from. I just say the one that survived the great Maafa. Unlike many of my peers, I also hold a very Traditional" African worldview in that I practice an African Religion (Ifa) and a few other things in addition the the things that are a result of the unique experience of being in America. I would never call myself a Ghanaian or a Nigerian or a Kenyan simply because I did not grow up in any of those places. I am a "generic" African. Damn proud of it too.
Today I ran across what has to be one of the silliest articles I have ever come across. This one is up there with the Jamaican writer who insists that Black people cannot govern themselves. Andre Crouch was republished in the NY Daily News in an article called 'Why I use the word 'Negro'"
Let me deconstruct Mr. Crouches arguement:
Some people are particularly disturbed by my use of the word Negro as opposed to the latest fashionable label. I am not bothered by such people, but I am disturbed by the reliance on cosmetic identity that has become so important to black people over the last 35 or 40 years.
Some people just don't think of themselves as straight products of the social engineering project of Slavery and Jim Crow. Some of us wish to self identify rather than retain the label handed down to us by others. Furthermore for many of us The rejection of Negro is more than cosmetic rather it is a statement of who we are. Some call ourselves "African-American' because we recognize the duality of our identity. One would have had to have embraced ones past and integrate that into oneself in order to understand that.
The argument was that "Negro" separated black people from their African identity. It did not acknowledge the greatness of Africa, wonderful Africa, that lost paradise where everything was perfect. It did not recognize that black people had not always been slaves - that they were, in fact, a separate nation descended from kings and queens.
Hmm. No one, of course, ever considered that if most of the millions of black Americans really were descended from kings and queens, one would have needed a lot more land than Africa provided to support all that royalty. Millions of kingdoms definitely present a challenge.
It was, at best, cult thinking. But it was also a way of getting people to think of themselves as perpetual victims who were oppressed at every turn. That seems to me the greatest impact of believing that the history connected to the name Negro was all second-class travail and injustice.
Some 40 years ago, Malcolm X said: "You're not an American, you're a victim of Americanism."
That's too crude and simpleminded. But the crude and simpleminded are not unusual when the subject is the Negro. While such statements might sound good on a podium, they miss a great and substantial truth.
Now in one sense I agree with this argument. No way could we ALL have been descended from Kings and Queens. But this is too simpleminded for even Mr. Crouch to grasp. The argument is meant to inform the unknowing that believed that all we were capable was begging for scraps from white people that there were in fact large kingdoms and Queendoms in Africa. And therefore the Black man and woman was just as capable of greatness as any other group of people. I suppose such an idea was way too simple for Mr. Crouch to grasp.
The other problem with Mr. Crouch's statement is that he seems to think that Malcolm X was in the business of victim-hood. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Perhaps Mr. Crouch should spend more time studying before attempting to critique Malcolm X.
Being called something other than Negro will not better the state of the people who now walk around challenging others to call them African-Americans. They think that to be proud and effective, people with dark skins of a certain pedigree need to know they are connected to the grandeur of Africa, the fountain of civilization. Hogwash.
Clearly, knowing that they are Africans has done nothing special for Africans themselves, as we can see in the massacres in Rwanda during the 1990s, the many brutal African dictatorships and the abundance on the continent of backward ideas about women, slavery and a number of other things.
People can call themselves whatever they want. But the challenges facing this nation and its darker ethnic group will not be solved by anything other than deep thinking and hard work. Pride comes from accomplishment. Cosmetic nonsense will not get it.
Well thank you Mr, Crouch for stating the obvious. Clearly White Power did not prevent Hitler from visiting War upon the world. It is strange that Mr Crouch wants to whip the Black man and woman for having pride in their ancestry and history but appears to have no problems with the constant pride movements directed at white youths. These take place in various "History" classes about Greco-Roman Civilization. The renaissance, and various stages of American history. So it is only bad for Black people to revel in the history. Everybody else gets a free pass. I'm sorry that Mr. Crouch is sop ashamed of the Dictators and Coup leaders and massacres that have happened in Africa. I'm sad that such things shame him. Perhaps we'll soon be seeing an article entitled : " Why I am no longer a Negro."
Links:
http://www.maafa.org
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/199208p-172003c.html
The term Negro never really sat well with me. Linguistically it was either a color descriptor derived from the Portuguese or it was a coined term to refer to the people who live among the Niger River devolving into "Nigger." Either way it was in my mind a label put upon Black people by whites for their own use. Of course at the end of the 60's most of us relegated that title to the dustbin of history and only used the term in historical context or as a reference to those whom we felt were less than men or women when dealing with black issues. We call them "Knee-grows." Today most Blacks in the United States are referred to as "African-American." This goes along with every other group that now has some hyphenated name. An unfortunate side effect of this name is that many Blacks have gotten into the habit of calling any and every black person they see "African-American." Furthermore; very few people seem to realize that technically, African-American would include any and all people in the Americas, including those in the Caribbean, and Latin-America. Me I do like Malcolm X and refer to myself as an African in America. I often get silly questions like what tribe I come from. I just say the one that survived the great Maafa. Unlike many of my peers, I also hold a very Traditional" African worldview in that I practice an African Religion (Ifa) and a few other things in addition the the things that are a result of the unique experience of being in America. I would never call myself a Ghanaian or a Nigerian or a Kenyan simply because I did not grow up in any of those places. I am a "generic" African. Damn proud of it too.
Today I ran across what has to be one of the silliest articles I have ever come across. This one is up there with the Jamaican writer who insists that Black people cannot govern themselves. Andre Crouch was republished in the NY Daily News in an article called 'Why I use the word 'Negro'"
Let me deconstruct Mr. Crouches arguement:
Some people are particularly disturbed by my use of the word Negro as opposed to the latest fashionable label. I am not bothered by such people, but I am disturbed by the reliance on cosmetic identity that has become so important to black people over the last 35 or 40 years.
Some people just don't think of themselves as straight products of the social engineering project of Slavery and Jim Crow. Some of us wish to self identify rather than retain the label handed down to us by others. Furthermore for many of us The rejection of Negro is more than cosmetic rather it is a statement of who we are. Some call ourselves "African-American' because we recognize the duality of our identity. One would have had to have embraced ones past and integrate that into oneself in order to understand that.
The argument was that "Negro" separated black people from their African identity. It did not acknowledge the greatness of Africa, wonderful Africa, that lost paradise where everything was perfect. It did not recognize that black people had not always been slaves - that they were, in fact, a separate nation descended from kings and queens.
Hmm. No one, of course, ever considered that if most of the millions of black Americans really were descended from kings and queens, one would have needed a lot more land than Africa provided to support all that royalty. Millions of kingdoms definitely present a challenge.
It was, at best, cult thinking. But it was also a way of getting people to think of themselves as perpetual victims who were oppressed at every turn. That seems to me the greatest impact of believing that the history connected to the name Negro was all second-class travail and injustice.
Some 40 years ago, Malcolm X said: "You're not an American, you're a victim of Americanism."
That's too crude and simpleminded. But the crude and simpleminded are not unusual when the subject is the Negro. While such statements might sound good on a podium, they miss a great and substantial truth.
Now in one sense I agree with this argument. No way could we ALL have been descended from Kings and Queens. But this is too simpleminded for even Mr. Crouch to grasp. The argument is meant to inform the unknowing that believed that all we were capable was begging for scraps from white people that there were in fact large kingdoms and Queendoms in Africa. And therefore the Black man and woman was just as capable of greatness as any other group of people. I suppose such an idea was way too simple for Mr. Crouch to grasp.
The other problem with Mr. Crouch's statement is that he seems to think that Malcolm X was in the business of victim-hood. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Perhaps Mr. Crouch should spend more time studying before attempting to critique Malcolm X.
Being called something other than Negro will not better the state of the people who now walk around challenging others to call them African-Americans. They think that to be proud and effective, people with dark skins of a certain pedigree need to know they are connected to the grandeur of Africa, the fountain of civilization. Hogwash.
Clearly, knowing that they are Africans has done nothing special for Africans themselves, as we can see in the massacres in Rwanda during the 1990s, the many brutal African dictatorships and the abundance on the continent of backward ideas about women, slavery and a number of other things.
People can call themselves whatever they want. But the challenges facing this nation and its darker ethnic group will not be solved by anything other than deep thinking and hard work. Pride comes from accomplishment. Cosmetic nonsense will not get it.
Well thank you Mr, Crouch for stating the obvious. Clearly White Power did not prevent Hitler from visiting War upon the world. It is strange that Mr Crouch wants to whip the Black man and woman for having pride in their ancestry and history but appears to have no problems with the constant pride movements directed at white youths. These take place in various "History" classes about Greco-Roman Civilization. The renaissance, and various stages of American history. So it is only bad for Black people to revel in the history. Everybody else gets a free pass. I'm sorry that Mr. Crouch is sop ashamed of the Dictators and Coup leaders and massacres that have happened in Africa. I'm sad that such things shame him. Perhaps we'll soon be seeing an article entitled : " Why I am no longer a Negro."
Links:
http://www.maafa.org
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/199208p-172003c.html
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Haitian Floods Inevitable
I was discussing the flood situation in Haiti with friends and commented that the flooding in Haiti was inevitable. Recent news I had read in the New York Times indicated that the situation in Haiti was so bad that people were stripping the forest of trees in order to make charcoal to cook food and other needs. The trees provided a natural way to prevent flooding as their roots kept soil erosion at a minumum. Without the trees the soil would simply turn to mush become saturated and allow flooding to occur far more rapidly than normal. Today I read in The Militant the very same discussion:
Quote:
One of the main reasons for the catastrophic flooding and mudslides was the severe deforestation of the hills and valleys in the border region. Haiti’s forests have disappeared because, without access to electricity or other sources of fuel, thousands of Haitian workers and farmers depend for survival on charcoal made from cutting down trees for heat, light, and cooking fuel.
It is of great sadness that we obvserve that the well off in Haiti appeared to be more concerned with Aristide than the looming environmental catastrophy that was awaiting them. They collaborated with outside forced to get arms and uniforms, yet there is no evidence that any of these coup members even thought about the wellbeing of the Haitian masses. But then again that's the requirement to get on the US' good side.
Links:
http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6823/682301.html
I was discussing the flood situation in Haiti with friends and commented that the flooding in Haiti was inevitable. Recent news I had read in the New York Times indicated that the situation in Haiti was so bad that people were stripping the forest of trees in order to make charcoal to cook food and other needs. The trees provided a natural way to prevent flooding as their roots kept soil erosion at a minumum. Without the trees the soil would simply turn to mush become saturated and allow flooding to occur far more rapidly than normal. Today I read in The Militant the very same discussion:
Quote:
One of the main reasons for the catastrophic flooding and mudslides was the severe deforestation of the hills and valleys in the border region. Haiti’s forests have disappeared because, without access to electricity or other sources of fuel, thousands of Haitian workers and farmers depend for survival on charcoal made from cutting down trees for heat, light, and cooking fuel.
It is of great sadness that we obvserve that the well off in Haiti appeared to be more concerned with Aristide than the looming environmental catastrophy that was awaiting them. They collaborated with outside forced to get arms and uniforms, yet there is no evidence that any of these coup members even thought about the wellbeing of the Haitian masses. But then again that's the requirement to get on the US' good side.
Links:
http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6823/682301.html
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Thank God For The White Man!!
Odd title for a Garveyite. But no, It's not me saying this. I stumbled across the following:
quote:
Tokelau became a British colony in 1889 and was passed to New Zealand in 1925. Since the mid-1970s moves had been made to give the country independence, but many Tokelauans fear change could leave them unable to support themselves.
Tokelau's head of government, Patuki Isa'ako, told a meeting of the UN Committee of 24 on decolonisation last week that the UN and New Zealand, not the islanders, were behind the moves.
"Life as a New Zealand colony has brought many benefits to the country. There is no poverty, no unemployment, and full literacy. Although electricity does not run 24 hours a day, all houses now have internal flush toilets."
The New Zealand-appointed administrator, Neil Walter, said:
"Clearly independence is not on Tokelau's screen. A decision to become self-governing in association with New Zealand would do little more than recognise and confirm the status quo."
So apparently the Tokelau simply cannot imagine life without the White Man. So they have shrines to the British too? There is full employment not because of the White Man, but because they all (mostly) engage in subsistence farming. Any culture operating at the Agricultural level with areable land should have 100% employment. Note to Tokulau: Your ancestors had 100% employment too. And what of those toilets? Well you mean these folks have not, after 1000 years learned how to make glass or at least smealt iron? Just what have they been doing all these years. Oh yes that's right, Worshipping The all mighty White Man.
Sad.
Links:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/30/1085855439939.html
Odd title for a Garveyite. But no, It's not me saying this. I stumbled across the following:
quote:
Tokelau became a British colony in 1889 and was passed to New Zealand in 1925. Since the mid-1970s moves had been made to give the country independence, but many Tokelauans fear change could leave them unable to support themselves.
Tokelau's head of government, Patuki Isa'ako, told a meeting of the UN Committee of 24 on decolonisation last week that the UN and New Zealand, not the islanders, were behind the moves.
"Life as a New Zealand colony has brought many benefits to the country. There is no poverty, no unemployment, and full literacy. Although electricity does not run 24 hours a day, all houses now have internal flush toilets."
The New Zealand-appointed administrator, Neil Walter, said:
"Clearly independence is not on Tokelau's screen. A decision to become self-governing in association with New Zealand would do little more than recognise and confirm the status quo."
So apparently the Tokelau simply cannot imagine life without the White Man. So they have shrines to the British too? There is full employment not because of the White Man, but because they all (mostly) engage in subsistence farming. Any culture operating at the Agricultural level with areable land should have 100% employment. Note to Tokulau: Your ancestors had 100% employment too. And what of those toilets? Well you mean these folks have not, after 1000 years learned how to make glass or at least smealt iron? Just what have they been doing all these years. Oh yes that's right, Worshipping The all mighty White Man.
Sad.
Links:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/30/1085855439939.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)