The Privileged Follow Up

So my post on black male privilege sparked an interesting and civil discussion last night which picked up again this morning with various people weighing in. Of course as with all things there are those who exist to prove a point. One Shannon from Tenn. was so disturbed by a portion of my writing that she needed to vent on her blog

It's never a good sign when a piece starts with:

Man, who is this dude, and why is he such a dick?

Name calling in the opening paragraph is usually a bad sign. Name calling to start the opening paragraph is usually a very bad sign. Not bothering to contact the "dick" in question is, well, poor reporting. In any case Shannon was apparently perturbed by the discussion of porn that went on last night and this morning. She opens with:

I sat quietly through the whole 'it might be circumstance' and of course, the ridic porn apology shit[I think an issue is that people equate porn with sex, and the issue is that good sex involves two people interacting in a way that both people enjoy, and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality- a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes! she's a ghetto ho! , a race to the bottom in terms of sexual acts[I can't even imagine what could be worse than the modern state of porn and what bodily features on women will be considered gross and wrong next

Not for nothing but yeah. porn is generally speaking sex. In some cases it's putting on leather, determining "safe words", getting strapped to some wooden device and being whipped until orgasm. In some cases it's women crushing roaches. In some cases it's women stepping on testicles, slipping items into urethras. It is sometimes really huge women and really skinny men. Sometimes it's really old men and really old women. Sometimes it's really old men and really young women. It's sometimes diapers and taking a poo or piss.
porn is a LOT of things that make a LOT of people sexually aroused. None of it appeals to every consumer but it's all out there.

That I was able to even write all that shows how weak the sentance:

that people equate porn with sex

Because clearly porn is a lot of things to a lot of people. Secondly that long list also shows that the persons involved are the only people who are qualified to judge whether "both people enjoy." Not outsiders. Not me. Not Shannon. Sorry. I don't understand why people are turned on sexually by getting whipped but it's not my business. It's not Shannon's either.

The statement:

and porn is all about one sided performance- no personality

Can't be proven. How does she know this? All those people, the men and the women are not agents in their own behavior. Really? There are pages and pages of online video that will utterly disprove this statement. But most people, including a large percentage of so called "feminists" simply do not want to admit this. Why? Well that's a whole other conversation and there's a lot to cover here.

Such statements like:

a black woman isn't a human being with her own preferences, likes and dislikes!

Is absolutely without foundation. Firstly those women decide IF they will "perform". They decide whether they will accept the compensation. They decide WHO they will and will not perform with. They decide WHAT kinds of intercourse they will engage in. Feminists have a term for this: agency. I wont even discuss those women who direct and produce porn cause clearly to Shannon these people do not exist and have no agency.

Anyway that's not even the worst of it. No. Shannon's top is apparently blown by the following statement I made:

I'm leery of this one because I have come across a number of proclaimed feminist who feel that if a man so much as looks at her, it is sexual harassment. Seriously. I have actually had this discussion. Simple attempts to engage in conversation in public was deemed sexual harassment. I'm serious about that one too. What bothers me is the usual loud silence by other feminists when these things are said and posted on certain feminist websites. They call it "creating a safe place for women". I call it tolerating and allowing the promotion of BS. Fact is that among normal human males and females, the fact that we as a species are poly-estrous means that "mating season" is every day of the week. Human males and females try to get each others attention every day of the week. It is normal. There are a lot of men who go way overboard on their attention seeking. This is where culture and proper parental upbringing (particularly fathers and father figures) come into play.

This was in reference to a point of black male privilege made in the article I referenced that said:

94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.

What does Shannon have to say about that?
first:

I enjoy the idea that men will magically come in and save everyone. This is a common fantasy in the black community, that if only a STRONG BLACK MAN would HEAD THE FAMILY, everything would be alright. Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle. It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd]. And the whole I WAS JUST GETTING HER ATTENTION mess. Really, dude, don't apologize for those assholes.

Notice that Shannon does not address my experience of self proclaimed "feminists" who have made the claim that merely looking at a woman is harassment. I would think that Shannon would want to make sure that the reader knows in no uncertain terms that she does not co-sign such a position. But no. I suppose that Shannon has no problem with that.

Does Shannon also disclaim the outrageous claims by some feminists that speaking to a woman one does not know in public is harassment? No. That's not important to her either. So half of the paragraph that she quoted goes uncommented on. Not so much as an "I've never heard that before". But I suppose that I am a straight black male "oppressor" (and a dick at that) my experiences and observations don't count. Anyway enough about me right?

So Shannon's sore point is the "Strong black man as head of household". Which was actually a critique of an earlier point of contention. I said in regards to that idea that the presupposition that strong black men (whatever those are) as head of household being an absolute negative has not been proven. For the not too bright that means I'm open to the discussions of the pros and cons of Black men as head of household. Lets supply evidence for and against. Secondly though I'm sure that many in the African-American community have idealized fantasies about a great deal of things, I never made such a claim. I repeat that my claim is that Strong black men (whatever they are) as head of household has not been proven to be definitively negative.

Shannon wanders on with:

Of course, there's not really anything we can do to make individual men do this, and if they do, there's still the real issues of poverty and racism to tackle.

In my experience and readings the idea of strong black men as head of household is a (not the) proposed plan to address poverty and racism since employed black men making wages that are enough to support a family addresses the issue of poverty (however imperfectly) and the resulting stable family units are safe spaces for black people to protect themselves from WS as practiced in the areas of people activity.

It is our job as academics, leaders, writers, etc to create and implement plans that create win-win situations for black men and women. That requires give and take and neither black men or black women get to dictate the terms unilaterally.

Finally with Shannons next to last sentence in that paragraph:

It also makes it seem that black women doing tons of work don't count just because we don't have penises[yes, a few black women have penises, but they aren't accepted by this crowd].

My, I do believe that is the second penis reference in this piece. Hmmmmmmm.....
Anyway, I don't know who's writing she is conjuring up, but it's not mine. Nowhere in my piece, or twitter conversation did I say or imply that black women's contributions don't count. I said that there are things that men, being males, contribute that cannot be replaced by a woman. And to correct Shannon's last point: Females with penises and men with breasts and other female apparati are called hermaphrodites/intersex. They are neither male or female and are therefore not men or women. And I'm not referring to those who underwent surgical changes. That's an entirely different conversation; and by the way, there's porn for that.


Shannon then decides to go further down the rabbit hole:

Assholes ruin it for everybody. You can't have it both ways. Either men can go and 'get a woman's attention' by following her down the street, making crude remarks, and touching a woman in an unwanted manner[really, would you want some dude who smelled like he took a bath in shit water doing that to you? then why is it OK for women to be attacked?] or you can nut up and say, hey, that's not cool.

I invite the reader to back up to the paragraph she quoted and look for where I excuse or accept crude public behavior by men towards women or said that attacking women in public was acceptable. I'll wait here.

Done.

Can't find it can you?

Exactly. So what is Shannon's problem? This is typical of many so called feminists. They will chuck other peoples arguments and attitudes on other people. They think that's acceptable because God forbid a straight male has the gall to:

a) Be right.
b) State something that makes absolute sense.
c) Defends everyone's right to speak to (not harass) anyone in public.

Shocking I know.

So far we have a total of three paragraphs that generally critique me for writing stuff I never wrote. Three paragraphs. Look I'm not he best writer in the world. My stuff has all kinds of grammar and structural errors but at least I have the decency to not ascribe arguments and statements to people that they have not made.

Now here comes the rant:

And talking smack about black women seems to be a special black male privilege. It's a shit sandwich! You work hard, get educated, and dude who ain't graduated from high school complain about how you're too fat!

I WOUlD have co-signed that first sentence. Cause in general I think black men get away with saying a lot of things about black women. But in this particular case Shannon is talking massive shit and I'm calling her on it. Secondly it's not clear from the language but is Shannon trying to imply something about my education or is she making gross negative generalizations about black men? And if so, why does she think doing so is acceptable?

While you're looking at his ass, and it's not exactly super fit!

I will have Shannon know that my ass is super fit. If she wants I'll send her a photo of it. I will say though that if she runs a mile in more that 7 minutes she can talk to the hand.

Anyway, Shannon's concluding statements are her own thoughts about stuff I didn't say or even remotely related to the topic at hand so I'll leave it alone. My suggestion for Shannon: If you're going to start a piece with name calling you better bring the pain in the form of verifiable facts and accurate arguments.

Ting and ting and ting.

Black Male Priviledge

[Updated 10:30 PM EST for grammatical errors and clarified points]

So I got this link via Twitter about Black male privilege. I'm usually skeptical when I see such writings particularly when they come from males. So called "Feminist" men can be very annoying. They, like much of their female counterparts, often assume that any male that challenges what they have to say are misogynist and have no clue about sexism. On more than a few occasions I've had give a verbal beat down to these "men" for making such assumptions. So it was with great skepticism that I read this piece entitled "Black Male Privilege". This piece gives a rather lengthy list of things that the author believes Black men benefit from at the detriment of black women (his definition of privilege). So how is this definition constructed?

Privileges that have nothing to do with what a person has earned, but rather are based entirely on who a person is, or what color they are.

Male privilege...is based on attitudes or actions that come at the expense of women.

So taking the above we would conclude that the author believes that Black Male Privilege are attitudes and actions that benefit them and come at the expense of women that are not eared but based entirely on who they are.

The author hedges his position by aptly pointing out that his list may contain material that is applicable to all men rather than black men in particular. There's no problem with that except that in my mind if we're going to talk about black male privilege then one ought to focus entirely on those which is extended to black men in particular. But that's my bag others may disagree and ultimately it may not matter. Anyway, on to the list. I won't highlight all 94 items generally due to my agreement with them but I will discuss the ones I have particular issues with:

1. I don't have to choose my race over my sex in political matters.

Well that's not necessarily true. But my position is that black women have allowed themselves to be put in a position where they are being asked to assert gender over race. I believe that to be a setup by the larger white feminist movement that sought to align themselves with "women of color" as a political means of expanding their base. We could also easily ask "which" political matters? This question can only arise IF one defines issues of race as being EXCLUSIVE of issues of gender. If one does not buy into such an exclusion then such a position then such choices as presented above do not exist. Thus it is my position that instead of being a privilege of men it is a self-imposed burden black women have taken on at the behest of white feminists.

2. When I read African American History textbooks, I will learn mainly about black men.

That may be true but I don't see how this is a privilege and not an accident of circumstance. Circumstantially Black Men have been afforded the privilege of public leadership within Anti-Slavery movements and Black women were not by the circumstances of slavery. Secondly as with any "Celebrity" culture of history people not at the center of attention are often left out of the picture. For example Harriet Tubman is THE icon of the underground railroad. How many of us know of the men and women who helped maintain that system? That's the point. I'm not prepared to accept accident of circumstance as privilege. Furthermore this privilege depends entirely upon who's history book is being used. Many such books are not created by black people. Thus this supposed privilege is perhaps really something that does not benefit black men or women and is arguably a tool of oppression of both.

3. When I learn about the Civil Rights Movement & the Black Power Movements, most of the leaders that I will learn about will be black men.

I believe this position falls in the same trap as item 2. In fact IMHO there are more visible women of the Civil Rights era than there are from any previous era in African-American hostory. Is it equitable (not equal there is a difference)? Probably not but I see scholars posting a lot of material on a lot of "in the shadows" people of either gender.

5. I will be taken more seriously as a political leader than black women.

I'm 50/50 on this one. Might be my own bias but I take the value of political leadership based on the soundness of the arguments a person puts forth and the strength of their program. I see a lot of female political leaders who IMHO are more serious than many if not most of the men. That may be my own bias though. What I do think is important here is that males are by nature far more aggressive than females. Most people don't like hearing that but it's the truth. So a lot of that "seriousness" is a result of acknowledging powerful presences. That's a sociological argument that could be had. I'm willing to have it hence my 50/50 position.

6. Despite the substantial role that black women played in the Civil Rights Movement and Black Power Movement, currently there is no black female that is considered a "race leader".

There are a number of reasons for this. First is purely circumstantial. Since the author pointed out the lack of women in positions of visible leadership in the past it would make sense that as race became neutered as a leadership roll that the last remaining "race leaders" would be male. Secondly though, African-Americans have themselves to blame. We have collectively decided to neuter race arguments and race advocacy in general in favor of "diversity" and other wishy-washy, kumby-ya ideologies. Is it any shock then that race leadership of any kind is a dying breed? That said, in the more "radical" commmunities there are many females who are considered leaders. It's all in where you look.

7. I can live my life without ever having read black feminist authors, or knowing about black women's history, or black women's issues.

I agree you can go without reading black feminist authors, but the last two points are completely false today. Will the average Jamaal know black women's history in and out? Will they know every black women's issues in and out. No. But they also will not know black history in and out. The advent of mass media and the internet all but guarantees that black men well have some women's issues brought to their attention be it HIV, breast cancer, family leave, etc.

8. I can be a part of a black liberation organization like the Black Panther Party where an "out" rapist Eldridge Cleaver can assume leadership position.

What year is this?

11. I have the ability to define black women's beauty by European standards in terms of skin tone, hair, and body size. In comparison, black women rarely define me by European standards of beauty in terms of skin tone, hair, or body size.

Oh special pet peeve of mine. I hate, hate, hate the fact that black "Feminists" are on this "It's cool to be obese" trip. It is so out of line. This fellow needs to get off this wagon. It is totally unacceptable to buy into the fashion mag argument. The fashion industry with it's plethora of gay males appear to love underdeveloped women. If the author was not so fixated on white folks he would notice that the average straight black man loves him some thick. And let me be clear: thick not obese. We can argue the cultural implications of that but for the purposes of this piece anybody male or female who sets up the fit= European argument ought to be taken out back and caned.

Onto the other points. I'm not clear that judging a black woman (or any woman for that matter) based on the traits of another race of people is a privilege. I'd say it's a sign of self-hate if anything. Secondly since my experience shows the opposite to the author in regards to how black men are measured, I think he's wrong.I mean I've heard enough about black men who are "too black". I've heard enough about light skinned "pretty boys" and how some men are not suitable for reproduction cause the child may come out too dark and with "bad hair". Seriously. This point is so out of order.

12. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of having my hair conforming to any standard image of beauty the way black women do.

No sir. I just cut most of it off. Try climbing that corporate ladder with natty dreds or a huge 'fro. Anyone see that CEO of Xerox? Black woman with *gasp* natural hair. So I think this point fails the priv. test simply due to the fact that black men do in fact have to live up to hair standards. The fact is though is that men and women are different. Different is good. Different is OK. Black women don't have to shave their faces. I could moan about that but I don't. How about we accept that men and women have different grooming requirements and it is what it is.

13. I do not have to worry about the daily hassles of being terrorized by the fear of gaining weight. In fact, in many instances bigger is better for my sex.

14. My looks will not be the central standard by which my worth is valued by members of the opposite sex.

I covered this before. I brook no excuses for men and women who are lazy and lack the will power to not eat junk and not exercise. I will repeat this for the hard of understanding: Men are visual creatures. It is hard wired that men respond to the physical first. Since we live in a monogamous society (yes I'm laughing too), that means it is the woman's job to keep that physical right. Deal with it. This is nature. Not privilege. Nature. Stop fighting nature.

Now we get to my absolute favorite part, sex. It is par for the course in most feminist commentary to discuss porn and to cast aspersion on other peoples sexual practices (except oddly those of gay men and women). The author goes in here as well:

15. I can purchase pornography that typically shows men defile women by the common practice of the "money shot.”
16. I can believe that causing pain during sex is connected with a woman's pleasure without ever asking her.

And this author knows the above how? Did he ask the specific women with semen on their faces? I know women who do not like "money shots" and other women who enjoy it. Secondly do the women have no agency here? Really was the woman involved have a gun held to her head to perform? What about all the amateur home made porn out there with wives, girlfriends and One Night Stands with semen on their faces? Were they coerced?

In the same light in regards to "pain". I know women that like pain. To give and take. There are women that enjoy being strapped up and beat. There are men that like being strapped up, beat and have their testicles stepped on. Seriously why is author even allowing himself to pass judgment on the sex lives of people he neither knows OR is involved in a consensual sexual relationship with? But this is common among feminists. You cannot judge what they do or say, but they are free to dictate how heterosexual men should enjoy themselves.

18. When it comes to sex if I say "No", chances are that it will not be mistaken for “Yes".

I think experience would show the author to be incorrect. I think it is unspoken but if a man says no to a woman who has decided that she wants him, that "no" is not taken seriously.

19. If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.

I'm not so sure about this one. Clearly the man is not going to be questioned about how he was dressed, but I have heard on multiple occasions men who were accused of rape being told what they ought not to have done (or who they ought not to have done). In fact men, if raped (yes it happens) are usually not believed or ridiculed for being gay. Men who are accused of rape can be and often are arrested and jailed simply on a woman's say so. So in this case I think the "privilege" here is largely moot. A woman may be questioned about her "judgment" but the legal system is particularly good at protecting her and her identity.

20. I can use sexist language like bonin’, laying the pipe, hittin-it, and banging that convey images of sexual acts based on dominance and performance.

Sexist by who's judgement? Here we go again with the dictation of other people's (usually straight men's) speech. Sorry I don't buy that. Cause clearly then if a woman tells me to F**K HER GOOD. she's being sexist right?

21. I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.

First: What year is this? Polygamy is not legal in the United States.
Second: Why is Polygamy sexist? Who made that determination? Oh right. If certain women don't like something, there it is.

22. In general, I prefer being involved with younger women socially and sexually

Lets see.. By nature women are in their prime breeding years in their late teens and early 20's. So the problem with this is what? Oh that's right we don't like nature. Nature's privilege. I'm going to agree with the author it is a male priv. And I don't see a problem with it. It would behoove women to understand nature and snag their desired male early the way nature intended. Failing that, they know the consequences. The choice is theirs. Don't you love a society with free choice? Hey look. I'm 'Old". I deal with the fact that certain women are now "off limits". I don't whine about it.

24. I have easy access to pornography that involves virtually any category of sex where men degrade women, often young women...26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.

More with the porn BS. Again the author clearly is not aware of the length a breadth of the available material out there in which men and women are on the giving and receiving end of what most of us would consider degrading experiences. It's not the position of any of us to pass judgment on what consenting adults decide to do, record and make available to other consenting adults.

27. I come from a tradition of humor that is based largely on insulting and disrespecting women; especially mothers.
28. I have the privilege of not having black women, dress up and play funny characters- often overweight- that are supposed to look like me for the entire nation to laugh.
29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes in black film are men.

I don't quite get how 27 and 28 are privileges. Someone will need to explain those to me. I see how they are degrading to black women I just don't see how they are privileges to the sons of said women. On 29 all I can say is that not all leads are created equal. I have major issues with the characters that many black men play on TV.

36. Many of my favorite movies include images of strength that do not include members of the opposite sex and often are based on violence.

37. Many of my favorite genres of films, such as martial arts, are based on violence.

I'm split here. I don't see the problem with men seeking out and "fetishising" movies and other images that re-enforce their self images (real, perceived or desired) as alpha males. That is natural. Just as I would not have a problem with women seeking out and fetishising movies that affirm themselves in whatever means they see fit. I'll agree with the author in regards to violence, but again it should be understood that by nature the male of the species is aggressive and seeks out aggressive displays in order to promote himself to women and establish himself among other males. I don't think there is a problem with that because I don't believe in fighting nature. Should women be shown being violent and aggressive? That's a discussion I'm willing to have but I believe that by and large you'll find a widespread distaste for that. So I'm split on this one.

38. I have the privilege of popularizing or consuming the idea of a thug, which is based on the violence and victimization of others with virtually no opposition from other men.

I don't see this as a privilege. I see this as a cold calculated hit against the black male to lead to jail and a means to trick black women into devaluing true black manhood.

39. I have the privilege to define black women as having "an attitude" without referencing the range of attitudes that black women have.
40. I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without defining my attitudes as a black man.

Maybe it's a summary statement but I think the author knows exactly what is meant by "attitude." Yes it's a generalization, but I believe it is a generalization within' cultural context.

41. I can believe that the success of the black family is dependent on returning men to their historical place within the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to black children.

Not sure how this is a privilege but I'll go with it. The problem here is twofold:

1) A feminist journal recently showed that African-American men (who they interviewed) were most likely to hold egalitarian attitudes towards gender. Shocking I know.

2) The author's position presupposes that the argument for men to have this "historical position" is bad. It pre-supposes that "black women's independence" is "good" and presupposes that such a "historical position" does not provide social benefits to black children. Those are a lot of unproven suppositions.

42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot raise a son to be a man.

As a man raised by a single mother I hold the above statement to be true. I love my mother and she did a lot for me, but I missed a LOT of things by not having a man in the house. I had to learn a lot from imitating other non-familiar men, reading, trial and error and the good fortune to have been exposed to stand up black men. That does not mean that having a father in the house guarantees success or some miracle child. I hold that the acceptance of father as "weekend playmate" and "wallet" is a serious blow to black manhood.

44. I have the privilege of believing that before slavery gender relationships between black men and women were perfect.

That would be the general privilege that all African-Americans have to fantasize about Africa and Africans in general. I see no gender privilege here just all around confusion.

45. I have the privilege of believing that feminism is anti-black.

Maybe not, but there are many feminists who are in fact anti-male, anti-Black, Anti-Black male and anti-straight male.

48. I have the privilege of believing that black women are different sexually than other women and judging them negatively based on this belief.

Different how? Seriously I'm confused by this one.

49. I will make significantly more money as a professional athlete than members of the opposite sex will.

Business really. In business professional athletics the salaries are directly related to the money an organization pulls in. Female athletics do not currently pull in the same money as their male counterparts (unless we want to discuss NASCAR where there are no "female races"). So salaries are going to be different. If female athletes in say basketball were to compete on the same teams as men, they would be crushed. I don't say this to be smug. It's just known that males, particularly when we are dealing with those in tip top shape, are taller and stronger than females, Females would be warming the benches. So again this is about nature. I'm not one for fighting or arguing about nature. In situations such as NASCAR we can ask whether Danica Patrick is paid equitably. That is does she make the kind of money someone with her experience, wins, etc would get paid?

54. I can touch, hug, or be emotionally expressive with other men while watching sports without observers perceiving this behavior as sexual.

I'm confused here. Really. E-mail me the explanation of this.

58. I can rest assured that most of the coaches -even in predominately-female sports within my race are male.

Is this true? The few times I have watched WNBA games I have not seen male coaches. For the record I do not follow baseball, basketball or football so my position is based on limited observation.

59. I am able to play sports outside without my shirt on and it not be considered a problem.
60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to cover up.

I am TOTALLY for a no shirt rule for women. Totally. Pass the petition and the pen.

61. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where the mutilation and disfigurement of a girl’s genitalia is used to deny her sexual sensations or to protect her virginity for males.

This would not be a privilege of men. Burden on those women, yes but not a privilege of men. Why? Men in those societies are generally circumsised as well. Not defending the practice at all but the point it out here.

63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.

Really? Really? I'm not even going to comment on that. No I will. Ellen Sirleaf, Yaa Assantewa, the unnamed black woman who teamed up with a black king in a slave ship to overthrow the slaver. We're done. And I'm not including the Caribbean or South America.

66. In college, I will have the opportunity to date outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women will.

That's a privilege and not a choice available to both genders? Really?

68. I know that the further I go in education the more success I will have with women.

Privilege or burden? The male of the species usually has to prove that he is:

1) Verile 2) Able to protect 3) Provide shelter. In our society in which straight physicality as indicators of "fitness to breed" has been eclipsed by ability to make money by non-physical means a higher educated male USUALLY is indicative of the last two "requirements". Of course that means a male must spend an inordinate amount of time collecting money and the like to get that status. On the flip side females ONLY have to show that they are fertile and "look good" to snag a man. Seems that the privilege here is on the female as she generally has to "do less" to successfully snag a mate.

71. In college, I will experience a level of status and prestige that is not offered to black women even though black women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.

First I've heard this one. Of course if the latter part of the statement is true, that black women will outnumber me, then it stands to reason that my elevated status as college man is warranted. If it is in fact warranted due to the "great odds" against me, then it's not a privilege is it? Well at least not an unearned one.

73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.

More specifically,White men. Ask yourself reader how many black blogs regularly and normally report news and opinion originating in black press other black bloggers or other black sources generally not deemed "acceptable" by white press?

75. I can dismissively refer to another persons grievances as ^*ing.

And when it is then what is it?

77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry

Again with the personal choices. Statistics don't necessarily confer privilege. There is nothing other than the willingness of adults to prevent anyone from breeding with and marrying whoever they please. I'm not encouraging this behavior but I won't join this particular camp of policing peoples personal sexual behavior.

78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.

Question: Is a strong black man (whatever that is) ever defined by his ability to be without the mother of his children? Is he defined by him declaring his non desire to "need/want some woman."? I ask this because the "strong black men" I know (not speaking of the so called "thugs") all have as a shared characteristic the desire to have a "strong" woman by his side and to provide for his children. On the flip side I see a common thread among self declared "Strong black woman" a theme of "don't need no man." The proverbial "attitude" alluded to in an earlier point.

80. Chances are I will be defined as a "good man" by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don't beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a "good man". In comparison, women are rarely defined as "good women" based on what they do not do.

Really? In what universe? Sarcasm aside I do think that the author has stumbled across an issue of language usage. I think the deeper issue that he has alluded to is our propensity to define other black people by the absence of negative traits rather than the presence of positive ones.

That said though I still fail to see how this is a privilege. After all who wants to be sized up by a set of negatives?

83. In the Black Church, the majority of the pastoral leadership is male.
84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume that the man is the head of household.

Two points here:

1) You take on the slave master's religion so don't be mad when it marginalizes you.
2) Even in black original religions males are generally seen as head of household even if not seen as head of lineage. That goes back to the natural state of males as natures protectors. He is the gateway because he is first line of defense. This point goes back to my question in regards to the presupposition that man as head of household is definitively bad.

85. I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex.

86. I have the privilege of knowing men who are physically or sexually abusive to women and yet I still call them friends.

a dubious privilege if there was one. Black men rarely call the police on black women because it is generally shameful to admit one is being abused by a female even though it happens as frequently as male on female abuse (if not in severity). I'm not sure what research the author is using but I would wonder exactly how widespread the idea of police calling as race traitor is and how much of this is out of legitimate concern over the common railroading of black males through the "justice" system for relatively minor offenses.

In regards to point 86. I don't know how widespread that is either. The vast majority of men do not engage in sexually or physically abusive behavior towards women so we're talking about a small population and it is HIGHLY likely that those who befriend such people are abusers themselves. I would hesitate to extend blanket "Black male privilege" over the actions of a few.

87. I can video tape women in public- often without their consent - with male complicity.

Again with the policing behavior. Unless we're talking about up-skirt cameras, anyone in public is in the public domain. Most people do not realize this but when you are out in public ANYONE can take your picture and you have NO rights to stop them. That's how gossip magazines and websites work. That men, who are visual by nature, tend to take pictures of women who catch their notice more than women do is not a privilege. It is a right. Deal with it.

88. I can be courteous to a person of the opposite sex that I do not know and say "Hello" or "Hi" and not fear that it will be taken as a come-on or fear being stalked because of it.

50/50 here. Nothing against "hitting on people" in public spaces.People have the right to attempt to strike up a conversation with whomever they please. Everyone has the right to decline an invite to conversation. Deal with it. The latter part is definitely a concern and a privilege.

89. I can use physical violence or the threat of physical violence to get what I want when other tactics fail in a relationship.

It should read: "I can TRY to use physical violence or the threat of physical violence..." Cause if the woman involved has enough sense she'll leave any man that first tries that. Again though I'm not prepared to lay blanket "privilege" status to something a small minority of men engage in. I want to be clear here that I object to the extension of criminal behavior to black men in general. Criminal behavior is never a privilege and ought not be framed as such.

94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.

I'm leery of this one because I have come across a number of proclaimed feminist who feel that if a man so much as looks at her, it is sexual harassment. Seriously. I have actually had this discussion. Simple attempts to engage in conversation in public was deemed sexual harassment. I'm serious about that one too. What bothers me is the usual loud silence by other feminists when these things are said and posted on certain feminist websites. They call it "creating a safe place for women". I call it tolerating and allowing the promotion of BS. Fact is that among normal human males and females, the fact that we as a species are poly-estrous means that "mating season" is every day of the week. Human males and females try to get each others attention every day of the week. It is normal. There are a lot of men who go way overboard on their attention seeking. This is where culture and proper parental upbringing (particularly fathers and father figures) come into play.

Let me give an example from another member of the animal kingdom, the elephant. A documentary on some African elephants showed that there was a bunch of male calves who were acting out. They would fight and in general engage in destructive behaviors. The keepers discovered that in this particular preserve there were not a lot of (if any) mature male elephants. They introduced a number of mature males from another preserve. Within a few months the once rampaging young male elephants stopped their bad behavior due to the interference of and training by the newly introduced mature males. The lesson is clear. Young men are best trained in proper behavior by [relatively] dominant older males. It is not surprising that we have a generation of males who are generally fatherless running around in such a way that makes females fear them. Males who into their early adulthood dress and act in immature manners.

To conclude I want to re-iterate that the linked piece definitely has it's points. Black males enjoy privileges that extend from simply being male. To deny that would be dishonest. However; we must not fall into the general feminist trap of wading into anti-male territory. A lot of feminists actually have issues with being a woman much like many so called "pro-black" people have issues with being black. Instead of dealing with their personal issues and failures as women (or as black persons) they project their issues onto their perceived oppressor. They idealize themselves by projecting all negatives on their opposite. Things are rarely that cut and dry. Lastly we need to consider that to everything there is a positive and a negative. Everything can't be all good or all bad. Sometimes things are exactly what they are because that is the way it should be.

Garvey's Ghost TV 3-1-2010

The True Evangelical Face

Police said a pastor urged followers to attack the ceremony, resulting in a crowd of people throwing rocks at the voodoo followers.

Beauvoir claimed the Protestant Evangelicals attacked the ceremony along with other people they hired, causing a number of injuries.


He also accused Evangelical denominations of using post-quake aid supplies such as food and medicine to try to "buy souls."

Yahoo News

Cornel West

I may be late on this but here's Dr. West saying the same thing I've been saying for many months.

That’s why you never hear Barack Obama or President Obama go to the corporate world and say, “I am a president of all America and not corporate America.” You never hear him say that when he goes to the Catholic world — they have a culture of life — “I am not a president of Catholics; I am a president of all Americans.” He would never go there in the Jewish world. He doesn’t go to a Jewish context and say, “I’m president of all Americans; I’m not president of Jewish America.” But when it comes to black people, he thinks he can get away with that. That’s ridiculous. We’re not putting up with it.

Alternet

Martin Delany

Of late I've been having some discussions in regards to Marcus Garvey. It made my mind run back upon Martin Delany who is arguably one of if not THE first Black Nationalist in the US. His book The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, And Destiny of the Colored People of the United States is a must read for anyone studying Black Nationalism, Black Emigration ideology and Pan-Africanism, particularly Garveyism.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-22-2010

Necessity and Invention

The women we met were growing vegetables on what they call “vertical farms/gardens.” But instead of skyscrapers, these farms are in tall, recycled sacks filled with soil, and the women grow crops in them on different levels by poking holes in the bags. They mainly plant seeds and seedlings of spinach, kale, sweet pepper and spring onions.

All Africa

How is this not Terrorism?

Man flies plane into government building because he was mad at said government. How is it not terrorism?
Explain that to me. Under law passed under the Bush administration and carried on under the Obama administration terrorism is defined as:

The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

Now it's not that I agree with the above definition but as it stands the flying of the plane into the IRS building was clearly a violent act, intended on instilling fear with a generally political/ideological goal (the IRS sucks).

The ONLY reason that I can see that this is not being called terrorism is because the person who committed this act was a white christian male. Lets keep it real. If the man was a US citizen named, Abdul and had a beard, there would be extensive talk about what terror cell he must have belonged to.

Expected Bell Decision.

Citing insufficient evidence, federal authorities said Tuesday that they would not bring a civil rights case against the New York City police officers involved in the killing of Sean Bell, a 23-year-old black man who was shot by the police outside a strip club in Queens on his wedding day...officials from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did not find enough evidence to prove that the officers had willfully acted to deny the men their constitutional rights, according to a statement from the Justice Department.

“Neither accident, mistake, fear, negligence, nor bad judgment is sufficient to establish a federal criminal civil rights violation,” the statement said.

NY Times

I say this is expected due to my analysis of the verdict where I wrote:

If you read all the counts you'll note that there is NO second degree manslaughter charge against Isnora or Oliver for shooting at Guzman. This is significant because first degree manslaughter charges requires the proof of intent. I said back in march of 2007 that intent would not be provable. Second degree manslaughter requires no intent.


Once it was shown in court, by both Isnora and Oliver that the target of their weapons fire was Guzman, it didn't matter what happened to Bell (case wise) Bell becomes collateral damage from the assault on Guzman.

It would be foolhardy to think that the lawyers here did not have Civil Rights law in mind as they defended their clients. As the US attorney pointed out, unless you can show intent, there is no violation.

let you and I do something that "accidentally" cause someone's death and see how we fare.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-15-2010

White Supremacist Speaks

It is always "amusing" to see White Supremacist literature find it's way into the "gray lady" and today was one of those days. Hot on the heels of Ishmael Reed's take on Precious, the Op-Ed page offers an example of why white supremacy is alive and well in the US.:

a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Oh It's so nice and convenient to shrug off US responsibility for the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It's the Autocratic leaders responsibility. And "nuclear umbrella"? Someone has been playing too much Missile Command.

Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms.

Demand? Of course! The west gets to demand all manner of stuff from other people. It's a nice arrangement isn't it?

Second, becoming the primary provider of regional security in a nuclear Middle East would give the United States a way to break the OPEC cartel. Forcing an end to the sorts of monopolistic practices that are illegal in the United States would be the price of that nuclear shield, bringing oil prices down significantly and saving billions of dollars a year at the pump. Or, at a minimum, President Obama could trade security for increased production and a lowering of global petroleum prices.

Break? Oh those pesky sand niggers! Hoarding all that oil and having the gall, the unmitigated GALL to demand we pay for it. Don't these A-rabs know that we take what we want? That old gunboat diplomacy. You will sell oil at this price or we'll let Iran slip a few nukes through that umbrella.

Third, Israel has made clear that it feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program. The Palestinians also have a reason for concern, because a nuclear strike against Israel would devastate them as well. This shared danger might serve as a catalyst for reconciliation between the two parties, leading to the peace agreement that has eluded the last five presidents. Paradoxically, any final agreement between Israelis and Palestinians would go a long way to undercutting Tehran’s animosity toward Israel, and would ease longstanding tensions in the region.

I've said it before. Only a person who's drinking the Vodka laced Kool Aid actually thinks that Iran would drop a nuke on Palestine. The nukes they want are the nukes that keeps idiots like GWB from being dumb enough to send troops into Iran or otherwise implement "regime change". Trust me. The day Iran announces a working nuclear missile capable of reaching middle America a whole lot of things will change.

In any case what will change the situation in Israel is for the US to stop selling arms to that country. You can't seriously be upset about Iran's actions after the election there and then let the Gaza invasion go by with a Kanye shrug(tm).

Fourth, a growth in exports of weapons systems, training and advice to our Middle Eastern allies would not only strengthen our current partnership efforts but give the American defense industry a needed shot in the arm.

More money for "defense"? Yeah that should deal with unemployment.

Last, the United States would be able to stem the flow of dollars to autocratic regimes in the region. It would accomplish this not only by driving down the price of oil and increasing arms exports, but by requiring the beneficiaries of American security to bear a real share of its cost. And in the long run, a victory in the war on terrorism would save taxpayers the tens of billions of dollars a year now spent on overseas counterinsurgency operations.

Yeah they can have the real share cause, you know, people getting blown to bits while going about their business and having streets filled with bomb craters and shot up or bombed out buildings isn't cost enough.

Personally I think if they're going to let this kind of nonsense end up in the Op-Ed, then Farrakhan or Rev. Wright ought to get a piece of Op-Ed action.

Rape in the DRC

In 2004, DWB treated 270 rape victims over the course of the year in North Kivu. Today, they treat that many victims of rape on average every month. While nearly 54 percent of those affected are ages 19 to 45, a startling 40 percent of victims are girls under the age of 18. Women are targets working in the fields. Women are targets walking home. Women are targets virtually everywhere.

It's why I call them "So called freedom fighters"

Alternet

Ismael Reed NYT Op-Ed

This use of movies and books to cast collective shame upon an entire community doesn’t happen with works about white dysfunctional families. It wasn’t done, for instance, with “Requiem for a Dream,” starring the great Ellen Burstyn, about a white family dealing with drug addiction, or with “The Kiss,” a memoir about incest — in that case, a relationship between a white father and his adult daughter.

Reed is my hero.

NYT

Obey the Rules, Get Sanctioned

PARIS — Officials from the United States, France and Russia called Monday for stronger measures against Tehran after Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it would begin enriching its stockpile of uranium to power a medical reactor in Tehran. In Paris, the visiting United States defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, told a news conference that “the only path that is left to us at this point” was to exert greater pressure on the Iranian authorities, Reuters reported.

Let's get this straight. Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty has done what it is required of it and reported to the UNAE that it will be enriching uranium for it's medical nuclear reactor (for the dense, that's peaceable use) which is fully within the scope of rules of NPT signatories, and the "West" is threatening sanctions.

Why is anyone not on the Security Council even taking the UN seriously anymore? The UN is a joke. If Ban-Ki-Moon had any backbone; any firmness in his pants. He would have told the representatives of the countries prattling on about Iran to shut up.

I have no doubt that the Obama administration will say some dumb BS in order for Obama to look "presidential".

NY Times

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-8-2010

Black people are not dark-skinned white people.

Nice to see that in print somewhere other than here.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-1-2010

Two parts. First one "content claim" video so I can't embed it from YouTube here:
part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOig90PGLTo

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9_SzJi5gw

Warning: there is some "salty language" in this video.

The Upright Man

He opposed foreign aid, saying that ‘he who feeds you, controls you.’ Decades before talk of cancellation of Africa’s debt became acceptable in world banking circles, Sankara called for a united front of African nations to repudiate their foreign debt. He argued that the poor and exploited did not have an obligation to repay money to the rich and exploiting.

Website: http://adiama.com/ancestralconnections/2010/01/23/thomas-sankara-the-upright-man/

Website to order: http://www.newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0205&s=Sankara

Boojum Hunting in the Caribbean

"However, away from the glare of the international media, a team of Cuban doctors has been working among the quake-affected. The Cuban government offered its medical expertise to the governments of Pakistan and India immediately after the magnitude of the destruction caused by the quake was known. The Indian government did not even acknowledge the offer. Pakistan, where the scale of disaster was humongous, was quick to accept the offer. The first Cuban medical team was in Pakistan on October 14, six days after the earthquake." (Frontline December 17, 2005)
In short order the Cubans had established 19 field hospitals staffed by more than 700 doctors – half of them women – working 12 hour shifts.
This was in Pakistan in 2005.
Pakistan is 14,000 miles from Cuba and the Cubans were working in foreign conditions, in fierce cold, in a country with whom Cuba had no diplomatic relations.
There are now more than 25,000 Cuban doctors working outside their country and an almost equal number of teachers
If you think that boojums are a figment of my imagination, consider this: Three weeks ago the US government identified Cuba as one of the countries exporting terrorism.
After 200 years, the heirs of Jefferson are still hunting boojums in the Caribbean

Black Agenda Report

Another Black Man shot down by Police

Fun Facts about New Orleans

Despite widely publicized advance warning, a "secret shopper" audit of the Quarter found rampant discrimination in local businesses. Bars had different dress codes, admission charges and drink prices—all based on whether the patron was Black or white.

That's pretty bold.

Counterpunch

Racial threat puts Ohio college on alert, on edge

"We'd be sitting at a lunch table and some guys would be sitting across the room, and they'd be screaming, like, 'n----- lover' across the table," Marengo said. "I had enough of it one day and I got up and I just started yelling at them and telling them, like, 'There is no reason for you to treat someone like that.'"

I'm askin' What exactly kind of punk black students attend this school? Seriously. Teeth would be lost when I was in school if somebody were so "bold" to talk that shit in the caf.

All I got to say to these black students. You need to get your Black Panther/Deacons for defense on. I'd be walking around on campus with a machette and any university official who gave me junk would be shown a picture of the threat. Serious I would be The Book Of Eli. Quick with the blade.



Washington Post

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-25-2010

Comment Money Shot

From the Comments on Roger Cohen's piece on China:

It is interesting to compare China and US. Both have a single-party democracy, that is both are ruled by a single group of elites. The difference is that in China these elites join the Chinese Communist Party, but in US these elites all work for Wall Street.

Security Fools

Paul Craig Roberts latest:

One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S.government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.

Sunstein defines those who criticize the government’s increasingly lawless behavior as “extremists,” which, to the general public, sounds much like “terrorists.” In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.’s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a “terrorist plot” in order to arrest them. That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.

Herbert: "Blacks in Retreat"

Some decades ago, you would have heard a sustained outcry against such dire conditions among blacks, and there would have been loud demands for policy changes designed to bring more black Americans into the economic mainstream. You don’t hear much of that now. Too many so-called black leaders are much more interested in invitations to the White House and positive profiles in mainstream publications than in raising any kind of ruckus that might benefit people in real trouble.

And he's to my right.

NY Times

Real Deal on Yele

But tax experts say it's routine for individuals to charge their own charities, so long as services are being provided in return. "The tax rules do not prohibit related party transactions," said Marcus Owen, former chief of the IRS unit that oversees non-profits.

And the filing also stated that the charges were "below market." This is an important distinction supporting legitimacy, according to Owen, who said that rules require that they be at no more than market value.

CNN Money

Yeah, they tried and succeeded on this same tip with Garvey.

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-18-2010

Senegal offers land to Haitians

President Abdoulaye Wade said Haitians were sons and daughters of Africa since Haiti was founded by slaves, including some thought to be from Senegal.

BBC

Wyclef Responds to critiques

A Message from Marcus Garvey

Fellow Citizens of Africa.

I once trod the earth. I looked around and saw the conditions of my fellow Africans and I asked: Where is the Black man's great nations? Where are his captains of industry? Where are his big thinkers? Not seeing these, I set about to address these deficiencies. I set about to organize the millions of black men and women into a unified force for the liberation and build up of Africa. I set about to create a steamship company to impress upon the African the importance of being economically independent.

I called upon Negroes everywhere that regardless of their citizenship, that we have a common interest in the development of Africa and to connect up with our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean and central and south America. For this I was ridiculed and framed up. So called "leaders" in America and Jamaica conspired with government agents to discredit me and the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League. They aimed to discredit and thwart the Black Star Line. They said that my "scheme" was only a means to part people with their money. They said that it was a waste of time and effort.

Now I look upon the world and I see the destruction of Haiti. Our first independent Black nation in the Western Hemisphere. I see the island that scared Thomas Jefferson and the slave holders in North America. I see the people who inspired revolution in South America. And again I am forced to ask: Where is the black man?

Where is his red Cross? His red Ankh? His red Ako-Ben? Where is his big ship carrying supplies under the Black Star of Ghana? Where is his big plane carrying loads of food and supplies from our lands where there are three growing seasons? Where is his organized search and rescue? Where is his heavy equipment? Where is his medicine and floating hospitals?

Today the African living in the west is richer than any generation of African than any other time. Today Africa with it's so called independence is no less a slave to the colonial powers than it was during my time on earth. It has been nearly one hundred years since I last trod the earth and still we are dependent upon non-Africans for basic things. We import clothes from China and then wonder why we have high unemployment. We import food and wonder why our farmers are poor. We import transportation and wonder why we have no expertise in design. So when we import rather than produce and purchase for ourselves, we find that we lack the finances, we lack the intellectual resources to develop for ourselves and therefore leave ourselves vulnerable to such tragedies. And then
our representatives must go, hat in hand to our former colonizers, with sad eyes and a smile, for help.

Yours, in spirit

Marcus Garvey

Follow up on Prop 8 Arguments (response to e-mail)

A reader asked me the following in regards to my opinion on the Prop. 8 arguments as presented by the LA Times (they have a video here):

think you make a compelling case about the Utah precedent, however I am
curious about what you think about Brown v Board 1. SpecifIcally, I am
inclined to compare the Prop 8 couple's testimony thus far to the "Doll
experiment" used in Brown. Where African American children were given a
choice between a black doll and white doll and asked which is better. They
consistently chose the white doll, the experiment was meant to underscore
the psychological ramifications of de jure racism. It was one of the most
compelling arguments of that case.

I have written my position on the Brown decision.

As discussed in the linked text, I believe the reader to have lost focus on the legal girding of Brown V. Board. Brown v. Board is an upholding of the 14th Amendment right of equal protection under the law. As discussed in the text, the discussion of feelings of inferiority are so much nonsense used to "grease the wheel" and make a sympathetic case. Furthermore I show how even in the decision there is a clear focus on the supposed damages done to "negroes" while there is an implied statement that white students suffer no ill effects from segregation. Negroes need whites around in order to feel good about themselves while whites thrive in the presence or absence of Negroes. Thus while the court may have been inclined to make a statement on racism legally it has no grounds to base law or legal rulings on the "feelings" of the plaintiffs or defendants.

In reference to the Doll experiment, I have also weighed in on this subject. Of interest in the latest rendition of the Doll experiment as conducted by GMA, was that all the students are in "integrated" schools and one of the students I discussed was biracial and many of them, particularly the girls, still had negative attitudes towards the black dolls. From that, it can be argued that Brown V. Board was an total failure in addressing the "feelings of inferiority" among "Negroes".

As stated earlier, such legal arguments were legal greasing but did not address the actual legal foundation of the Brown V. Board decision and therefore while they pay be emotionally swaying, such emotional arguments ought be completely disregarded in regards to Prop. 8.

What I see in the Anti-Prop. 8 movement and indeed within the larger movement is to have homosexuality psychologically acceptable in the larger society. It proposes the normalization of such behavior. That is their business. The problem is that as a legal strategy I think such emotional arguments will fall flat. If they want to use the example of Brown V. Board then they are going to have to stick to Equal Protection argument. IE: we do not get x,y.z government benefits.

Although unlikely, it is entirely possible that the govt. may decide to restructure such benefits (I'm having a hard time with the term "rights" for much of what I've seen discussed) in such a way that they only apply to the individual and the individual opts to cover whomever they want. For example, had single payer been passed by the government, the entire health benefit argument would be tossed out, because everyone is covered regardless of marital status.

Another example would be SS benefits that are passed from a deceased spouse to the surviving spouse. SS could be restructured such that blood relatives or any designated non-blood person would receive benefits. In that way the government does not make any provision for married couples but married couples AND single, co-habitating, common law, or whatever are ALL free to designate who they want their govt. benefits to go to.


In my opinion the only equitable means of dealing with this issue that does not run afoul of religious liberties, is to have all levels of government get out of the marriage business. No city hall ceremonies. Marriage remains the social institution it is and would be performed by any religious or social group that the people involved wish to deal with.

The states can do what they do when people form legal businesses. The submit an application to form a "domestic partnership" with as many or few people as they want. The state simply certifies the declaration of this domestic entity. That is all. Everybody has a domestic partnership regardless of what genders are involved or how many people are involved. This would legally help hospitals with privacy laws that prevent non-relatives from access to or making decisions for patients. Show your certificate and that's taken care of.

I think the above is the best way to address the legal "equal protection" issue, without running into the sociology and cultural issue of what is and who should be recognized as "married".

Dear Pat Robertson (and the chick standing next to him)

The Vile Pat Robertson

VIDEO- Pat Robertson: Haiti disaster due to Haiti's "pact at the Devil.

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/01/video-pat-robertson-haiti-disaster-due.html

Some donation Ideas for Haiti

For those who are contemplating sending stuff to Haiti you should consider a few things. Send toiletries. Think about it. Homes are destroyed and the bowels do not wait for construction. People need to relieve themselves and will need to clean up after themselves. donating toiletries will help to prevent waterborne and contact diseases that spread due to unsanitary conditions.

If you have the means, portable generators AND portable solar chargers are a good idea. People are without power. Haiti is blessed to be somewhere with much sunshine. people with cell phones and radios are going to need power in order to get news in and out of Haiti. Solar chargers can keep communication devices up and running. The ability to communicate is important. Generators are obvious but need fuel to run which could limit their effectiveness. long term though they will be needed once the initial triage is done and construction starts up.

Water purifiers. I'm not an expert in this field and I don't know much more than the Brita filters I use. But potable water is in need and who knows how much of the water is not purified. Non-purified water can lead to a number of gastro-intestinal diseases that are easily transmitted and are the second wave after the earthquake.

Of course there is a need for non-perishable food items (canned food). Food has been a serious issue in Haiti for a long time and no doubt is going to be worse now. While you or I may not indulge in many canned foods for health reasons. fact is that this is a survival issue for many Canned food is beats no food.

[update] I forgot to mention tents. It's near 90 degrees F over there as a daytime high. People need shelter and tents.

Really these things are more important than clothes right now. You can wear clothes for many days without much ill effects but being exposed to the elements is not good.

Haiti

YELE HAITI EARTHQUAKE FUND (www.yele.org): Text YELE to 501501 to donate $5 via your cell

Prop 8 arguments

The L.A. Times, in a report on the testimony in the Prop. 8 case reveals a few things:

Much of the quoted testimony, which may not be the entire or best testimony, show that there is an emphasis on social acceptance rather than actual legal issues. For example:

Jeffrey J. Zarrillo, one of the plaintiffs, was the first to be called to the stand. Zarrillo, 36, a manager in the entertainment industry, testified tearfully about being denied the right to marry Paul T. Katami, his partner of nearly nine years and a co-plaintiff.

"He is the love of my life," Zarrillo said. He testified that marriage "is the logical next step" for him and Katami. It would send the message that they are serious and committed to each other, he said. Checking into hotels with Katami is often "awkward," he said, as clerks sometimes ask if they meant to reserve a king-size bed.

Well perhaps logical to him but the big flaw in his statement here is that the courts have no jurisdiction over "awkwardness."

Katami, 37, a group fitness manager, called himself "a natural born gay" and testified that being denied marriage felt like being "relegated to a corner."

"I don't think of myself as a bad person," Katami said in response to questions from Boies...

All of the plaintiffs testified that domestic partnership is substantially different from marriage. They complained that they do not have access to the word "marriage" to explain their relationships and feel either shunned or pitied.

Nor does the court have any jurisdiction over feelings of inferiority. It would be a particularly bad precedent for the court to make the decision based on emotions rather than actual legal issues.

However a witness for the plaintiffs made a particularly strong statement:

The day ended with testimony from Harvard professor Nancy Cott, an expert in the history of marriage in the United States.

She said Cooper's opening statement that marriage between two members of the opposite sex was universal was inaccurate. Ancient Jews were polygamous, she said, and in some countries Muslims can marry several women.

Which leads to my oft stated position that the hypocrisy of the pro-same sex marriage movement is that it does not actually promote marriage equality because it too discriminates against persons who wish to marry more than one woman (or man). This is a blind spot caused by the generally Christian backers of Prop. 8 How they, with a straight face say that Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, is beyond me. Solomon had many wives.

That blindness also causes them to not realize that they have a strong argument in their favour in the form of the state of Utah. Utah was admitted into the Union only after it was forced to abridge the religious and personal freedom of it's citizens. This is a strong precedent in favor of prop. 8. If the govt. can claim, that there was and still is a compelling interest in abridging the religious and personal freedom of Mormons and any one else who wishes to practice polygamy, then it can certainly make the same claim in the case of same sex marriage. If I were a lawyer in the pro prop 8 camp. I would hammer this theme.

Ultimately I believe exactly what Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked if the state should simply get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.

"That may solve the problem," Olson said, but it "would never happen."

That would be the only way to be "equal".

On the Anti-Prop 8 side, they will need to keep the talk about the legal issues surrounding services, particularly by the government that are denied to them on the basis of marital status. The risk for them, is that the government could go where I think it should, and simply not give out marriage licenses to anyone and everyone would have a "civil union" or "certificate of co-habitation" or whatever they decide to call it.

Oh and the comparisons to Dred Scott are entirely out of order. Dred Scott (and by extension Loving) was about the legal designation of blacks as less than human and therefore not even covered by the laws of the land. There is no argument being put forth that homosexual men and women are not human. Anti-Miscegenation laws were again based on white supremacist science that claimed that not only were blacks sub-human but because of that the offspring of such breeding would be sub-human as well.

Garvey's Ghost TV 1-11-2010

Why Is Reid Apologising?

Senator Reid has apologised for predicting that Obama would be president because he was "Light Skinned" and had "no Negro Dialect."

Why?

He is absolutely correct. Not only that, but he is not the first or only person to have pointed this out. Anyone who has been paying any attention to race in America knows full well that real black men scare the bejesus out of white folk. On the premier episode of Garvey's Ghost TV I discussed the African-American man who was told by his boss that he "intimidated" people when he wore suits.

Reid has said nothing wrong and said nothing that is historically inaccurate so why is he apologizing? He's apologizing because a set of black folk who: a) don't know history b) are completely stuck on themselves since Obama was elected love for nothing less than to "stick it to the white man" regardless of fact.

Oh so you don't believe Reid was correct? Well I wrote about it back in February of 2008 quoting an article by Heather Grey:

Then I met with a white friend who's a Ph.D. and teaches at one of the local Universities. She was so excited about Obama and has given him financial support. "I am tired of the black/white scenario in America. I'm pleased that Barrack has a white mother and a black father. He's of a mixed race. This is important and changes the landscape."

So why is Reid apologizing? Seriously. If people claim they want to have "honest" conversations about race in America, then you can start right there. Reid ought not to have apologized. Sharpton ought not to have twitted junk like this:

I told Sen. Reid that there was some uncomfortable truths about how some Americans see some Blacks different than others, the words he used Bad and certainly offensive[sic]. There was a lot of very offensive statements made in 08 by Pres. Clinton, then Sen. Biden and even some blacks

They weren't offensive to anyone with a clue. Only clueless, no history knowing idiots would be offended by the comment and, you know what? Clueless, no history knowing idiots do not deserve apologies.

On a side note, I have to say this. I'm starting to be particularly annoyed by Rev. Al. Anyone who's followed this blog knows I've gone to bat for Sharpton. Repeatedly. I've been a general supporter of him since he was wearing sweatsuits with a gold medalion. I'm talking "Day's of Outrage" and shut down subway stations. I go way back. I completely understand maturing. I totally understand making a living. But of late he has been doing some stuff that is seriously questionable. I'm extremely concerned with him on board this "education reform" that has been pushing Charter Schools and is being led by someone who has been extremely hostile to black teachers. I've watched his tweets and I'm not impressed. Not at all. Then he ran his mouth of regarding that Basketball player when the facts regarding guns and athletes made the public commentary completely uncalled for. As of today, no more going to bat for him. But I should have known when the Sean Bell protest in Harlem had the "permission" of the police.

Anyway, I'm sure there are a whole lot of "Negroes" who will be exalting in Reids comeuppance at the cost of their own intelligence.

D.K. Wilson Sets it Straight

How can this be an NBA problem, or a young Black man problem? Or a rap music problem? Or a gang problem? How can that be, Al and Stephen and Bob Ley who, on ESPN's investigative news show, Outside the Lines he hosts, said, "The NBA has a gun problem."
How can this be Bob when you hosted an OTL special about guns and professional athletes and the star of your series was --------- a White baseball player? Stephen A., you worked at ESPN when that special was aired.
You mean to tell me you both forgot the player said most, if not all of his MLB-playing friends are strapped; that he said he stays strapped and if anybody wants trouble he's not afraid to shoot first and ask questions later?
Did no other sports writer or columnist in this country watch the week-long OTL special on guns and athletes? Didn't hear about it? Didn't know someone who DVR'd it?
Nothing?!

Counterpunch

A pill to "cure" naps?

From Essence via the Black Snob

According to NaturallyCurly.com, the Australian scientists that discovered the curly gene (aka trichohyalin) are now working on creating a pill that would "cure" genetically textured locks. This pill would render relaxers, texturizers, and flatirons obsolete--but it could also signal the end of luscious, Tracee Ellis Ross-type curls, forever. The thing is, if scientists can isolate the gene that causes curly hair, what's to stop them from one day reversing or removing the gene altogether? It's a chilling thought.

And I wont EVEN go into how the original comparo was to Tracee Ellis Ross, you know the not so black daughter of Dianna Ross. Really. But you know, it's Negro thinking like that why such a thing will, if produced, will be a smash hit. I already have to stomach seeing skin lightening creams, full of poison, on the shelf of the predominantly black supermarket I frequent.

Christians Banned from using the Word "Allah"

I had to read this shit twice to make sure I read it right:

Later in the day, small crowds rallied outside two major mosques in the capital, in a growing protest over a court ruling that overturned a government ban on the use of “Allah” by Roman Catholics as a translation for God.

of all the ridiculous speech laws. And for this Three churches are firebombed. How dumb are these people:

The government has appealed and has been granted a stay of the High Court ruling on Dec. 31 that allowed a Catholic newspaper to use the word “Allah” in its Malay-language editions.

The word has been widely used as a translation for the word “God” in Malay-language texts and services, particularly among Christian indigenous tribes in the remote states of Sabah and Sarawak.

It is also the common word used to describe the Christian God in Arabic-speaking countries like Egypt and Syria and in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, whose language is a variant of the Malay language.

During the current dispute, many Muslims here have argued that the use of the word by other religions could confuse believers and tempt them to convert from Islam.

Yeah, wouldn't want that would we.

And then people wonder why certain European countries start passing anti-Muslim laws.

Africa Take Note

Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home

Recently, though, China has begun to exert a reverse pull. In the past three years, renowned scientists like Dr. Shi have begun to trickle back. And they are returning with a mission: to shake up China’s scientific culture of cronyism and mediocrity, often cited as its biggest impediment to scientific achievement.
They are lured by their patriotism, their desire to serve as catalysts for change and their belief that the Chinese government will back them.
“I felt I owed China something,” said Dr. Shi, 42, who is described by Tsinghua students as caring and intensely driven. “In the United States, everything is more or less set up. Whatever I do here, the impact is probably tenfold, or a hundredfold.”

BAR declared Black Politcs Dead...

Garvey's Ghost made that declaration years ago. In 2007 I wrote:

The current generation of the black middle class, which incidentally are the early edges of the Hip Hop generation, is only interested in a few things: money and access. As with the rest of us in this generation, we learned all to well that rocking the boat and talking that "black shit" was an expressway to being marginalized and a "promotion killer". If we can't go natural, speak our minds and wear "um-foo-foo" shit, then no way we are going to allow McKinney to mess us up.*

In 2006 after Cynthia McKinney was defeated in her bid for Congress I wrote:

More important to me though, is the sign that this defeat indicates for black protest politics. One would have hoped that the increase in affluent black people in Georgia's 4th district would have meant that a stand up person such as McKinney would have a relatively easy time of it being able to raise funds from a local, affluent group of black folks who could insulate her from the racists whites around her who have, as of today called her a "bitch" and a "Ho". Instead we have seen that this affluent class of blacks are far from their humble roots. Instead of "truth to power" they actually voted for a person who made a clearly "racist" remark that in other circumstances would be directed at them. Instead of holding the Democratic Party's feet to the fire for it's blatant discrimination against McKinney, this group has voted for someone less likely to "rock the boat." Indeed these voters have forsaken the letter from a Birmingham jail written by their native son Dr. King Jr. in which he lamented even the black clergy and other leaders for their willingness to "go slow" and "not rock the boat" and to stand up for principle. Indeed it would appear that with their newfound wealth and societal acceptance, they are slowly becoming that which was marched against. To vote McKinney out of office because the police harassed her, when we know that police do, in fact harass black people, is a poor political decision (even though it was a bad decision on McKinney's part). To call McKinney "looney" because she dared to be the first to ask the important questions regarding 9-11 and the Iraq war, is a bad political decision. When the purpose of congressional representation is simply to see how much money the representative can get out of the treasury rather than the sworn oath to uphold the constitution, which no one can say McKinney has not done. then black voters become no better than many of the people of other races they read and talk about in private. And if that is the direction that the "upwardly mobile" affluent class of blacks are going, then Black protest politics, which has been traditionally rooted in steadfastness, truth and fairness is dead and is being replaced with a politics compromise on principle, unethical behavior and selfishness. One only needs to look at Andrew Young, who went from labor activist to a front man for corporate exploitation. My how the potentially mighty have gone to sleep.

In reference to the election of Obama I wrote:

the COINTELPRO program that was instituted by the US Government to neutralize certain types of black leadership and prevent the rise of a "black messiah" and if possible create one.

One would have to understand that this "black messiah" of which Hoover was so concerned about was one who spoke and acted in such a manner as it threatened the power of entrenched interests. That is, they feared that such a person would be able to have what would be considered a negative effect on US policy both internally and externally. Internally, such a messiah, would organize black people to resist racist oppression by the police and threaten businesses that prey upon black people. At an extreme the government was concerned that black people would rise up in an armed rebellion against the US government. To be clear, that was the extreme concern. However, As seen in the activities against Marcus Garvey (victim of the FBI predecessor MIB), Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, simply speaking out and organizing against the US government activities worldwide in such a manner that even some white people could understand was seen as a threat that needed neutralization.

To that end, the government did it's very best to destroy the most visible black leadership throughout the late 60's and early 70's. To that end we find that Dr. Frances Cress Welsing observed that black youth got the message: To stand up for black folk could get you killed. Black people have found themselves thoroughly declawed. Many former revolutionaries now sit in tenured positions at white institutions of higher education trying to make a living by recounting their lives as members of such and such organizations or they have become born again in various religions or become so called conservatives if they are not in jail, exiled or in mental institutions. While the black middle class is the largest thus far and the list of Black businesses with millions if not billions in assets have been growing steadily. Another side of black America has seen itself faced with huge incarceration rates, high unemployment among males approaching or surpassing 50% in certain urban areas and a below average marriage rate. On the international scene we have former revolutionaries as the primary terrorizers of their now "free" countries. We find Haitians eating dirt, rigged elections in Kenya spawning all manner of bloodshed...

In the end having largely ineffective black people who are good for the whims of the political and economic elites was the goal of COINTELPRO. Yes it may have been couched in language of targeting persons and organizations, but the larger goal was to put black folk back in the box. Today so called "black nationalists" are generally known as low lives, sexist men, with little job prospects with a propensity to father children they can't raise (yes this was said to me). Obama speaks this language of the old, bitter, out of touch black radical. He has repeatedly made these comments in reference to not only his pastor but by extension to those who think like him as evidenced by his comments on the white catholic priest. The fact that these statements can be made and go unchallenged by the majority of blacks, is a testament to the success of COINTELPRO.


So for anyone paying attention the declaration by Bruce Dixon is a late echo of a long announced fact.

Holocaust denial in the Arab World

On the Arab side, the most rational narrative—later we'll mention the denialist escalations that are on the rise at present—may perhaps be summarized in these terms, "We had nothing to do with the Shoah. Anti-Semitism is not an established tradition for us, but a European phenomenon. Zionism is a colonial movement that really took off in Palestine under the British colonial mandate, even though there were earlier instances. In consequence, it's a colonial implantation in the Arab world, on the model of what was seen in South Africa and elsewhere." It's the war between these two narratives that I explore in this book.

A good read.

World War 4 Report

Ireland Passes anti-blashphemy law

Utter foolishness:

Last Friday morning in Ireland, about 30 minutes after a new law took effect with the new year that makes blasphemy a crime punishable by a fine of up to $35,000, a group of Irish atheists invited the government to prosecute them by publishing 25 blasphemous statements on an Irish Web site.

According to the updated Irish Statute Book, the criminal blasphemer is defined as someone who “publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and … intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

NY Times

Nigerian Bomber

While I cracked wise on the fellow on GGTV but on a serious note, I had discussed the following with a few people:

“First of all, i have no friend. Not because i do not socialise, etc but because either people do not want to get too close to me as they go partying and stuff while i dont, or they are bad people who befriend me and influence me to do bad things. Hence…i feel depressed and lonely. i do not know what to do. And then i think this loneliness leads me to other problems. As i get lonely, the natural sexual drive awakens and i struggle to control it, sometimes leading to minor sinful activities like not lowering the gaze…. And this problem makes me want to get married to avoid getting aroused.”

It is a dangerous mix of sexually repressed young men and strict religion. I have long had issues with the whole "religious" philosophy that I observed among SDA's (but by no means limited to them) of a us vs. them. They are "out to make us sin." The view that life and non-(insert religion here) are out to get them. The whole fear mongering of completely natural and normal sexual feelings which is the norm in many denominations (not all) is very troubling to me.

Sex is bad, but apparently killing is OK.

Counterpunch

Garvey's Ghost TV

Part 1:


Part 2:

Danish Cartoonist Attacked in Home

The 74-year-old artist told his employer, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, that he had taken refuge from the attack in a fortified bathroom built into his home by the intelligence service, and was there with his 5-year-old granddaughter as the assailant, armed with an ax and a knife, tried to break in.
The newspaper quoted Mr. Westergaard as saying that the attacker shouted “Revenge!” and “Blood!” as he tried to smash down the door in the minutes before the arrival of the police, who had been notified by the artist’s setting off a panic button.

NY Times


And people were shocked about the Minaret ban. Keep this kind of thing up and it will be a lot more than building codes.

Imani

All of us may not live to see the higher accomplishment of an African Empire- so strong and powerful, as to compel the respect of mankind, but we in our life-time can so work and act to make the dream a possibility within another generation.

-Marcus Garvey