Amy Garvey Day

A fine specimen of black womanhood.

Previous Postings:

In an era where persons such as Bill Cosby are excoriated for "harsh" critiques of black behavior. We would find a less comedic form of the same criticisms from Amy, who held black men to what some would call impossibly high standards of behavior and thought.


[He] is always out of a job because he is too lazy to go out and make a job for himself; he prefers to hang around the white man's factory doors begging for a job, and oftimes gets what he deserves -a kick.



...ill bred children are a menace to any country because they develop into individuals who take on vices that often wreck their homes and endanger the safety of their communities




Garveyite women were of the opinion as said by Ula Yvette Taylor's The Veiled Garvey That if black men did not step up they ought to "be prepared to be put down and led by those who were better equipped."

December 2007: Amy Jaques Garvey

But even more profound to me, as far as I had not known, was how the refinement of Pan-Africanism, indeed much of what I have called "Neo-Garveyism" is or was in fact already formulated by Amy Jacques Garvey herself. Indeed I would have to say that it is particularly chauvinistic to say that Garvey's Ghost is merely that of Marcus but indeed is the collective ideas of Garvey and his wife.

May 22, 2006: Amy Jaques Garvey

Kujichagulia

Self-Determination. Since Cynthia McKinney lost her seat, I've been thinking on this topic. The last election really put this particular principle into sharp focus for me and a lot of other people. Here are some links to past blog entries that are related to this particular subject.

December 2004 Amilacar Cabral

November 2005: We Remember Kwame Toure (Special attention to the discussion of Black Power)

June 2008: The Triumph of COINTELPRO

I strongly suggest a reading in chronological order.

"All The Prettiest Kids are Light Skinned Anyway"

Singer Ne-Yo. Go to minute 6:45 and listen from there.

h

Yeah... Consider that a record sale lost.

From Playahata

How Jewish Is Hollywood?

The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you'd be flipping between "The 700 Club" and "Davey and Goliath" on TV all day.

LA Times

Right then. So the next time someone calls you an anti-semite for making the above observation you can tell them to kiss your...

Harlem Debate on Obama

The Great Harlem Debate: Is Obama Good For Black People?

No comments from me. Just passing this along.

Ohio State: Black kids need white kids to succeed in College

A detailed study of students at a large, predominantly-white university revealed that while living with a white roommate may be more challenging than living with someone of the same race, many Black students appear to benefit from the experience.

For African American students, this could translate into as much as 0.30-point increase in their GPA in their first quarter of college.

White students, on the other hand, were affected more by the academic ability of their roommate than by their race.

After my blood pressure goes back to normal and I read the paper in its entirety I'll post again.

Re: Then You Neva Was

On Nov. 25th I posted a response to an opinion piece by Mr. Muhammad Youngai which can be found here:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2008/11/you-neva-was.html

His original piece can be found here:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/25/yungaied_1125.html

Mr. Youngai took issue with my response and sent this reply and contacted me. I told him my standing policy that anyone that has an issue with something I wrote may submit a reply which would be posted to the blog unedited. His comments are in green, my commentary in in black.

Brother Sondjata

I’ll respond to your criticisms but some of them are really not at all legit.

First you mentioned Pan-Africanism. I never mentioned it. So why would you assume I’m not down with it? And why would you apply the insulting appellation of “confused”?

Secondly, I never said that there was an ideological conflict between working for a better America and being a Nationalist. You seem to contradict your own critique of my position where I implied that I’m now more willing to work for progressive causes not necessarily connected with Nationalism.

In the second paragraph of your AJC ed you wrote:

As a black nationalist, I have considered myself an American only as a technicality or an accident of birth. I’ve never hoisted the red, white and blue, only the red, black and green

The Red Black and Green given to Africans by Marcus Garvey, is a (if not thesymbol of Pan-Africanism. When you wrote that you saw yourself as an American by accident of birth (a statement I suppose was influenced by Malcolm X) you made the implicit argument that you put the commonality of blackness, or shall I say Africaness, before your citizenship status. That is a Pan-Africanist ideology. We should note that there are those who define "black" as "African-American" and therefore limit their idea of Nationalism to African-Americans to the exclusion of other African descended people. It is also implied by your quoted statement that you are knowledgeable of and an adherent to the ideaologies of Pan-Africanism and specifically of Garveyism for whome the RBG is attributable to. This is key, since my later arguement regarding the election of Obama is dependent upon that particular knowledge base. Hence the "confused" statement.

In regards to your willingness to work with "progressive" causes not connected with Nationalism: I say that clearly then you have a limited understanding of what Nationalism is. What "progressive" agenda is not nationalist in nature? Education? Environment? Criminal Justice? Gender issues? Please do tell. By my reading your statement continues in the ceding of "Nationalist" issues to other groups who then claim ownership of those issues. As a result accusations of "narrow nationalism" are directed at declared nationalist as they are continually marginalized. Thus your statement is yet another example of how your statements, both in the AJC and in your reply here, serve to undermine the Black Nationalist community in America.


Thirdly, ignoring your juvenile reference to a “crack pipe” I never delineated a “plan” for independent Black communities within the United States. But if you’ve studied your history or ever heard of Malcolm X, I’m sure you heard him describe Black Nationalism as controlling the communities where we live, which is the same as gaining some measure of autonomy. And you must not be aware that there are some semi-autonomous communities in America today. Some Jewish groups have their own courts and special laws which apply only to them. So called American Indians are theoretically independent (Nations) and similarly have their own courts and laws, tax exemptions, etc. We have just never fought for our own special courts, laws and rights specific to our historically unique situation. Even the Kurds in Iraq and other groups around the world have gained a certain degree of autonomy. Additionally, I don’t need Garvey to endorse any ideas that I may have. Much of life is a progression and we’re supposed to build on the work that brothers like Garvey did. This may involve having some independent thinking! Brother Garvey didn’t think of everything which is where we come in.

No you did not delineate a "plan" for independent Black communities. Of course that is usually the problem. While I have no issue with Malcolm X's definition of Black Nationalism, or Toure's either your examples of so called "semi-autonomy" in America are not nationalism. Let's examine the groups you've mentioned.

The Jewish groups (and I'll add Muslim groups here) "autonomous" courts are religion based and therefore as you point out only applicable to those within' the group. Furthermore; even those groups defer to the national court systems. In fact the NY Times recently ran an article on the Sharia courts in America. Clearly anyone interested in governance would see the problem when that group runs afoul an outsider. Those courts actually have little power other than that given by those who use them. Certainly anyone can refuse to participate by those "court" rulings and there would be no real recourse. However, let one of those communities ignore a subpoena from a national court and see what happens. They do not represent any real sovereignty and therefore aren't really dealing with power.

American Indians are an entirely different case from your Jews and Muslims. American Indians, when located on a federally recognized reservation are in fact on sovereign territory no different than England and Canada. As Mayor Bloomberg found out recently, Those nations have the right to (and not to) collect taxes and enter into treaties with the US (or any other country I suppose). There is not a single black community in the US that can make a claim of sovereignty as Native Americans can. Nor will black people be able to do so, but if your thinking of seccession, by all means let me know how it turns out.

The Iraqi (and Turkish) Kurds are again a bad example. Like the Native American they have claims to land that spans thousands of years. Their land was taken from them by colonial entities. The current Kurdish "success" is largely a function of the illegal war in Iraq and the fall of Saddam. In any case the situation of the Kurds is more applicable to that of Africa than it is for America so it is really irrelevant for this conversation.

Refocusing on Black folk in America though we can look at certain communities such as the Assante immigrant community who still defer to enstooled elders. There is the Oyotunji village in Georgia as another example of "semi-autonomy." But even there you're not talking about sovereignty.

In reference to your position on a "Garvey" endorsement you are quite correct in that statement. However, it helps a great deal, if one is to call oneself a nationalist who hoists the Red Black and Green to at least be aware of what that man had to say on the subject. I myself have issues with Garvey and have stated them here often.


Most African Americans that I have seen or talked to no matter what their political persuasion have said that they didn’t think they’d ever see a Black President. And aside from your ridiculously insulting comment about (my) not knowing Obama’s heritage, he is still a Brother. Most of us have a white side of the family either in the immediate or remote past. Are you trying to suggest that only “pure” Blacks can be considered Black? Are you subscribing to Tiger Woods assertion that he is not “Black”, that mixed is some sort of new category of Negro? Well, try that in a race riot? I’ve been in 3 of them!

Well that most African-Americans you have seen said they'd never see a black president doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. And yes it is quite relevant that Obama is biracial. As we have seen in the history of America white folk have always and continue to feel more comfortable with biracial (light skinned) African-Americans (and there is research supporting this). I think it also helped greatly that he had a disconnect from "early arrival" African-Americans.

I am on the record as rejecting the one drop rule. I've posted much on the subject of genetics and race and perhaps you'll want to review that material. And no Tiger Woods isn't black by a genetic point of view though by American social standards he is.

When I mentioned my anger, what does “fault” have to do with it? What a puerile comment! I have a right be angry at years of nonsense, wasted lives and resources. As for your idea that serious black nationalists stopped the extreme anger…another simpleminded comment. I’m not concerned with what other people feel. Am I supposed to feel like you? No, I have my own emotions. But in my opinion, anyone who’s not angry, Black, White, Asian or otherwise is a fool. Plus, I stand by my assertion that most Black folks are extremely angry. Most of it is suppressed or turned inward which why we kill each other and engage in other self-destructive behavior.

In your AJC editorial you wrote:
Like many black folk, I have spent most of my life extremely angry about the oppressive treatment and double standard that has always existed in American society

To which I responded:

Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back.

My points on this subject were
1) Living with extreme anger is bad for your health.
2) People who are angry tend not to think very clearly. It has been shown that angry people actually have less blood flow to the brain than those who are not.
3) As indicated in my response to your article, in the stages of development of black folk, specifically when it comes to those who are awakened to the issue of race, anger is a typical waypoint.

Having said that, upon revisiting that line of yours I see that it too helps with the propaganda, which Obama used to much effect, of showing "Nationalist" as angry black men (mostly) who just want to lash out at white people. Thus you again aided in propagandizing against black folk in a mainstream paper. Thanks dude!

Despite yet another insult, I stand by my statement that no “ethnic” has ever been president with the exceptions mentioned. You think Serbs or Polish or Italian (descendants) have ever been president? You need to check it.

Well sir your statement in the AJC editorial said:

No ethnic name had ever been uttered as president of the United States in its history. The closest had been Kennedy, Eisenhower and Van Buren, which are Irish Catholic, German and Dutch, respectively.

You made a declarative statement "No ethnic name has ever been uttered as president." I pointed out that ethnic whites exist, be they a national group such as Germans, Dutch, English, Scots, Irish, etc, or a subset of other groups. Clearly by your own statement, there have, in fact been ethnic names "uttered as president of the Unites States." Therefore your example and statement are false. You may have meant that there hasn't been a president of direct non-northwestern European descent and you'd probably be correct. But that is not what you wrote. perhaps you'll want to send a revised piece to the AJC on that.

But the main thing you need to check is the silly and arrogant attitude that if one does not agree with you, you have the liberty to fling insults and give juvenile analysis under the name of Garvey. If you were a wise brother you would not infer or imply something that wasn’t inferred or implied in the article. A scientific approach to thinking dictates that one acquire enough information before forming judgment.

Well given the notes above, I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether I'm "silly." I'm not of the opinion that I must be agreed with. I merely ask that the arguments put forth be factual and make sense. Furthermore I expect, from a so-called Nationalist, that one is more careful with providing mainstream newspapers propaganda pieces that work against black folk. The purpose of the AJC in publishing your piece was to attack the nationalist movement as being narrow, in need of ideological refinement and of being irrelevant. Knowing this, there are a number of ways that you could have approached the election of Obama within the framework of Black Nationalism, without invoking angry black men and narrow nationalism. Since you put yourself out there in public you must take some measure of responsibility of the material published with your name.

Lastly, the salient point of my article for people of African descent is that whether you like it or not, the Obama election changes the dynamic of our relationship to America. Someone who gave a mature critique of my article suggested that the system is using Obama to prove it’s not racist and to change its image. This is a valid critique, but without delving into the merits or de-merits of that idea, I would say that even the superficial cosmetic aspect of his election will produce profound changes in the way most countries and peoples think of and by extension, treat America. Those of us who are not flexible enough to adapt to change will either be destroyed or become irrelevant.

Well sir, since you've not followed the blog here, I'll have you know that the argument regarding the usage of Obama to change it's image, has been raised here a long time ago (among other topics). In reference to your last sentence I'll again refer you back to Garvey who said:

"Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated.

Meaning of course we adapt to change. We've had that mantra since the early 1900's. But please don't act like this is somehow some new lesson to be learned. I wrote in my piece that I saw a black president coming in 1992. And I knew how he (and I did say he) would have to get there.

Muhammad Yungai

Jesus Saves?

Muwavita Mukangusi’s husband was suspected by rebels of being part of a different militia. He was beaten and shot in the head

NY Times

Of Burress and Bell

You know it's really "interesting"to see what makes certain people "outraged." So Plaxico Burress took his gun to a nightclub and shot himself in the leg. I suppose the safety was off. Whatever. Did he pose a risk to the patrons? Probably? Did he go there to shoot somebody? Not. Burress was a threat to one person: himself apparently. burress goes to the hospital where a nurse is called in to do a favor and patch up Burress without notifying the police as per the law; going so far as to use a fake name.

As a result Mayor (for life) Bloomberg got on TV and talked about how Burress ought to get the maximum jail time allowed by law and that the nurse be fired. There was no wishy washiness about his statements. You would think that Burress had run up in the club and shot up the place Mmob style and then went on the lam.

This in stark contrast to the execution of Sean Bell and co who were unarmed innocent civilians, by licensed and "trained" so called public servants. Bloomberg says of the emptying of 50 bullets into a car window from point blank range:

It seems excessive.

Seems.

Says the judge over the case where it is revealed that not a single officer saw a gun and that one of the officers had stopped to reload:

It wasn't criminal.

Says President Elect Obama:

Y'all negroes don't go rioting.


Seriously folks there's a problem here. Shoot a poor nigger on the street and "it might be excessive."

A rich ball playing nigger shoots himself in the leg and it's "maximum sentence."

Badge wielding Negro with a gun on the FDR, in a fit of road rage kills a young man in a Honda for cutting him off. Negro with a badge gets off.

Police officer knocks down a cyclist in Times Square in full view of hundreds of people with cameras and the police report reads that the cyclist assaulted the officer. Where was Mr. Bloomberg's calls for "maximum sentences" and "fines" then?

To anyone who ends up on the Burress Jury I have one word: Nullification.

Obama's small donor base image is a myth, new study reveals

I believe that the people over at Black Agenda Report already covered this before the election

Tracking

Did anyone in the NYC area watch Like It Is on Sunday? Did you catch the statement that prison officials use the performance of 4th graders in Black and Hispanic communities to estimate the number of new prisons (or prison cells) to build? If anyone has the documentation of this please shoot it to me at the contact link at the right top of the page.

Same ol Same Ol

This bailout business is simply bizarre. First we seem to be back to the trickle down theory of Reaganomics with the NY Times giving us a nice headline like: U.S. Consumer Loan Aid Will Trickle Only So Far :

So while mortgage rates fell by at least a quarter of a percentage point on Tuesday, the day of the government announcement, and stayed there Wednesday, it could take months for the piece that affects credit card and small-business loans to kick in.

“It’s not going to be like flipping a light switch,” said Joe Belew, president of the Consumer Bankers Association. “You’re not going to see an avalanche of new loans. But the system is under a lot of stress, and anything that can lubricate the markets is a good thing.”

The federal government made two big moves on Tuesday. The first, already known as TALF, for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, is a $200 billion program that will lend money to private investors who buy securities backed by student and auto loans, credit card debt and small-business loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.

What's this? The government hasn't quite got the message that those "securities" based on debt was part and parcel of the current problem and so they want to encourage more of it? Hasn't there been enough writen about those SIV's to perhaps not encourage that kind of stuff?

The goal of the plan is to fix the mechanism that keeps credit flowing freely from lenders to borrowers. Lenders often package consumer loans into securities and sell them to investors. Then the lenders use the proceeds to issue more loans to consumers. But over the last two months, those investors have stopped buying.

And why did they stop buying? Because the joints were worthless because, as determined, the original lenders did not care about the ability of the borrower to pay these debts because the original lenders no longer had a financial stake in those loans. That was the problem. Why encourage more of this? Why support these inflated assets?

To qualify for the best rates, borrowers will need to have a credit score of at least 720 and a down payment of at least 10 percent and probably closer to 20 percent. Borrowers seeking to refinance will need to have the same amounts in home equity.

So in these inflated times a house that ought to be say $200,000 is upwards of a $6-700,000 and people need to come in with 100,000 down? Really? $50,000? Perhaps they need to work another job for about 3 years and then continue working that job while they pay for that house for probably the rest of their lives, since, unless you're already rich or have really high income in your 20's, you're not saving that kind of money before your mid 30's unless you live at home or you're married and with singleness rates the way they are in the states, good luck on that.

The You Neva Was....

And so one Muhammad Yungai a self described "Black Nationalist" who:

As a black nationalist, I have considered myself an American only as a technicality or an accident of birth. I’ve never hoisted the red, white and blue, only the red, black and green.

note to Muhammad; the Red, Black and Green is the symbol of Pan-Africanist, given to us by Marcus Garvey who was a Pan-Africanist. If you hoisted the RBG and was not down with Pan-Africanism then perhaps you were...confused.

I gave up on the American dream a longtime ago. I have worked and looked forward to autonomy and self-determination in our communities.

Again looking back at the Pan-Africanist Marcus Garvey we note that he said that "Negroes" everywhere ought to take whatever opportunities that avail themselves to them wherever they may be situated. Thus there is no ideological conflict between working for a better America and simultaneously being a Nationalist. Secondly, unless you were on some crack pipe how exactly did you think black communities in the United States would be independent of the States in which they are located or the federal government? Not even Garvey announced such a preposterous plan.

I never imagined that I would live long enough to see an African-American president. I never even believed that I would live to see a black Miss America. But America fooled me! Even as I predicted an Obama nomination and then a presidential win, the reality of what happened on Nov. 4 still has me totally stunned.

Without getting into technicalities, Along with RFK, I noted in 1992 that a black president was possible so long as he (and I said he) would distance himself from the black community and that that community would still vote for him. Yes that was 1992. Summer. While I was at Cornell. In fact I based that on an observation of the Jesse Jackson run and the ratings beating Oprah took when she did her "racism" series. So I have to ask man, were you really paying attention?

Like many black folk, I have spent most of my life extremely angry about the oppressive treatment and double standard that has always existed in American society

Well man that was your fault, no? all serious nationalists stopped with the extreme anger and had moved on from that stage of development a while back. How old are you? Besides there are far larger issues than simple double standards, which by the way are not going anywhere anytime soon.

. We had never been made to feel that we are really Americans and accepted as equals, unless we were willing to renounce much of our history and culture.

Hmmmmm... Perhaps you missed that whole Rev. Wright episode? Perhaps you missed the whole passing off Obama's white lineage to make white folk feel good. Maybe the Muslim woman who was forced off camera, among other things. And of course the incessant I'm not a Muslim (as if it mattered) thing. But hey perhaps we're operating on a whole different definition of culture.

No ethnic name had ever been uttered as president of the United States in its history.

No need to display your ignorance on the AJC website like that. Check it. There are white ethnic groups like there are ethnic groups of all other people. Oh I know what you meant but still that statement is wrong on it's face.

Check it, If you're going to claim to be a "nationalist" and allow yourself to be pranced out by the press, get your stuff together. If you just wanted a piece of the American pie, just say so. No need to dress it up in RBG.

Another $3/4 trillion

So the crooks, not satisfied to pimp the people of $700 billion are back at the trough for another $800 billion, which averages out to $3/4 trillion per request. And once again Obama and congress are urging quick approval lest the pesky people start asking questions like you know what about those people about to lose their homes.

Like NYC councilman Charles Barron put it, no way no how can these people say shit.. Well he didn't say shit, about welfare for poor people or the lack of money for Social Security, when $1.5 trillion can appear out of thin air for banks and car companies.

Will The Real Revolutionaries Please Stand Up?

And so it was the attempted genocide in Rwanda that I read about in the terminal of American Airlines to Jamaica that had me wondering what was going on in Africa among the so called "revolutionaries." Cockroaches this and Cockroaches that. They are outsiders. They are the oppressors. blah de blah blah. I simply could not understand how a people having been colonized and exploited by the British and French could turn on each other in the manner that they did with what had to be the lamest excuses for killing ever. Of course this nonsense was not limited to Rwanda. It was readily observable in other parts of Africa and of one place, Zaire (at the time) was one place that had my attention.

When Laurent Kabila ran Mobutu out of Zaire I was as happy as the Congolese mailroom worker with whom I shared news with. Mobutu was a sellout par excellence. But this is not about Kabila or Mobutu. This is about the new so called freedom fighters in the Eastern Congo and was prompted by a recent article in the NY Times entitled The Spoils Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops in which I found the following pretty disturbing:

The chokehold begins far from the mine. At the trailhead, a burly soldier demands 50 cents from each person entering the narrow trail to the mine. A clamoring crowd hands wrinkled bills to the soldier, who opens the wooden gate a crack to let in those with cash.

So an operation that brings in $80 million a year and they can't build a road? Oh well they COULD but there's a reason why it's not.

At the other end of the trail, at the base of the mountain, another crowd forms at the gate into Bisie. Porters exhausted from the two-day trek sprawl on felled trees, waiting for soldiers to inspect their loads and extract another tribute. The price is usually 10 percent of entering merchandise and cash.

The men at the checkpoints describe these payments as taxes. But the people of Bisie do not get much in return. The village is a filthy warren of mud huts. Hundreds of haphazard latrines flood narrow, trash-filled alleyways. Disease courses through the town, carried by water from a river that is used for everything from washing clothes to cleaning ore. Jawbones of slaughtered cows and goats stud the riverbed. When it rains, the river overflows, spreading cholera and dysentery.

In some ways, Bisie is a thriving commercial town. It has makeshift theaters showing bootleg kung fu movies on televisions powered by sputtering generators. Its bars are stocked with Johnnie Walker whiskey and Primus beer, each bottle carried through the jungle. There is no telephone service, but a ham radio system passes messages between the mine and the outside world. It has hotels that double as brothels. There is even a clapboard church.

$80 million a year and porters who had to walk and there's not even a bit of shelter? 10% of the value of whatever they have on their person and not a shelter? $80 million a year and no running water? No sanitation facilities? And this is supposedly a "commercial town"? What kind of joke of a revolution is this?

A bowl of rice and beans costs $3 here, six times the price along the main road. Mud huts rent for $50 a month or more, in part because opportunism is the town ethos.

Ahh free markets at work.

Tin has replaced lead content in the solder used to make many electronic devices. And as the price shot up in recent years, to a high of $25,000 a ton in May, Colonel Matumo and his men staked out a whole ridge of the mine complex as their personal property. Senior commanders of the brigade have built large houses and opened businesses, like hotels and bars, with the proceeds of the mine.

Ahh large houses for the "revolutionaries" and mud huts for the lowly mine worker. Sounds revolutionary to me.

Now back to that dirt path that in any other thinking place would be a road:

When the company started working on a road to link the mine to the main road, local officials blocked the route. When it began working on a campsite for its geologists to begin prospecting, soldiers opened fire on the workers, injuring several, company officials said.

“We have all our documents and permits in order,” said Brian Christophers, the weary managing director of the company. “We have written to the head of the military, the minister of mines and even the president. But there are no rules in Congo, just the rule of the gun.”

Mr. Christophers said that his company was prepared to help pay not just for a road to the mine but also for schools, clinics and a hydroelectric power station. It also promised to invite government agencies to enforce labor standards. But none of them have had the chance.

Indeed, some workers are suspicious of the company’s plans, fearing that a road would put thousands of porters out of work and that mechanized mining would drastically reduce employment here. The militia has tapped this unease to convince some workers and local officials that the company will simply abscond with the minerals and leave the local people empty-handed.

So because the "revolutionaries" are concerned about unemployment (read control over the population) they turned down a reliable power plant roads clinics and school buildings. OK then fine. Kick the company out. Why can't these so called revolutionaries build the schools themselves. Wouldn't that boost employment? What's wrong with a power station? Seriously though, what is so revolutionary about keeping people in poverty? Wouldn't the support of the people come voluntarily from the increased quality of life? And let me guess that the "convincing" involved large men and small boys with firearms and conversations that started with "How's the family?"

In the end these so called revolutionaries are simply free market capitalists with guns. They are small minded and are only out for themselves. It is not the minerals that are the curse of Africa but the small minded men and the gun sellers that are the curse of Africa.

Do These People Know the US Constitution?

This past year I have been pretty shocked at the number of clearly unconstitutional laws that have been placed on the books. Not to mention the clearly bad judging such as that of the case of Sean Bell's murder by the NYPD. The latest from the NY Times is from said PD in which Raymond Kelly has apparently been tangling with the US. Justice Department. The Times quotes Mr.Allan is what has to be one of the stupidest comment to come from a supposed "law enforcement" official:

In a statement, the Police Department’s deputy commissioner for legal matters, S. Andrew Schaffer, who has advised Mr. Kelly on the matter, said that Mr. Mukasey’s contention that Mr. Kelly had proposed an illegal course of conduct was “preposterous and categorically untrue.”

“We have asserted,” the statement continued, “based on actual cases, that FISA warrants were not sought in a timely manner in part because of a self-imposed standard of probable cause which is higher than that required by Supreme Court precedent.”

What, the NYPD has a problem with high standards of probable cause? Do tell!

While the letters do not specifically identify the target of the eavesdropping requests, Mr. Mukasey said that the Police Department had sought authority in one of them to eavesdrop on “numerous communications facilities” without providing an adequate basis for their requests. Some officials who have been briefed on the cases said the requests, from the police Intelligence Division, were unusually broad, and included telephones in public places, like train or subway stations, rather than phones used by a specific individual.

Apparently Mr. Kelly doesn't realize that just because the phone is in public it does not make it city property. And since a pay phone is actually the property of whatever phone company that has leased the spot that the phone sits on, then yes, you need a warrant. Secondly, that a phone is public doesn't mean that what conversation is had with it is public. It's like your car. If you have something in clear view of an officer, they can stop and ask you about it. However; just because they can se in your vehicle does not grant them the right to search it for things that are not in plain sight.

I suggest Mr. Kelly get his house in order, starting with Sean Bell's killer and then moving on to that officer that assaulted a citizen on a bike in Times Square earlier this year.

Full Text of the message from Ayman al-Zawahri

From the NY Times

While it is amusing to watch white people take offense to the use of the term "house negro," any honest reading of the linked text would see that it is, for the most part an accurate description of the differences between Malcolm X and Barack Obama. Furthermore, his reflection on the defeats of the British and Russians in Afghanistan are also straight from any history textbook. Page two of the linked text is a whole other issue. Of course the academic question would be what would the Malcolm X of February have to say about his namesake being used by Al-Q and how would he have addressed this issue? For example while Malcolm X was a Muslim I cannot see how he would have had much positive to say about the bombing in Kenya.

Hard Work and Opportunity

And so there is an article in the UK Guardian which is an excerpt from the forthcoming book: Outliers: The Story Of Success. While the entire article is interesting and worthy of a read (I'll probably get the book) if you're the type who is for reparations then some parts of the article will jump out at you:

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work.

So then it would be clear that the long term subjugation of the African in America had a direct impact in our ability to put members of our own into this top class. Oh sure we can do that now but that's not the point. Further:

Recently Forbes Magazine compiled a list of the 75 richest people in history. It includes queens and kings and pharaohs from centuries past, as well as contemporary billionaires such as Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim. However, an astonishing 14 on the list are Americans born within nine years of each other in the mid-19th century. In other words, almost 20% of the names come from a single generation - born between 1831 and 1840 in a single country. The list includes industrialists and financiers who are still household names today: John Rockefeller, born in 1839 (the richest of the lot); Andrew Carnegie, 1835; Jay Gould, 1836; and JP Morgan, 1837.

What's going on here is obvious, if you think about it. In the 1860s and 1870s, the American economy went through perhaps the greatest transformation in its history. This was when the railways were built, and when Wall Street emerged. It was when industrial manufacturing started in earnest. It was when all the rules by which the traditional economy functioned were broken and remade. What that list says is that it was absolutely critical, if you were going to take advantage of those opportunities, to be in your 20s when that transformation was happening.

If you were born in the late 1840s, you missed it - you were too young to take advantage of that moment. If you were born in the 1820s, you were too old - your mindset was shaped by the old, pre-civil war ways. But there is a particular, narrow nine-year window that was just perfect. All of the 14 men and women on that list had vision and talent. But they also were given an extraordinary opportunity, in the same way that hockey players born in January, February and March were given an extraordinary opportunity.

If we follow this fellow's logic we would see that the African in America between the years 1831 and 1839 were for the large part chattel slaves. And so according to the author were effectively locked out of this group. Furthermore by the time 1860-1870 came around, we see that the African had just been given legal "emancipation" but still generally lacked the free time that the author shows was necessary to achieve mastery.

Further:

If January 1975 was the dawn of the personal computer age, then who would be in the best position to take advantage of it? If you're a few years out of college in 1975, and if you have had any experience with programming at all, you would have already been hired by IBM or one of the other traditional, old-line computer firms of that era. You belonged to the old paradigm. You have just bought a house. You're married. A baby is on the way. You're in no position to give up a good job and pension for some pie-in-the-sky $397 computer kit. So let's also rule out all those born before, say, 1952.

At the same time, though, you don't want to be too young. You can't seize the moment if you're still in high school. So let's also rule out anyone born after, say, 1958. The perfect age to be in 1975, in other words, is young enough to see the coming revolution but not so old as to have missed it. You want to be 20 or 21, born in 1954 or 1955.

1955. If you were black you were effectively shut out of any of these areas. 1975. a mere 6 years out from the legal destruction of segregation and just into the age of Affirmative Action. Black people, by and large still found themselves outside the mainstream.
If anything, this article shows how much damage white supremacy in America was to the African.

Kwame Toure

A post from 2006:

http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2006/11/we-remember-kwame-ture.html

History can never be made by one man and we smash this one quickly. History is only made by the masses of the people this is clear. Even a cursory glance at the fallacious presentation of history by the American capitalist system would demonstrate just this.

Take George Washington as bad as he is. Put him in the middle of Valley Forge by himself surrounded by the British, he could do nothing.

Take Martin Luther King as righteous as he is; put him in the middle of Birmingham by himself speaking out against racism; he would be lynched.

but you take this same King, you take this same Washington; put them in Valley Forge put them in Alabama surround them with thousands of people who have the same ideas they do willing to make those ideas reality and the situation changes drastically.

If you've heard the recording of this speech you'll note that the crowd is highly amused by the commentary on George Washington but is dead silent when Toure discusses King. I didn't pick up on this for a long time. In fact, until this past presidential election cycle I really hadn't paid much attention to it. I will not comment on what it reminds me of though.

RIP Makeba

Miriam Makeba gas joined the egun. I shall listen to Sangoma today.