Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Sunday, April 24, 2005


I was out and about last weekend after moving and saw a car wash in East Orange. I commented that it could use a paintjob. I also noticed that the sign was broken and the place looked pretty drab. My friend said to me that why should the owner do all that when “Niggas” will just come by and break it up again? An interesting question indeed. It struck me to ponder how many black people think this way about their own people? I have been struck by how run down many businesses in black communities are. It is almost always a dead giveaway when you’ve crossed into a black community. The stores look just about any old way. In another black neighborhood lies two car washes. One is a hole in the wall, and black owned. It is literally a garage with a wooden board painted white with nearly illegible prices posted for hand washes, The place can only take a single car at a time and is a hand wash joint, which means it cannot just run cars through and make a profit based on numbers. Instead it must charge a high price per car. So what you have is the basis of a car detailing business where people who are willing to spend a bit of cash to have their car immaculately done can drop off the vehicle and have it detailed. What this also means is that you need to have a shop that inspires confidence in your services. I want to trust you with my Mercedes S class. Unfortunately that business does not inspire confidence from its appearance. Down the street there is another car wash joint. This one is probably not black owned. I've never been there so I can’t confirm this. But the place is clean and generally litter free. It is attractive and catches your attention. The place is regularly packed. Clearly then, the idea that “niggas” don’t appreciate well-kept businesses is a lie. What is the problem then?

My thinking is that people get accustomed to what they get and business owners tend to think that they don’t need to cut into the bottom line to accommodate these customers. Yet it is such attitudes that drive the spending black consumer out of the “black communities” where they should be doing business. See once the customer realizes they can get better or more ego pleasing service in other locations, they will make the trip.
I think back to the quality of life enforcement that the NYPD was (and still is) doing, where the police would “harass” people for “petty things.” But the thinking is right on target. Many people, treat things that have an apparent high value, better than they treat something that has an apparent lesser value. For example an old 80’s Mercedes Benz with 200,000 miles on it and a bit of rust, will have an apparent higher value to the onlooker than a brand new Ford Taurus, even if the Taurus has newer technology and a longer life expectancy. The perceived value of the Benz outweighs the Taurus’ newness.

So basically there needs to be a serious change in attitudes in some black business owners and customers so that the level of business and respect can rise.

The second thing I want to touch on is the “black folks don’t do” problem. For example, upon seeing white people bungee jump, many blacks make the comment: white folks are crazy.. We don’t...” Now on one hand I can understand the aversion to hanging off a rope that blacks in the US may historically have, but check it: The Bungee jump came from Africa, you know, that place full of black folks. But this isn’t really the crux of the issue. When watching a horror flick I always hear: White folks are too damn curious. A black person would have done left the (put location here). Well this may be well and true, and that is a problem. People who flee from danger or uncertainty do not make progress. They don’t overcome fears, they don’t make discoveries and they learn nothing. Risk is the price of large rewards. So I think that the problem is not that whites are too curious, but rather that blacks have become not curious enough (As a group….). The sad thing is we hand these “don’t take risks” attitudes down to our children when they hear us make such comments. We need to stop it.
Hotel Rwanda

I watched Hotel Rwanda last night (Purchased the DVD as planned, I missed the theatrical release). It was very good and informative for those who were unfamiliar with the event, though I would suggest that people gather information as to the formation of that country. But that’s not the focus of this post. There are two things that stood out in the film:

a) The Red Black and Green “Ponchos” that the Interahamwe, or their affiliated groups were wearing. There was a lot of symbolism in the movie, characters that didn’t exist in real life but were composites of different people. Supposedly the Interahamwe had signature shirts they wore during rallies and supposedly during the killings. In the movie many people were wearing Red, Black and Green “Ponchos.” The problem I have with this is two fold:

1) If the Interahamwe did in fact use the Red Black and Green, in that particular order, why did they do so? Garvey must have been rolling in his grave to see the colors of Black Unity, Pan-Africansim and Comradeship of all Africans, be miss-appropriated by an organization that allowed the poison of colonialism to lead to mass murder.

2) If in fact the Interahamwe did NOT have such “ponchos” then why was such a blatant symbol of “black power” used in the film? Why were there no objections to its miss-use? I have been searching the web and of all the photos of the Interahamwe that I have seen I have not noticed any such poncho. Even the pictures drawn by children show only normal clothed individuals or clearly drawn military uniforms. Clearly, if such a blatant and persistent pattern was in use where are the pictures? I’m going to continue to look but either way the sighting of the RBG in relation to the genocide in Rwanda is simply unacceptable.

b) The second thing reflects back on a paper on Ifa and the theistic problem of Evil. One of the participants of the genocide claimed that "Satan” took over his mind and body. Now to someone who has no belief in Satan, this seems to be a very bad excuse for what was essentially a decision he made to surrender to “groupthink.” I would assume that the Catholic Priest that hired a Hutu to bulldoze his church filled with Tutsi, was also possessed by Satan. Ultimately I have come to see the Genocide in Rwanda, and indeed the goings on in Sudan as an object lesson in self-hate. Indeed the Hutu who went on a “purification” spree bought into the colonial mentality that they were apparently disgusted by.

In the paper, the author discussed that Olodumare allows evil or indeed does evil, if it is necessary. That is since we believe Olodumare to be Omnipotent, then the doing of evil, hate , etc. is not beyond Olodumare’s abilities. Indeed what we consider evil is sometimes the necessary means of teaching humans a lesson. Indeed I believe Rwanda to be a lesson, a lesson not learned and therefore to be repeated. Did millions die because Olodumare is nasty? No! humans did the killing and Olodumare had to let us do what we would do so that we would learn. In Ifa we learn that all events save birth and death are knowable AND given the proper behavior the outcomes mutable. As Olodumare has made it so that there are infinite possibilities in the Universe, Olodumare allows us, through Ifa, or whatever system we use, believe in, etc. to change course and avoid pleasantries or unpleasantries. I have no doubt that the warnings were there but went unheeded.

In closing I think that the Rwanda genocide should be an object lesson in black psychology in terms of self-hate and it’s consequences.


Monday, April 11, 2005

Old Time Religion

With the passing of Pope John Paul II much attention has been paid to the Catholic Church in the "Third World". I have recieved many e-mails about a supposed "first black pope" and or whether Cardinal Arinze would be chosen. Both points really don't interest me much. On the subject of Black Popes, those of us who recognize the multiplicity of Khemetic (Egyptian) symbolism as well as workign knowledge of how Catholicism is derived from the ancient Khemetic "Mystery System" would recognize that there have been many "Black Popes". On the second issue, I don't particularly care. Putting a black face at the head of an institution that basically wants to make people feel inferior and "damned" for not embrasing "Christ" is not of interest to me. So what does interest me?

The Boston Globe has an article entitled: In Africa a Vibrant Yet Conflicted Faith/
which included a couple of interesting points:

People remember one incident in which a priest slaughtered a goat during Mass -- a traditional cleansing ritual in Africa that some Catholics support, but that left church authorities aghast. It was an extreme example, several church officials said, of many incidents in which local customs have crept into liturgy...

This was apparent three years ago when a priest in the Pretoria area sacrificed the goat during services. It spurred a review by the Pretoria-based Bishop's Conference on local culture spilling into the church's liturgy. One result was the outlawing of goat slaughters.

''That was liturgical abuse," said Sister Jordana Maher, the conference's national liturgical coordinator. ''The blood of goats would be useless" as a symbol during Mass. Not everyone in the church agreed with the handling of the matter...

But the most pressing problem for the church in some areas is that evangelical and Pentecostal churches have been attracting Catholics into their ranks in large numbers with promises that preachers can heal their illnesses and with emotional services featuring born-again testimonies.

Nevertheless a Catholic service in a black African church is no staid affair, bearing almost no resemblance to those held in white parishes in the United States or Europe. At the Church of Saint Martin de Porres service yesterday, the 500 members' voices floated down the streets of Pretoria. Parishioners danced in the line to receive Communion. Mass lasted nearly two hours.

This particular instance cannot be justified by any type of scriptural reading. What we have here is African religion with European dress-up. This is very important because there is a good reason for this. It's not the spiritual upliftment that these churches bring. That is clear by the parishoners and leaders doing the same things that their "Heathen" bretheren are doing. No what is most important here is:

Every night in the Mokhali house, the Payi house, and hundreds of other homes in the sprawling shantytowns south of Johannesburg, people give thanks in their prayers for the Roman Catholic Church.

Some may belong to other churches, but no matter: The Catholics have given them new life in the fight against AIDS, distributing free antiretroviral drugs, visiting their homes to take care of the sick, and giving food to orphans.

''If it wasn't for the church, we wouldn't have treatment," said Matumelo Mokhali, 34, who along with her 11-year-old daughter, Relebohile, started receiving the AIDS medication three months ago. ''I thank God that I am living."

This is the money factor. This is no different than the early colonizers. Clearly if people are in a distressed state they will respond to people who appear to have miracle cures. Thus if becoming a catholic gets one access to mediicine, who in their right mind would not convert? I'm willing to wager that if all "missions" ceased and desisted from doing anything other than simple preaching, that many of them would find converts disappearing. How do we know this? We look at Europe. in the areas of Europe with very high living standards and ready access to medical treatment divorced from religious institutions, Church attendance has plummetted. Similarly, in Islamic Countries with relatively high levels of material wealth provided by other Muslims have very low number of Christian converts. I'm sure there are some other factors involved but the pattern is pretty clear.

Yet there is something else that is amiss, Why is it that people in Africa are abandoning their native religions? While there is no doubt the lingering affects of colonialism, I believe the freezing of native religions in time is largely responsible for this. Why Arinze leave his native religion (called "animism" by the paper and probably by Arinze himself) and pick up a European one? I'm not as familiar with Ibo theology as I am Yoruba, but I cannot for the life of me see adopting Christianity while having a clear understanding of my native religion. But lacking that knowledge and seeing that the Catholics (read: white people) have everything I don't and seem to have "progress" I could easily see the lure.

Of course one of the largest pluses that Christianity, as well as Islam, has is it's "non-tribal" affilitaion. The appeal of an Uma or Body of Christ is a very powerful tool of these religions. Ifa, the religion of the Yoruba will simply never be able to expand so long as it appears to be "tribal".


Friday, April 08, 2005

A Matter of Belief

I recently had a discussion with a relative about Evolution. I don't often have these discussions because as a rule I don't discuss religion with Christians or Muslims unless they are the type that are open and educated as to the origins of thier "holy books." We were dicussing homo-erectus and I said: "well so long as you can teach the science in school."
This prompted the usual comment of:" You can't tell me man come from monkey. A person at work told me we come from monkey so I asked him to drop his pants and show me his tail." This was all very funny, but underscored the fact that most people have no clue about the actual theory of Evolution. The most common argument I hear from Christians are that they are waiting to see the monkeys in the zoo give birth to a human. I allways tell them not to hold thier breath.

I thought to myself during the conversation that it is pretty facinating that a person would reject the notion that humans came from some other lifeform, like babies come out of people, in favor of an idea that man just popped up on Earth some 6000 years ago after a 6 day creation binge by God. On the face of it, the God story is pretty mch out there. It's kinda like the "dog ate my homework"

But I understand why so many people are drawn to this line of thinking which is actually not thinking. Firstly, this notion of being specially created by God plays to the human ego. We're special. We are SO special that God not only made us, but made us in his own image. I mean if I had low self-esteem this alone could work wonders. Not only did God make me in his image but by jove HE LOVES ME PERSONALLY! I mean I admit this is a strong message for someone seeking acceptance in a very cold and cruel world. Compared to the alternative given by science that you're here by a confluence of random events and coincidences. I can see why someone would cling to such an idea.

Secondly, this idea does not requre much brain work, which would explain, unfortunately why the more educated a person is the more likely they will reject the idea of "direct divine creation." or at the least be willing to question it. For the layperson all they have to do when challenged on thier idea of creation is say "the Bible says so." Or "I have faith." I mean how much easier can it be. The rest of us have to go and gather evidence, do research, read, think. Clearly theire is an incentive among the IQ challenged to go the easy route and say: "Bible says so." Does this mean that all "believers" have a low IQ? Not at all. Intelligent people do stupid things all the time but without fail, most people who insist on "direct divine creation" are those who are they least informed on the science.

Now a days some of the more adamant and more informed have attempted to end run the science by claiming "Intelligent Design." Intelligent design basically takes some of the science of evolution and says that instead of accidents, God (or some intelligence) directed all of this.
Oddly enough this is how the Khemites (Egyptians) explained creation. Of course the big problem with "Intelligent Design" is that it attempts to provide an explanation without proof. That makes it non-science. Science says you must prove what you postulate. How does one test for the existance of "intelligence?" Everything I've read on Intelligent Design, lacks the "intelligence test." so either one must go to some religious authority, which then makes it religion and not science; or you admit you don't know. Now the theory of Evolution admits things it doesn't know. That is why it is a theory. But it is a theory based on tested facts and not wishful thinking.

I was in one religious bookstore where they had DVD's of things in nature that "defy" evolution. Despite the flashy cover, which will no doubt impress upon the buyer that this is "
hard stuff." the samples simply did not wash. The DVD's focused on what are called "evolutionary dead ends" and anomalies like people with 6 fingers. Realy bad science. AS usual there were no materials of the opposing view so the people who watch these videos can stay insulated in their small world and claim to know something they do not.

Back to the tail though. I was going to tell this relative that there are many people, many of whome are Caucasian, that are born with tails that are surgically removed soon after birth. But I doubt that would have changed thier mind. besides they need that special belief to make it through the day and I'm not the type to simply shatter dreams.