Days Black People Not Re-Enslaved By Trump

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

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

Saturday, December 27, 2008


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.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

"All The Prettiest Kids are Light Skinned Anyway"

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


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...

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

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.

Monday, December 15, 2008

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:

His original piece can be found here:

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

Thursday, December 11, 2008

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

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

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.


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.

Monday, December 01, 2008

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


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.