Niger: Our Problem
Anyone who has been paying attention and watching something other than US Newscasts, well at least ABC and affiliates, knows that there is a sever drought going on in Niger, a land locked country in North West Africa. The drought is so bad that there are cattle carcasses all ovger the place and nomads are eating rotting meat in order to survive long enough to make it to the aide centers set up by various agencies. Does any of this sound familiar? We've been here before. Many times before.
As usual when I watch the sad state on the BBC, I see white, mostly European aid workers giving speeches about how this could have been averted and how they need more supplies. Stuff we have heard before. I'm not going to go into a diatribe about the presence of white aide workers in the country because to be honest they are doing something that we, blacks, have not been.
I am old enough to remember the Live Aid concert which gave us the song "We are the World." In which musicians got us to send money and raise awareness for the then plight of Ethiopians. Since then Ethiopians, outside of Rastafarian circles, are synonymous with starvation and its attendant symptoms in the minds of many Americans. That was 20 years and 8 months ago. Today we see that absolutley NOTHING has changed in the ability of Africa to help itself and prevent such tragedies from occuring. What is the point of the AU if it cannot organize itself enough to prevent mass starvation? Why is it that once again an African country must put it's hand out and beg for help from former colonizers in order to feed it's population? Just what exactly are these leaders doing?
Let's dig even further, Why are some of the people in Niger still herding cattle as their major supply of food in an environment that is increasingly hostile to that way of life? Why in 2005 do the people only have enough grain for x, amount of days, when the technology is available to extend such supplies for months? Why are there perhaps millions of black men, women and children apparently underemployed when the 52 governments in Africa could be putting them to work to raise and store enough foodstuffs to be able to provide for such an event as is going on in Niger?
I fear that not a single "leader" will suggest, much less implement, a change of course for Africa after this latest continental shame. And a continental shame is what it is. We, and especailly these so called leaders should be shamed, for allowing this to occur. No, we cannot control nature. We cannot prevent drought or heavy rain. However, we are intelligent human beings that can learn from our past and plan for the future. The rains or lack thereof may not have been preventable, but the starvation that resulted was indeed preventable and the mass begging of international aid agencies was preventable. However, as I have been pointing out, the knowledge that Aide agencies will step in and do what the "leadership" was supposed to be doing, is partially the reason why the "leaders" are not doing any leading.
-Garvey's Ghost
(17 years of informed commentary)
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Quite Possibly The Most Honest Writing by White Man
Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:
Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.
The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.
Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/
Today at Alternet I came across an article entitled: On China At Least, Nixon Was Right written by Robert Sheer in which he states the following:
Sadly, the prospect of hundreds of millions of people being lifted from abject poverty seems to alarm even leading Democrats in Congress, who claim to be driven by a standard of social justice. And many Republicans, who tend to trumpet the virtues of free trade when it involves the domination of world markets by U.S. businesses, are also raising the protectionist flag against the prospect of Chinese ownership of a single mid-size American-based oil company.
The signals we send to China have always been bizarrely mixed: Play in the capitalist ballpark but not so well that you become one of the big stars. It is a message that, as with the Japan-bashing of the 1980s, is at best paranoid and at worst racist. We in the West can be trusted with enormous economic power, but not the children of a lesser god.
Remember that when we discussed White Supremacy we made it clear that Whites will always want to be on top and that the economic and social systems invented and used by them are for thier benefit. Furthermore, they will change the game whenever it is neccessary to keep White Supremacy intact. Clearly this author, though not stating it as sucinctly as Dr. Welsing and Neely-Fuller, has none the less said the same thing.
Go ahead and read the rest of the article.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/23726/
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Go To People on Africa: Black Conservatives
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
With the rise of the Bushocracy, Black conservatives have found themselves as the go-to people on Africa. Never mind that the vast majority of these people have long records of doing and saying anything to separate themselves from "those" Africans Going so far as to write entire articles to expain why they are in fact "Negroes" and "not black" (Crouch and McWhorter respectively).
So now we have two more wanna be's who want to tell us what is wrong with Africa. One Walter "Willy" Williams who has stated that he wishes to be "treated as a white man" begins our journey into the weird world of Negro Wonder Land.
In Capitalism Magazine entitled Freedom not Foreign Aid, For Africa Willy proposes that Africa needs:
elimination of dictators and socialist regimes, establishment of political and economic freedom, rule of law and respect for individual rights. Until that happens, despite billions of dollars of foreign aid, Africa will remain a basket case.
Of course Africa needs to be rid of dictators. We wont argue with that at all. But what's with the socialist regimes comment? Does not the great Willy know that China, a Socialist political establishment (well actually Communist, but I doubt Willy knows the difference), is quite the econommic powerhouse. We'll not get into the problems that China does have, but this situation only goes to prove that one need not have a "democratic" government in order to have economic properity.
Let us examine one of Willy's more specious arguments. He states:
Let's examine the "vicious cycle of poverty" myth and whether foreign aid is a necessary ingredient for economic development. The U.S., Britain, France, Canada and most other countries were once poor. Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute wrote in an article titled "Capitalism Is the Cure for Africa's Problems" that pre-industrial Europe was vastly poorer than contemporary Africa.
A relatively well-off country, like France, experienced several famines between the 15th and 18th centuries as well as plagues and diseases that sometimes killed hundreds of thousands. In France, life expectancy was 20 years, in Ireland it was 19 years, and in early 18th-century London, more than 74 percent of the children died before reaching age 5.
Beginning in the late 18th century, there was a dramatic economic turnabout in Europe. How in the world did these once poor and backward countries break the "vicious cycle of poverty" and become wealthy, without what today's development experts say is absolutely necessary for economic growth -- foreign aid handouts, World Bank and International Monetary Fund loans, and billions of dollars of debt forgiveness?
The answer is simple: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
Check out the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom." Heading its list of countries with the freest economic systems are: Hong Kong, Singapore, Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland and New Zealand. Bringing up the rear as the countries with little or no economic liberty are: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Angola, Burundi and the Congo.
It's not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees.
Willy Williams wants us to believe a big lie: Capitalism started taking root in Europe.
Capitalism is an economic system where there's peaceable, voluntary exchange. Government protects private property rights held in goods and services. There's rule of law and minimal government regulation and control of the economy.
See what Willy Williams seems to have forgotten is that during this era, there was no such thing as "peacable" exchange with Africa. During this time Africa was under the brutal dictatorships of those capitalist countries that Williams is so fond of. In fact those "peacable" capitalists were busy extracting profits from slave labour in the Caribbean and the Congo. They were trading freely in the cotton and tobacco of the American south. Indeed many scholars in the matter, including historians Eric Williams and Hugh Thomas make it pretty clear that much of the economic rise of Europe and America was based on the exploitation of Africans.
Indeed it was the Capitalists non-adherance to the idea of "private property" and the "rule of law" and "minimal governmental regulation" when it came to Africa that is at the heart of the deep ditch that Africans find themselves in. And this is not to excuse in the least bit the participation of those Africans in the trade.
When speaking of "not rocket science to conclude that economic liberty and the wealth of a nation and its peoples go together, not to mention greater human rights guarantees." Willy Williams would have us forget how the former colonisers left many countries including a country he listed, The Congo, without any, ANY, educated or trained individuals capable of taking over the infastructure of that country. Why were there no native educated and trained individuals ready to take over the DRC when the Belgians left? It is because the government and private sectors were established and maintained for the benefits of the whites in that country and the mother country. A little inconvenient fact that apparently escapes Mr. Williams.
But Williams is not done insulting us. He continues with this:
Some economic development "experts" attribute Africa's troubles to its history of colonialism. That's nonsense, because some of the world's richest countries are former colonies, such as the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Australia. In fact, many of Africa's sub-Saharan countries are poorer now than when they were colonies, and their people suffer greater human rights degradations, such as the mass genocide the continent has witnessed.
Is Williams seriously suggesting that the situation of the 13 colonies was in any way, shape or form the same as those in post Berlin Conference Africa? Same as Canada? Is he kidding? Or Hong Kong, a British Colony until recently taken over by the Chinese powerhouse? Who does Willy Williams think he is kidding, besides the editors of Capitalism Magazine?
Indeed some countries are poorer now than when they were colonised. We already discussed the DRC. It's no wonder it is poorer now. In addition to what occured under Belgian rule, let us remember that the US and Belgium colaborated to kill the Democratically elected Patrice Lumumba and replaced him with Mobutu, a dictator whome various European countries were more than happy to give money to and sell him various properties while he took the country to hell. Yes our good friend Mobutu, a guest of a few US Presidents left his country with the equivalent of $20,000 when he finally was ousted. Thanks a lot CIA.
Meanwhile over at The Townhall Thomas Sowell gives it a go in his article entitled The Tragedy of Africa where he states:
Years ago, a courageous economist in India pointed out that, however helpful it was to receive food from abroad during India's famines, the long-run policy of continually giving wheat to India was just reducing the ability of Indian farmers to grow wheat and sell it for a price that would cover their costs.
Eventually the policy of continually dumping wheat into India was stopped and today India produces so much wheat that it has been able to send some to Africa to deal with African famines.
Promoting dependency and irresponsible borrowing is not the way to help the poor internationally any more than these are ways of helping the poor at home. Such policies benefit the bureaucracies that administer foreign aid and enable vain people to see themselves as saviors, even when they are doing more harm than good.
I'll need to agree with this. I have made similar comments about US intervention in the past. However, as usual, Sowell then goes off into right field with:
Ideologues love to think of African poverty as caused by "exploitation" on the part of Western countries. But, with a few notable exceptions, Africa has had little to be exploited. Even at the height of European imperialism, there was far less foreign trade or foreign investment in the whole vast continent of Africa than in a little country like Belgium or Switzerland.
As pointed out previously, Africa was never meant to be a point of arrival for European assets. That there was little foreign investment in Africa is understood by historians. The purpose of Africa is and has been the exploitation of its raw materials. In order to exploit a population or resource you must invest as little as is possible. So while the Debeers gets Diamonds out for cheap, they get many many times the cost of extraction at sale. Similarly with rubber that Firestone got from Liberia or the Palm Oil that lubricated Europes Industrial Revolution. We wont even get into the Slave Trade and its attendant free labour afforded various human resource intensive industries such as sugar. So no, We didn't see investment or trade with Africa because Africa was not meant to be traded with, it was meant to be taken from.
Sowell then goes on to discuss Cote D'Ivoir which he held up as the Model African nation Where as Ghana under Nkrumah and Tanzania under Nyerere were held up as models of how to ruin your country. Indeed the problems of Nyerere and Nkrumah were due in large part to thier willingness to deal with the Soviet Union, the blood enemy of the US, and their determination not to allow theri countries to be exploited by their prior colonizers. We all know what happens when black folks dare to be independent.
I tell you a few more years of black "expertise" like this and the whole history of Africa will change completely.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4310
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050712.shtml
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Further Cooption of Garveyism
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
By now, those who keep abreast of the goings on in Black America knows that the CEO-elect of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, has a rather un-unique vision for the NAACP. In an interview with the NY Times he states:
I think we have to define civil rights more broadly. When I say civil rights, I am talking about economic rights. I think I have the ability to meet with corporate C.E.O.'s and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity.
Now why do I say this is a co-option of Garveyism? Well if we recall, the UNIA was founded at the outset to address the problems of "Negroes" by means of Nationalism and a focus on self reliance. Part and parcel of this self-reliance was the stressing of development of black owned business and the importance of international commerce. The consistent critique that Garvey laid at the NAACP was that is was focused on political and social equality without the means to protect such equality. Famously Garvey stated (Paraphrased):
You cannot expect the white man to give you jobs if his own needs them.
Students of history know that the NAACP, under the leadership of WEB Dubois took every opportunity afforded to them to defame the UNIA and the Black Star Line as well as cooperating with the US government to flame "Garvey must go" sentiment among black and white people. It was only after the deportation and demise of the UNIA that WEB Dubois started to back track and take up some of the ideas of the UNIA. With that in mind we see that for the NAACP leadership to position the issue of economics as a front burner issue, is clearly an admittance that Garvey was right. HOwever, true to it's nature the new NAACP leadership is not concerned with black independent economics, but how corporations can take advantage of "diversity."
Now lets be clear here; such a comment as:
and help them to think through the bottom-line benefits of diversity. it means:
a) How can we sell more product/services to "underserved minorities."
b) How can we capitalise on the cultures and tastes of "underserved minorities."
c) Where can I find black /hispanic/asian persons to aide me in the above.
d) How can a I make sure I have enough of the above to avoid running afoul of federal mandates?
So, true to form the NAACP will be finding more plantations for middle class black folks to get on and they will be happier for it. So yes, Garveyism is being co-opted, by both the left and the right and they are twisting it all the way. Ain't America Great?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10QUESTIONS.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121112590-xINtxNJBq6HuLxUJNkLxSA
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Planes, Trains and Automobiles
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Last August Garvey's Ghost warned it's readers that security focus on buildings and planes would do nothing to stop a determined terrorist. Garvey's Ghost also gave a scenario that sited random bombs going off during rush hour commutes. We specified bridges and car bombs. Behold. London is now reeling from apparent Al-Q bombings of it's subways and buses. As soon as this happened, as Garvey's Ghost prediicted there was massive drops in market values of various insurance and travel stocks as well as mass evacuations of certain buildings. This act, that involved no planes, targetted no buildings and involved no suicide bombers was already caused millions in dollars in property damage and perhaps hundreds of millions in lost "revenue" for various businesses.
As Garvey's Ghost has stated before, It is simply impossible to check each and every car or person, especially durng rush hours. The British people and indeed all countries involved in the Illegal war in Iraq should seriously reconsider thier actions and the consequences of thier rhetoric. The world now knows that there was always a plan to get into Iraq. The world knows that there were no WMD's. The world also knows that the Blair and Bush administrations knew of the legal ramifications of their actions but went ahead anyways. These politicians, who do not ride public transportation, put their citizens in harms way for thier own gain. Blair's attempt to deflect the real issue at hand by talking about the G8 summit addressing African Poverty, when it is largely the members of the G8 who are responsible for creating that poverty in the first place, is simply disingenious. I believe that this bomobing was in fact a response the the British people re-electing Mr Blair and the subsequent information that came out during the campaign for Prime Minister. That the G8 was meeting there at the same time was, in my view, a nice co-incidence. I think London, like Madrid "had it coming" for it's part in the Iraq war.
It remains to be seen what will occur in Denmark, which has been specifically mentioned by a unconfirmed "Al-Qaida" organization that claimed responsibility.
So as the title says, we've seen planes. We've sen trains. We've now seen automobiles. Unfortunatly the worst is still to come.
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
What Tha FU$%^&^!!!!!
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Are black folks in Mexico that powerless that they let this type of BS go without consequence?
this piece of Sh&(*^& was produced by the same government that is headed by a president who recently used Black Americans as examples of laziness. As usual he is refusing to stop production of this stamp citing it as an important historical piece.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
No Backbone
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Once again, Lt. Ghaddafi has turned out to be the voice of reason among the So called African Union. The Telegraph of the UK posted an article entitled: "Gaddafi damns 'African begging' as Nigeria calls for aid to end poverty " in which Ghaddafi is quoted as saying:
who told the meeting that Africans had to rely on themselves. "Begging will not make the future of Africa," he declared.
The Libyan leader, whose oil revenues allow him to bankroll African countries - and to throw fistfuls of dollars out of his motorcade when visiting impoverished states - insisted: "We are not going to beg at the doorsteps to reduce debt.
"We are insulted constantly and we deserve it. We don't need assistance and charity."
Of course Ghaddafi is correct in his analysis, though I think he ought to refrain from throwing money out his car. That the group of eight white men gave 18 countries debt relief with massive strings attached. should be nothing to cheer about given that the brin drain and other resources that have been taken from Africa is worth far more than the debt that is being cleared.
It is clear to me that if there is not a fundamental shift in the actions of Afrian States, that they would soon be right back into debt and just as dependent on foreign aide. In my opinion, every debted nation in Africa should have "declared bankruptcy" by refusing to service their debt. FOr many countries this would have not changed the plight of the average citizen who are mired in poverty anyway. This would have forced these countries to form new economic relationships with each other and other countries such as those in the Caribbean. For foreign investment, these countries, as a block, would seek partners on terms more favorable to themselves (as in being done with China) which should include local co-ownership and management and strict environmental regulations where applicable. Also key to this is the immediate cessation of warfare. As indicated in an earlier post, warfare is the leading cause of African stagnation. You simply cannot expend so much energy and time into warfare and not expect an already poor nation to suffer.
So Ghaddafi has it almost right. Africa needs to get off it's knees. Drop the hat from one hand and the gun from the other.
Links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/05/wafr05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/05/ixworld.html
http://www.prudentpressagency.com/CENTER/articlePreview.php?Article_id=2652
Dear Mr. Sharpton
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
I saw you on the television giving a speech in Howard Beach. I saw ytou again on tv walking with some motorcycles through Howard Beach. Howard Beach is an easy target having been stained by the death of Michael Griffith back in 1986. While I agree that people should not be getting beat on the street, the victim in this case was clearly there to steal someones property and to be honest I would have beat him had he attempted to steal my property. But that is neither here nor there since supposedly at the time no theft was actually in progress. So in the end, regardless as to how henious the crime was, we are talking about a thief. Meanwhile, this weekend in Flatbush a young boy, 15 years old, was stabbed to death over an iPod. The victim of this crime was no thief. He was a bright young man on his way back home. He was walking with his friends and minding his own business. Who killed him? a Black man killed this boy over a little white iPod. So while you were busy reminding Howard Beach that Sharpton "is on the case" little black boys are being gunned down in Flatbush. I'm 99% certain that more black men boys and girls have been killed in Flatbush, Jamaica, Hempstead, etc. at the hands of other black men women and girls than have been killed in Howard Beach between 1986 amd 2005. Now I'm not saying we should let what happened in Howard Beach slide, but this case, is not the Michael Griffith case and while I agree that folks should not have to worry about getting run down and hit over the head for simply walking down a street, I'm hard pressed to find much sympathy for a paid car thief.
So perhaps you could spend less time in Howard Beach. Less time at Gay Pride parades and less time backing doomed stadium deals and spend more time on the issue of black on black violence.
Thank you
Sondjata Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost
Sunday, July 03, 2005
The Curse of Intervention
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Last year, in my Presidential Debate Q&A I discussed why I do not agree that the US (or Europe) should get involved in Sudan (or anywhere else in Africa). The main reason for this was that I believed that the interventions created or continued a mentality of dependency in the countries involved. Specifically, there would be no incentive for the people of Africa, well the people in the areas in conflict to work out their own problems since all one would have to wait for is the UN to come in and mediate an "agreement" and then get to share power. However; what was most problematic about outside aide was the fact that the reason why most of these conflicts can actually occur is due to outside influences. And for the record we need to recognize that China is a huge conmtributor to the wars in Africa. This does not get the press that it should but Chinese companies are in fact getting oil from Sudan and those monies keeps the Jangaweed armed.
The New York Times has published an article in their magazine section entitled: The Congo Casewhich more or less underscored my point. The article did not however, get into what brought the Congo into it's current situation. In a case of selective amnesia they place all the blame of the situation in the DRC on Rwanda, various militias and Mobutu:
South Kivu was a victim of the same neglect that almost every part of Congo suffered during the 32-year kleptocracy of Mobutu Sese Seko. But the region has endured an extra measure of suffering owing to its proximity to Rwanda. In 1994, thousands of Rwandan Hutu génocidaires fled across the border before the advancing Tutsi forces, settling in the rural areas of South and North Kivu and living off smuggling, ''taxes'' on local markets, kidnapping and plunder. Starting in late 1966, the Rwandan Army poured over the border and massacred its Hutu adversaries as well as thousands of civilians. After the Hutu threat had been suppressed, the Rwandan Army remained in the Kivus, turning much of eastern Congo into an economic protectorate. And when the Rwandan troops finally left under international pressure, the 10,000 to 15,000 remaining members of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, or F.D.L.R., as the Hutu militia called themselves, returned to their brutal exactions.
Congo's great problem is the same one that plagues so many African countries -- poor governance. But this technocratic term scarcely does justice to the self-perpetuating machine of immiseration that one Congolese leader after another has operated for over a century. King Leopold II of Belgium put the mechanism in motion in the 1880's when he reduced the tribes of the region to so many employees of companies devoted to sucking up Congo's treasures, principally ivory and rubber. The Belgians ultimately bequeathed the country a decent infrastructure, though they left it ludicrously unprepared for self-government. (At independence, none of Congo's 14 million citizens -- zero -- had university degrees in law, medicine or engineering.) Five years after independence, Mobutu toppled Congo's only elected president in a coup and instituted a home-grown version of Leopold's rapacity. Mobutu stole billions over the years, while the roads and hospitals and schools the Belgians had left behind disintegrated into the bush. Unlike the Belgian king, Mobutu lavished Congo's bounty on his collaborators, who frequently left a presidential audience with $5,000 or $10,000 in their pockets. Kabuya Lumuna, a former World Bank consultant who served as Mobutu's spokesman and deputy chief of cabinet in the last years, said: ''Mobutu created an image for the Congolese people that enrichment through the state was normal practice. It is normal for a person to say: 'I have finished my studies. If I can't get a government post, I will live my entire life in poverty.'''
It would have been historically accurate to discuss the fact that the first president of an independent DRC, was Patrice Lumumba who was assasinated and replaced, with the aid of US intelligence agencies, with Mobutu. This largely because Lumumba was willing to deal with the Soviets and spoke 'intemperently" to white folks (apparently there is no greater sin). It would also be informative that Mobutu enjoyed wide support from successive US Administrations. That single act of international terrorism by the US and Belgium is the cause for much of the DRC's problems. There is no telling how a proper Patrice administration would have turned out. But let's get back to current events.
When Aristide was deposed by so called "opposition" in Haiti, I discussed how the so called leadership of the "Opposition" was more concerned with power than by doing anything for the population. Each "opposition" movement seemed more intent on financing killing sprees and looting and gang warfare rather than the building of civil society. In the case of the Congo the same thing apparently holds true:
Later that afternoon, I drove out with a squad of soldiers in open transports with machine-gun mounts. We stopped at a plateau ringed by steep green hills. Here the men would stay for the next 12 hours: if word of an attack came from any of the government soldiers they had posted in the local villages, they would bounce down the rutted lanes and confront the rebels with gunfire if necessary. Maj. Mohammed Younis, the commanding officer, pointed out the local villages along the ridge lines and said, ''When we first began, in late March, we had three to four incidents every week.'' An F..D.L.R. raiding party would wait until nightfall and then attack a village, stealing food and raping women; they frequently kidnapped villagers, took them back to the forest and threatened to kill them if relatives didn't pay ransoms. But Operation Night Flash, as the Pakistanis called their nocturnal vigil, had at least temporarily closed down the crime wave. Younis said that there hadn't been an incident for close to a week.
Since the article freely admits that the Congo has no real government save that which aides in the removal of resources, then where and how are all these armed militias able to remain armed? Similarly for the contries that got themselves involved. None of them produce the weapons needed to sustain these wars. Thus while singers are asking for more aid for Africa, there is no discussion about the seemingly endless aid given to arms dealers and militias.
More importantly though, is the fact that we have "movements for Democracy" and "Fronts for Democracy" which provide nothing for their constituent groups. They provide no services, no schools, not anything. Clearly what is needed in Africa is not peacekeepers. It is not more aid, It is very simple in design though difficult to implement:
1) A complete arms embargo to any and all countries involved in some sort of war. You want to kill, you make your own weapons to do so.
2) A complete financial lock of any corporation or where arms are originating. This is perhaps the hardest one to do since most of Europe and China would be on the receiving end of such sanctions. SHould make for a good show in the UN though.
Of course I'm aware that since no.2 will not occur, then the whole plan goes down the tubes. So what will happen? The times offers a glimps which echos my original concern:
The Congolese I talked to want to be saved from themselves, or at least from their desperate predicament. Even those who accuse Monuc of spinelessness or complicity add immediately that of course the U.N. troops mustn't leave. They want more troops, not fewer, and more insistent political engagement...f we believe that in the post-9/11 world we can no longer afford to let failed states fester, then we plainly owe it to ourselves to stop the Congolese political class from preying on its people and to shape the nascent institutions of state in such a way as to give legitimate economic and political activity a decent shot at survival. Is that, in fact, a prescription for some kind of benevolent imperialism? If so, then bring it on.
I am in no way in suppoirt for imperialism, benevolent or otherwise, but there clearly needs to be some means to bring order and stability to the Congo and Sudan. A Pan-Africanist state could have dealt with this but so far the so-called leadership of Africa are too concerned with thier little fiefdoms to go that route.
It is clear that with the intervention of the "West" and China the people have lost faith in themselves to solve their own problems and would welcome thier former masters to come in and save them, thereby proving the idea that black folks are incapable of self rule.
read the entire article.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Dear Mr. Mugabe
Dear Mr. Mugabe:
I am not a CIA, MI5 , MOSSAD or any other national stooge. I am not an apologist for England or the UN or the World Bank or IMF. Nor do I suppose to know and fully understand all that entails running a country. I am simply a Pan-Africanist who has a deep concern over the happenings in the country over which you preside. I was a mere child when you liberated your country from the grip of colonialism. In fact it was Bob Marley's seminal work, Survival that clued me in to the goings on in that country. This was 1989 and I was a freshman at Michigan State University. I became a staunch supporter of the ANC, PAC and all African liberation movements. I agreed with and continue to agree with the reclamation of land for the African with absolutely no compensation for the Europeans who are there regardless of where they were born. When England, under Tony Blair used the Commonwealth to isolate you from the world over this issue, I was in full support of your position.
I say this so that you would understand my perspective and why I write this letter to you.
Last week I was horrified to see reports that you had authorised your government to tear down housing and businesses of mostly, if not exclusively poor people. It was claimed that these areas are full of crime and a black market that does not pay into the government coffers. I understand that as president, you must make hard decisions every day regarding the development of your country but I believe you have made a grave error in judgment. Surely you know, as most watchers outside your country knows, that much of your population is poor and that poverty can be a catalyst for varied crimes and black markets. Perhaps I missed the reports, or perhaps it simply went unpublished, regarding the plans you have to address the rampant poverty in your country that does not include making people homeless and causing the deaths of citizens with bulldozers.
I would also like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties. While I fully understand the fact that Britain and other countries are helping to create unrest in your country, sure you know that you cannot be president for ever. What are your plans for when you die? Clearly you know that your citizens will not accept an oppointed president. Surely you do not want chaos to erupt upon your death. Again, perhaps it simply has not been reported on, but I'd like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties and the eventual transition to a non-Mugabe government. For the good of the people, I hope this plan has been finalised and in the implementation stages as you do not have much longer to live. I would suggest that you have some election where you are not elected, sometime in the near future. In fact you should not even run but act as an elder statesman and Griot (or whatever culturally relevant term applies) as to remind the citizens of where they have come from.
Lastly, As I indicated, I am in full support of the land reclamation program, however, from various reports, which I admit may well be biased, the settling of the land has not gone smoothly at all. I support your ban against genetically altered seeds, but I would like to know how you plan on getting the country back on track to self sustainablity. Sometimes when we are in positions where we do not have to worry about the necessities of life such as food, water and shelter, we forget that there are millions or people who are struggling daily for these things. I would have preferred you not have made the trip to the Vatican to pay homage to some white man on your country's dime and put that m oney into the local economy. But that is my opinion.
Again, I do not suppose to know all the details of what is going on in your country, but the few things that do trickle out are not good. I know that in doing business with the Chinese you do not have to have business or aid tied to the political whims of the US or Europe. However; I would strongly suggest that you take a long view of the situation in your country and realize that there is more to rule than tough talk to Europe, marginalizing of the opposition and running down shanties.
Thank you.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost.
Dear Mr. Mugabe:
I am not a CIA, MI5 , MOSSAD or any other national stooge. I am not an apologist for England or the UN or the World Bank or IMF. Nor do I suppose to know and fully understand all that entails running a country. I am simply a Pan-Africanist who has a deep concern over the happenings in the country over which you preside. I was a mere child when you liberated your country from the grip of colonialism. In fact it was Bob Marley's seminal work, Survival that clued me in to the goings on in that country. This was 1989 and I was a freshman at Michigan State University. I became a staunch supporter of the ANC, PAC and all African liberation movements. I agreed with and continue to agree with the reclamation of land for the African with absolutely no compensation for the Europeans who are there regardless of where they were born. When England, under Tony Blair used the Commonwealth to isolate you from the world over this issue, I was in full support of your position.
I say this so that you would understand my perspective and why I write this letter to you.
Last week I was horrified to see reports that you had authorised your government to tear down housing and businesses of mostly, if not exclusively poor people. It was claimed that these areas are full of crime and a black market that does not pay into the government coffers. I understand that as president, you must make hard decisions every day regarding the development of your country but I believe you have made a grave error in judgment. Surely you know, as most watchers outside your country knows, that much of your population is poor and that poverty can be a catalyst for varied crimes and black markets. Perhaps I missed the reports, or perhaps it simply went unpublished, regarding the plans you have to address the rampant poverty in your country that does not include making people homeless and causing the deaths of citizens with bulldozers.
I would also like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties. While I fully understand the fact that Britain and other countries are helping to create unrest in your country, sure you know that you cannot be president for ever. What are your plans for when you die? Clearly you know that your citizens will not accept an oppointed president. Surely you do not want chaos to erupt upon your death. Again, perhaps it simply has not been reported on, but I'd like to know how you plan on dealing with political parties and the eventual transition to a non-Mugabe government. For the good of the people, I hope this plan has been finalised and in the implementation stages as you do not have much longer to live. I would suggest that you have some election where you are not elected, sometime in the near future. In fact you should not even run but act as an elder statesman and Griot (or whatever culturally relevant term applies) as to remind the citizens of where they have come from.
Lastly, As I indicated, I am in full support of the land reclamation program, however, from various reports, which I admit may well be biased, the settling of the land has not gone smoothly at all. I support your ban against genetically altered seeds, but I would like to know how you plan on getting the country back on track to self sustainablity. Sometimes when we are in positions where we do not have to worry about the necessities of life such as food, water and shelter, we forget that there are millions or people who are struggling daily for these things. I would have preferred you not have made the trip to the Vatican to pay homage to some white man on your country's dime and put that m oney into the local economy. But that is my opinion.
Again, I do not suppose to know all the details of what is going on in your country, but the few things that do trickle out are not good. I know that in doing business with the Chinese you do not have to have business or aid tied to the political whims of the US or Europe. However; I would strongly suggest that you take a long view of the situation in your country and realize that there is more to rule than tough talk to Europe, marginalizing of the opposition and running down shanties.
Thank you.
Sondjata K. Olatunji
Garvey's Ghost.
Eminent Domain
Today the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize homes and businesses of private citizens and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice O'Connor dissented along with Clarence Thomas (Wow! he got one right):
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
And this is not the first time that this has happened. back in November 2000,In Missisippi, 27 acres belonging to a black family, the Archies, was threatened with eminent domain to make a automobile plant for Nissan. The state lost it's case however; had this case been put before the Miss. Supreme Court under the current decision, the Archies would be out on thier behinds with no recourse.
It is hard to argue against O'Connor. So long as the state can say there is some public good, you can have your property taken. How did a majority of justices miss this? They may not want people in California to use Marijuana for medical reasons but with a decision like this it is clear they are smoking something themselves.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?hp&ex=1119585600&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.ij.org/private_property/mississippi/9_24_01pr.html
Today the Supreme Court decided that local governments can seize homes and businesses of private citizens and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales.
Justice O'Connor dissented along with Clarence Thomas (Wow! he got one right):
"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
And this is not the first time that this has happened. back in November 2000,In Missisippi, 27 acres belonging to a black family, the Archies, was threatened with eminent domain to make a automobile plant for Nissan. The state lost it's case however; had this case been put before the Miss. Supreme Court under the current decision, the Archies would be out on thier behinds with no recourse.
It is hard to argue against O'Connor. So long as the state can say there is some public good, you can have your property taken. How did a majority of justices miss this? They may not want people in California to use Marijuana for medical reasons but with a decision like this it is clear they are smoking something themselves.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?hp&ex=1119585600&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.ij.org/private_property/mississippi/9_24_01pr.html
Friday, June 17, 2005
It Can't Be Race
The title references the common sentiment of whites and so called "conservative" blacks when confronted about various issues affecting black people that are the caused directly by white people. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts In which it is shown that white canidates with felony drug possesion charges are more likely to receive job offers than blacks presented with the same background:
Black men whose job applications stated that they had spent time in prison were only about one-third as likely as white men with similar applications to get a positive response.
For every 10 white men without convictions who got a job offer or callback, more than 7 white men with prison records also did, the study found. But the difference grew far larger for black applicants: For every 10 black men without criminal convictions, only about 3 with records got offers or callbacks.
"It takes a black ex-offender three times as long to receive a callback or a job offer," said Devah Pager, an assistant professor of sociology and one of the study's two authors.
Even if you go the personal responsibility route and say that haveing been involved with drugs "you get what you deserve" the fact that even black men who have not been convicted of any crimwe still only get job offers 30% of the time.
It is clearly known that upwards of 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed, clearly white employers are discriminating against black males when hiring decisions are being made.
On the other hand I want to haark back to the words of warning given to us by Marcus Garvey. He told us clearly that the white majority, when faced with tough economic times, would choose to employ their own rather than blacks. Garvey was clearly right in this regard. This underscores the need for black business and links with the Caribbean and Africa so that we do not have to depend on asking white people for jobs.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17felons.html
The title references the common sentiment of whites and so called "conservative" blacks when confronted about various issues affecting black people that are the caused directly by white people. Today the NY Times posted an article entitled Race a Factor in Job Offers for Ex-Convicts In which it is shown that white canidates with felony drug possesion charges are more likely to receive job offers than blacks presented with the same background:
Black men whose job applications stated that they had spent time in prison were only about one-third as likely as white men with similar applications to get a positive response.
For every 10 white men without convictions who got a job offer or callback, more than 7 white men with prison records also did, the study found. But the difference grew far larger for black applicants: For every 10 black men without criminal convictions, only about 3 with records got offers or callbacks.
"It takes a black ex-offender three times as long to receive a callback or a job offer," said Devah Pager, an assistant professor of sociology and one of the study's two authors.
Even if you go the personal responsibility route and say that haveing been involved with drugs "you get what you deserve" the fact that even black men who have not been convicted of any crimwe still only get job offers 30% of the time.
It is clearly known that upwards of 50% of black men in NYC are unemployed, clearly white employers are discriminating against black males when hiring decisions are being made.
On the other hand I want to haark back to the words of warning given to us by Marcus Garvey. He told us clearly that the white majority, when faced with tough economic times, would choose to employ their own rather than blacks. Garvey was clearly right in this regard. This underscores the need for black business and links with the Caribbean and Africa so that we do not have to depend on asking white people for jobs.
Links:
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/17/nyregion/17felons.html
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Pride Before The Fall: Schiavo's Autopsy
In news that I and others knew was coming, the New York Times reported that the autopsy report indicated that:
particularly the findings that she had irreversible brain damage and was blind...
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,...
To this Dr. Bill Frist, who was shown on National Television stating that based on his viewing of a videotape:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
Tom Delay another Devil on the Senate said:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
These two idiots do not even have the decency to publicay admit they were wrong. NOt kinda wrong, not mis-informed but simply WRONG. The Democrats should IMMEDIATELY hire a company to make advertisements on how dead wrong these individuals were. IMMEDIATELY. If these two individuals make it back into office after this then Americans are simply stupider than rocks.
In news that I and others knew was coming, the New York Times reported that the autopsy report indicated that:
particularly the findings that she had irreversible brain damage and was blind...
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,...
To this Dr. Bill Frist, who was shown on National Television stating that based on his viewing of a videotape:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
Tom Delay another Devil on the Senate said:
With the autopsy concluding that no treatment could have improved her condition and that she was unaware of her surroundings when her feeding tube was removed,
These two idiots do not even have the decency to publicay admit they were wrong. NOt kinda wrong, not mis-informed but simply WRONG. The Democrats should IMMEDIATELY hire a company to make advertisements on how dead wrong these individuals were. IMMEDIATELY. If these two individuals make it back into office after this then Americans are simply stupider than rocks.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Acting White
Back in December of last year a publication came out discussing the "Burden of Acting White" which sought to disporve the notion that blacks have some cultural bias against academic performance. I had serious issues with the paper, chief of which were that no one claimed that black culture was against academic performance, but that specific portions of the black population sees academic performance as "white" or at a minimum "not cool." It was with this in mind that I found the following article in the Washington Post entitled The Price of Acting White which contained the following:
The phenomenon is one reason some social thinkers give to help explain at least a portion of the persistent black-white achievement gap in school and in later life. Popularity-conscious young blacks, afraid of being seen as acting white, steer clear of behaviors that could pay dividends in the future, including doing well in school, Fryer said. At the same time, the desire to be popular pushes many whites to excel in the classroom, enhancing their future prospects.
Certainly that's what the data suggest is happening, Fryer said. Among white teens, Fryer and Torelli found that better grades equaled greater popularity, with straight-A students having far more same-race friends than those who were B students, who in turn had more friends than C or D students. But among blacks and especially Hispanics who attend public schools with a mix of racial and ethnic groups, that pattern was reversed: The best and brightest academically were significantly less popular than classmates of their race or ethnic group with lower grade point averages.
"For blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5 [a B+ average], then the slope turns negative," Fryer and Torelli wrote in a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. A black student who's gotten all A's has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a straight-A white student. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity until a student's average rises above a C+, at which point it plummets. A Hispanic student with all A's is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has three fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average...
What I find most significant was that this particular study went down the grade scale whereas the other study appeared to concentrate on relatively high achievers where as this study shows, and I argued, there is less contact with people who may hold attitudes regarding "acting white".
The article also had this very interesting line:
Why is "acting white" absent in mostly black schools?
That's easy, said Fryer, who is African American. He recalled his own experience growing up and attending predominantly black schools in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Dallas. "We didn't act white -- we didn't know what that was," he said, stressing that he prefers data to anecdote. "There were no white kids around."
So then the question becomes what is "Acting White"? If such behaviour is 'unknown" in all black schools, then are we discussing an issue of popularity which would negate the very "acting white" concept as was argued by the previous study?
I guess we are going to be in for the battle of the research.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400126.html
Back in December of last year a publication came out discussing the "Burden of Acting White" which sought to disporve the notion that blacks have some cultural bias against academic performance. I had serious issues with the paper, chief of which were that no one claimed that black culture was against academic performance, but that specific portions of the black population sees academic performance as "white" or at a minimum "not cool." It was with this in mind that I found the following article in the Washington Post entitled The Price of Acting White which contained the following:
The phenomenon is one reason some social thinkers give to help explain at least a portion of the persistent black-white achievement gap in school and in later life. Popularity-conscious young blacks, afraid of being seen as acting white, steer clear of behaviors that could pay dividends in the future, including doing well in school, Fryer said. At the same time, the desire to be popular pushes many whites to excel in the classroom, enhancing their future prospects.
Certainly that's what the data suggest is happening, Fryer said. Among white teens, Fryer and Torelli found that better grades equaled greater popularity, with straight-A students having far more same-race friends than those who were B students, who in turn had more friends than C or D students. But among blacks and especially Hispanics who attend public schools with a mix of racial and ethnic groups, that pattern was reversed: The best and brightest academically were significantly less popular than classmates of their race or ethnic group with lower grade point averages.
"For blacks, higher achievement is associated with modestly higher popularity until a grade point average of 3.5 [a B+ average], then the slope turns negative," Fryer and Torelli wrote in a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. A black student who's gotten all A's has, on average, 1.5 fewer same-race friends than a straight-A white student. Among Hispanics, there is little change in popularity until a student's average rises above a C+, at which point it plummets. A Hispanic student with all A's is the least popular of all Hispanic students, and has three fewer friends than a typical white student with a 4.0 grade point average...
What I find most significant was that this particular study went down the grade scale whereas the other study appeared to concentrate on relatively high achievers where as this study shows, and I argued, there is less contact with people who may hold attitudes regarding "acting white".
The article also had this very interesting line:
Why is "acting white" absent in mostly black schools?
That's easy, said Fryer, who is African American. He recalled his own experience growing up and attending predominantly black schools in Daytona Beach, Fla., and Dallas. "We didn't act white -- we didn't know what that was," he said, stressing that he prefers data to anecdote. "There were no white kids around."
So then the question becomes what is "Acting White"? If such behaviour is 'unknown" in all black schools, then are we discussing an issue of popularity which would negate the very "acting white" concept as was argued by the previous study?
I guess we are going to be in for the battle of the research.
Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400126.html
Monday, June 13, 2005
The Unthinking Among Us
Today I need to take a break from the usual suspects and deal with some of our own. Since the rise of the Bush regime sellout Uncle Tom Negroes have had a field day. They have been given voice by various media outlets and funding by various "conservative" interests. Anf because they have been able to hijack portions of the Pan-Africanist and Nationalist platform, to the unitiated they sound good. But like the cream filled chocolate egg at easter, the inside is all mush. Before I get to the two persons who have earned my ire for the week, I need to address a few people closer to home.
I recently had a discussion on a messageboard in which two customs of various African people were critiqued. The first issue was one that made the New York Times recently, in which it was revealed that in Mozambique some women who are widowed were expected to hhave sex with one of the deceased husband's male relatives. The overall reason was so that the husband's spirit can leave the village secure in the knowlegde that his wife will be taken care of. The problem now of course is that with HIV-AIDS running rampant in Africa, such an arrangement can be a death sentance for a woman. I offered a critique of the practice in which I respected the concept of the widow being taken care of by the husband's family but I suggested alternative means to this end without the risk of HIV infection or the case that the woman did not want to be "taken care of" by that particular (or any particular) male. I said that perhaps the widow should be taken in by the family (male or female) and be considered a sister or whatever. Then she could decide that she want's to be with one of her husband's male relative or remarry into another family just as she had done when she had married her now deceased husband. Thus the extended family is kept intact and the womans right to decide what to do with herself is upheld.
To this discussion I was told that I was thinking as a Westerner, with no regard to "African traditions." Mind you this person did not once even make a suggestion as to how to deal with the situation at hand. But to make matters worse, once I mentioned "Female Circumcision" AKA FGM. This person made the usual claims about it helping reduce Masturbation and how it was healthy for the woman. Furthermore, instead of discussing female circumcision, we should discuss male circumcision and the various medical practices in American society.
Well not for nothing, but Western mutilization was not the topic of discussion. But this was a usual trend whereby critiqing African customs, even when offering alternatives, will lead some to defend the indefensible. It was even suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. I mean never mind the number of women who have been documented having "circumcision" performed on them.
This is a really bad thing that we have in the ATR-Nationalist community. This tendancy by some to defend any and everything African. As if we are perfect when that is clearly not the case. If we were perfect we simply would not have sold each other into slavery. We would not have been subject to the cruelty of Colonialism. Millions would not have died in the Congo. We would have had no need for Garvey, Cabral, Tubman or Sojourner. No Toussaint and Haiti would have no Ton Ton Macoutes. No we need to admit that we are flawed like everyone else and that there are things we need to change.
That brings me to the related issue of stagnation of African culture. It has always annoyed me that European art can be anything from Picaso to things found in MOMA. Yet African Art (which technically should be anything created by an African from an African perspetive-and there are many), has been reduced to "primitive" art. If must be a carved Antelope or mask. Should that African artist stray from those motifs then he or she is being European. Thus African culture becomes stagnant. Ever looking back and not moving forward. Hopefully we will change this attitude and move our people forward while respecting our past and carrying on the best of it, and leaving behind that which is no longer useful or relevant. Now onto the Sellouts.
For some reason I went over to Capitalism Magazine. Not sure why but lo and behold I find ol' Walter "Willy" Williams still going on strong with his nonsense. A summary for the the article entitled Victimhood: Rhetoric or Reality states:
Summary: Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic.
I have noticed a pattern here: No one wants to actually name names. If a black politician is out there actually saying that racists are directly responsible for blakc on black violence, black family breakdown or black illigitimacy, then put their name up there and then give them the space to rebutt the actual acusation. But this never happens because what Willy Williams is doing is taking soundbites of various people and the misstatements of laypersons and making it into the entire message of those of us who hold the government, corporate interests and individuals to task for thier negative influences on our communities.
Willy Williams does us a favor by laying out some stats which for the sake of argument we'll assume to be true:
Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.
Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents.
Does anyone see a particular pattern here? No? Notice the dates on the decline of the black family there is a bright line at 1960. What was going on in that time? Did we not at that point start to get into the implementation of Brown v. Board? Do we have the Voting Rights Acts (I and II)? What about the assasination of Dr. King, Malcolm X, et.al. Then the explosion of drugs into black communities in the 70's with Heroin? The Rockefeller Drug laws that put millions of black people in jails for simply possesing drugs. Not that we are condoning the sale or possesssion of drugs but when it is clear that rockefeller drug laws were being used to incarcerate blacks and not whites who make up the vast majority of users AND sellers, you can't just pretend that it's simply a matter of personal responsibility.
We also have, unprecedented in any time in human history a media machine that can infiltrate the home of all but the most strict parents; and even then...
No, Willy Williams would have us believe that somehow the skyrocketing black on black crime, and soaring out of wedlock children just simply happened. There were no factors. People are just robots. But let's put this question up to Willy Williams. Since, out of all the organizations and types of black folks around, Nationalists and Pan-Africanists have been talking up personal responsibility, black business creation and strong black family, why hasn't he taken up the issue of why the government made such a great effort to kill off or otherwise marginalize those individuals and organizations? He does not because "we too black." He along with Thomas Sowell and thier ilk are too busy trying to get noticed and "respected" by white people ( Mr. Willy Williams has already said as much). People like him are the type that get bent out of shape every December 26, when we are celebrating Kwanzaa. They are the ones who you don't see at certain cultural events. He knows nothing about what we folks are doing because he's too busy trying to get asked questions 'that white people get asked". See the Willy Williams of the world don't like it when we detail and document how white institutions work in opposition to black progress, in part by giving space to those who we would have put in check ourselves. See It's easy to cut people down, it's always harder to build a program to build them up.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4255
Today I need to take a break from the usual suspects and deal with some of our own. Since the rise of the Bush regime sellout Uncle Tom Negroes have had a field day. They have been given voice by various media outlets and funding by various "conservative" interests. Anf because they have been able to hijack portions of the Pan-Africanist and Nationalist platform, to the unitiated they sound good. But like the cream filled chocolate egg at easter, the inside is all mush. Before I get to the two persons who have earned my ire for the week, I need to address a few people closer to home.
I recently had a discussion on a messageboard in which two customs of various African people were critiqued. The first issue was one that made the New York Times recently, in which it was revealed that in Mozambique some women who are widowed were expected to hhave sex with one of the deceased husband's male relatives. The overall reason was so that the husband's spirit can leave the village secure in the knowlegde that his wife will be taken care of. The problem now of course is that with HIV-AIDS running rampant in Africa, such an arrangement can be a death sentance for a woman. I offered a critique of the practice in which I respected the concept of the widow being taken care of by the husband's family but I suggested alternative means to this end without the risk of HIV infection or the case that the woman did not want to be "taken care of" by that particular (or any particular) male. I said that perhaps the widow should be taken in by the family (male or female) and be considered a sister or whatever. Then she could decide that she want's to be with one of her husband's male relative or remarry into another family just as she had done when she had married her now deceased husband. Thus the extended family is kept intact and the womans right to decide what to do with herself is upheld.
To this discussion I was told that I was thinking as a Westerner, with no regard to "African traditions." Mind you this person did not once even make a suggestion as to how to deal with the situation at hand. But to make matters worse, once I mentioned "Female Circumcision" AKA FGM. This person made the usual claims about it helping reduce Masturbation and how it was healthy for the woman. Furthermore, instead of discussing female circumcision, we should discuss male circumcision and the various medical practices in American society.
Well not for nothing, but Western mutilization was not the topic of discussion. But this was a usual trend whereby critiqing African customs, even when offering alternatives, will lead some to defend the indefensible. It was even suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. I mean never mind the number of women who have been documented having "circumcision" performed on them.
This is a really bad thing that we have in the ATR-Nationalist community. This tendancy by some to defend any and everything African. As if we are perfect when that is clearly not the case. If we were perfect we simply would not have sold each other into slavery. We would not have been subject to the cruelty of Colonialism. Millions would not have died in the Congo. We would have had no need for Garvey, Cabral, Tubman or Sojourner. No Toussaint and Haiti would have no Ton Ton Macoutes. No we need to admit that we are flawed like everyone else and that there are things we need to change.
That brings me to the related issue of stagnation of African culture. It has always annoyed me that European art can be anything from Picaso to things found in MOMA. Yet African Art (which technically should be anything created by an African from an African perspetive-and there are many), has been reduced to "primitive" art. If must be a carved Antelope or mask. Should that African artist stray from those motifs then he or she is being European. Thus African culture becomes stagnant. Ever looking back and not moving forward. Hopefully we will change this attitude and move our people forward while respecting our past and carrying on the best of it, and leaving behind that which is no longer useful or relevant. Now onto the Sellouts.
For some reason I went over to Capitalism Magazine. Not sure why but lo and behold I find ol' Walter "Willy" Williams still going on strong with his nonsense. A summary for the the article entitled Victimhood: Rhetoric or Reality states:
Summary: Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic.
I have noticed a pattern here: No one wants to actually name names. If a black politician is out there actually saying that racists are directly responsible for blakc on black violence, black family breakdown or black illigitimacy, then put their name up there and then give them the space to rebutt the actual acusation. But this never happens because what Willy Williams is doing is taking soundbites of various people and the misstatements of laypersons and making it into the entire message of those of us who hold the government, corporate interests and individuals to task for thier negative influences on our communities.
Willy Williams does us a favor by laying out some stats which for the sake of argument we'll assume to be true:
Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.
What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married.
Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents.
Does anyone see a particular pattern here? No? Notice the dates on the decline of the black family there is a bright line at 1960. What was going on in that time? Did we not at that point start to get into the implementation of Brown v. Board? Do we have the Voting Rights Acts (I and II)? What about the assasination of Dr. King, Malcolm X, et.al. Then the explosion of drugs into black communities in the 70's with Heroin? The Rockefeller Drug laws that put millions of black people in jails for simply possesing drugs. Not that we are condoning the sale or possesssion of drugs but when it is clear that rockefeller drug laws were being used to incarcerate blacks and not whites who make up the vast majority of users AND sellers, you can't just pretend that it's simply a matter of personal responsibility.
We also have, unprecedented in any time in human history a media machine that can infiltrate the home of all but the most strict parents; and even then...
No, Willy Williams would have us believe that somehow the skyrocketing black on black crime, and soaring out of wedlock children just simply happened. There were no factors. People are just robots. But let's put this question up to Willy Williams. Since, out of all the organizations and types of black folks around, Nationalists and Pan-Africanists have been talking up personal responsibility, black business creation and strong black family, why hasn't he taken up the issue of why the government made such a great effort to kill off or otherwise marginalize those individuals and organizations? He does not because "we too black." He along with Thomas Sowell and thier ilk are too busy trying to get noticed and "respected" by white people ( Mr. Willy Williams has already said as much). People like him are the type that get bent out of shape every December 26, when we are celebrating Kwanzaa. They are the ones who you don't see at certain cultural events. He knows nothing about what we folks are doing because he's too busy trying to get asked questions 'that white people get asked". See the Willy Williams of the world don't like it when we detail and document how white institutions work in opposition to black progress, in part by giving space to those who we would have put in check ourselves. See It's easy to cut people down, it's always harder to build a program to build them up.
Links:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4255
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Revenge of the Sellouts Episode 2
Having just recently recovered from the shock of Apple Computer ditching the PPC line of CPU's for Intel's offerings, I had the great misfortune of being a witness to one of the worst political show in Black America in many many decades. I had always thought it could not get much worse than Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, but I was sadly mistaken. The US Senate approved Justice Janice Brown to the State Circuit of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a 56-43 vote with a single yes vote from Democrat Nelson of Nebraska. Every single Republican in the Senate voted yes to this woman. I'm not going to get into the gender or explicit race issue here except to say that the Bush administration has been craftily using race and gender against Democrats in such a way to paint Democrats as against women and blacks.
However; Just as I did with Condoleezza Rice's appointment to Secretary of State, I do not believe that Justice Brown is competent to be a judge simply based on her own statements on record. The New York Times posted an article entitled: Latest Confirmed Nominee Sees Slavery in Liberalism in which Brown-Rogers is quoted as saying some incredibly stupid and in-accurate comments, non of which were even challenged. These comments include:
"In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery," she has warned in speeches. Society and the courts have turned away from the founders' emphasis on personal responsibility, she has argued, toward a culture of government regulation and dependency that threatens fundamental freedoms.
"We no longer find slavery abhorrent," she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. "We embrace it." She explained in another speech, "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."
This line of thinking was recently rebuked by us here at Garvey's Ghost when it was espoused by "Willy" Williams. The crux of her argument is that somehow the government is out of control and this out of control government will eventually oppress the people. Well actually we agree with that. What we disagree with is by whome the government is doing these things. We know, and knew for a while, that the current administration lied to the people in order to go to war in Iraq. This was not the work of "liberals" but of Conservatives. We have a tax code that has taken more money from the poor and middle class while actually lowering taxes on the top .1% of the population. The very population that can afford to be taxed. Writes David Cay Johnson:
The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.
The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.
The Times analysis also shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Mr. Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid.
One reason the merely rich will fare much less well than the very richest is the alternative minimum tax. This tax, the successor to one enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthiest Americans could not use legal loopholes to live tax-free, has never been adjusted for inflation. As a result, it stings Americans whose incomes have crept above $75,000.
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
What this shows is that it is untenable that Liberals are "stealing" anything from the public. In fact it is the conservatives who are "stealing" from 90% of the tax paying public. They are stealing this money and using it to fund a war in Iraq and pay off Haliburton. Yet the "very intellectual" Justice Brown would have us believe that it is the "Liberals." And not a single challenge was printed to this nonsense.
Here's more from Brown:
This week, some Senate Democrats have even singled her out as the most objectionable of President Bush's more than 200 judicial nominees, citing her criticism of affirmative action and abortion rights but most of all her sweeping denunciations of New Deal legal precedents that enabled many federal regulations and social programs - developments she has called "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
I've already covered this issue but if anyone here has a problem with a 40 hour work week and regulations that govern healthy work environments, they should relocate to sweatshop companies right now. Clearly Justice Brown has been popping some sort of chemicals to have forgotten exactly what a sharecropper is and how exploitative business can be when it does not have to worry about governmental oversight. Speaking of Sharecropping, the NY Times then reveals the source of Brown's warped thinking:
Her friends and supporters say her views of slavery underpin her judicial philosophy. It was her study of that history, they say, combined with her evangelical Christian faith and her self-propelled rise from poverty that led her to abandon the liberal views she learned from her family.
"We discuss things like, 'How did slavery happen?' " said her friend and mentor Steve Merksamer, a lawyer in Sacramento, Calif. "It comes down to the fact that she believes, as I do, that some things are, in fact, right and some things are, in fact, wrong. Segregation - even though the courts had sustained it for a hundred years - was morally indefensible and legally indefensible and yet it was the law of the land," he said. "She brings that philosophy to her legal work."
First off, this friend and mentor is this man:
http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/oct_nov2001/merksamer.html
http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/images/oct_nov_2001/Merksamer.jpg
I'm not even going to discuss his lack of qualifications to discuss slavery or history of slavery in America. There are other white men, if one must choose one, that are more qualified for that discussion.
I would like to know exactly what "Liberal views" her family had that needed to be abandoned. It appears that no one even asked the question. Secondly on this "how did slavery happen" question what kind of comment was this? Is he discussion slavery in it's internation form? Is he talking about US slavery? How does he reconsile that the God of the Bible in fact sanctioned genocide and "servitude" of non-Jews? Does he in fact discuss that it was Southern Business (and to a lesser extent northern business) interests that gave us the legal compromises that kept slavery alive in the US? It was in fact a rebellion against government oversight and regulation that sparked the Civil War (you can forget all that "free the blacks" moralising it's garbage).
In fact it was the moralising of judges that enshrined Plessy v. Ferguson into American History. These Christian judges swore up and down that they were in fact doing "God's work." Clearly this is a prime example of why those who use "morals" rather than "logic" to make decisions are dangerous people.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. It is clear that the black church is headed downhill very quickly. It would be easy to say that Janice Brown is an anomaly, but she is not. In our last discussion on the Black Churches it is clear that many black churches are headed in similar directions as Janice Brown and Condi Rice. If there is a great groundswell of black churches that are not in line with these ideas of politicised morality, they need to make a showing. Otherwise.....
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09brown.html?hp&ex=1118376000&en=3dfdc077be26edc5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html
Having just recently recovered from the shock of Apple Computer ditching the PPC line of CPU's for Intel's offerings, I had the great misfortune of being a witness to one of the worst political show in Black America in many many decades. I had always thought it could not get much worse than Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, but I was sadly mistaken. The US Senate approved Justice Janice Brown to the State Circuit of Appeals for the District of Columbia by a 56-43 vote with a single yes vote from Democrat Nelson of Nebraska. Every single Republican in the Senate voted yes to this woman. I'm not going to get into the gender or explicit race issue here except to say that the Bush administration has been craftily using race and gender against Democrats in such a way to paint Democrats as against women and blacks.
However; Just as I did with Condoleezza Rice's appointment to Secretary of State, I do not believe that Justice Brown is competent to be a judge simply based on her own statements on record. The New York Times posted an article entitled: Latest Confirmed Nominee Sees Slavery in Liberalism in which Brown-Rogers is quoted as saying some incredibly stupid and in-accurate comments, non of which were even challenged. These comments include:
"In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery," she has warned in speeches. Society and the courts have turned away from the founders' emphasis on personal responsibility, she has argued, toward a culture of government regulation and dependency that threatens fundamental freedoms.
"We no longer find slavery abhorrent," she told the conservative Federalist Society a few years ago. "We embrace it." She explained in another speech, "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."
This line of thinking was recently rebuked by us here at Garvey's Ghost when it was espoused by "Willy" Williams. The crux of her argument is that somehow the government is out of control and this out of control government will eventually oppress the people. Well actually we agree with that. What we disagree with is by whome the government is doing these things. We know, and knew for a while, that the current administration lied to the people in order to go to war in Iraq. This was not the work of "liberals" but of Conservatives. We have a tax code that has taken more money from the poor and middle class while actually lowering taxes on the top .1% of the population. The very population that can afford to be taxed. Writes David Cay Johnson:
The average income for the top 0.1 percent was $3 million in 2002, the latest year for which averages are available. That number is two and a half times the $1.2 million, adjusted for inflation, that group reported in 1980. No other income group rose nearly as fast.
The Bush administration tax cuts stand to widen the gap between the hyper-rich and the rest of America. The merely rich, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, will shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
President Bush said during the third election debate last October that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, most - 53 percent - will go to people with incomes in the top 10 percent over the first 15 years of the cuts, which began in 2001 and would have to be reauthorized in 2010. And more than 15 percent will go just to the top 0.1 percent, those 145,000 taxpayers.
The Times analysis also shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Mr. Bush wants to extend indefinitely would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million or so, they would get the biggest share of the breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid.
One reason the merely rich will fare much less well than the very richest is the alternative minimum tax. This tax, the successor to one enacted in 1969 to make sure the wealthiest Americans could not use legal loopholes to live tax-free, has never been adjusted for inflation. As a result, it stings Americans whose incomes have crept above $75,000.
The Times analysis shows that by 2010 the tax will affect more than four-fifths of the people making $100,000 to $500,000 and will take away from them nearly one-half to more than two-thirds of the recent tax cuts. For example, the group making $200,000 to $500,000 a year will lose 70 percent of their tax cut to the alternative minimum tax in 2010, an average of $9,177 for those affected.
What this shows is that it is untenable that Liberals are "stealing" anything from the public. In fact it is the conservatives who are "stealing" from 90% of the tax paying public. They are stealing this money and using it to fund a war in Iraq and pay off Haliburton. Yet the "very intellectual" Justice Brown would have us believe that it is the "Liberals." And not a single challenge was printed to this nonsense.
Here's more from Brown:
This week, some Senate Democrats have even singled her out as the most objectionable of President Bush's more than 200 judicial nominees, citing her criticism of affirmative action and abortion rights but most of all her sweeping denunciations of New Deal legal precedents that enabled many federal regulations and social programs - developments she has called "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
I've already covered this issue but if anyone here has a problem with a 40 hour work week and regulations that govern healthy work environments, they should relocate to sweatshop companies right now. Clearly Justice Brown has been popping some sort of chemicals to have forgotten exactly what a sharecropper is and how exploitative business can be when it does not have to worry about governmental oversight. Speaking of Sharecropping, the NY Times then reveals the source of Brown's warped thinking:
Her friends and supporters say her views of slavery underpin her judicial philosophy. It was her study of that history, they say, combined with her evangelical Christian faith and her self-propelled rise from poverty that led her to abandon the liberal views she learned from her family.
"We discuss things like, 'How did slavery happen?' " said her friend and mentor Steve Merksamer, a lawyer in Sacramento, Calif. "It comes down to the fact that she believes, as I do, that some things are, in fact, right and some things are, in fact, wrong. Segregation - even though the courts had sustained it for a hundred years - was morally indefensible and legally indefensible and yet it was the law of the land," he said. "She brings that philosophy to her legal work."
First off, this friend and mentor is this man:
http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/oct_nov2001/merksamer.html
http://www.sacbar.org/members/saclawyer/images/oct_nov_2001/Merksamer.jpg
I'm not even going to discuss his lack of qualifications to discuss slavery or history of slavery in America. There are other white men, if one must choose one, that are more qualified for that discussion.
I would like to know exactly what "Liberal views" her family had that needed to be abandoned. It appears that no one even asked the question. Secondly on this "how did slavery happen" question what kind of comment was this? Is he discussion slavery in it's internation form? Is he talking about US slavery? How does he reconsile that the God of the Bible in fact sanctioned genocide and "servitude" of non-Jews? Does he in fact discuss that it was Southern Business (and to a lesser extent northern business) interests that gave us the legal compromises that kept slavery alive in the US? It was in fact a rebellion against government oversight and regulation that sparked the Civil War (you can forget all that "free the blacks" moralising it's garbage).
In fact it was the moralising of judges that enshrined Plessy v. Ferguson into American History. These Christian judges swore up and down that they were in fact doing "God's work." Clearly this is a prime example of why those who use "morals" rather than "logic" to make decisions are dangerous people.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. It is clear that the black church is headed downhill very quickly. It would be easy to say that Janice Brown is an anomaly, but she is not. In our last discussion on the Black Churches it is clear that many black churches are headed in similar directions as Janice Brown and Condi Rice. If there is a great groundswell of black churches that are not in line with these ideas of politicised morality, they need to make a showing. Otherwise.....
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/09/politics/09brown.html?hp&ex=1118376000&en=3dfdc077be26edc5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/national/class/HYPER-FINAL.html
Friday, June 03, 2005
Leave Till Alone
I remember the photo of Emmett Till's bloated body in a book that discussed his killing. I was there in NYC for the premier of the Emmett Till documentary. It is something I keep with me always. It with this that I find myself objecting to the exhbumation of Emmett Till's body and the dragging of this case into the present. And I am not the only one as there are members of the Till family that also object. But let's focus on my objections. Today I read a piece by Earl Ofari Hutchinson in which he argues that the Till case still matters:
Yet Justice Department officials still refused to do anything. They claimed that state officials were solely responsible for prosecuting racially motivated crimes, and if they refused or conducted a farce of a prosecution as was the case with the Till murder, there was little they could do about it. This, however, was blatant legal evasion. Federal statutes gave the Justice Department the power to prosecute individuals on civil rights charges when state prosecutors either failed to bring charges, or conducted a weak, ineffectual prosecution that resulted in acquittals. Federal law also gave the Justice Department the power to prosecute public officials and law enforcement officers who committed or conspired with others to commit acts of racial violence. Congress enacted the latter statutes immediately after the Civil War and they were aimed at specifically punishing racial attacks against blacks. In many of the racial killings local sheriffs and police officers directly participated in the attacks, or aided and abetted the killers.
On the surface this seems like a string argument but in fact it is sentimental and emotative and in my opinion will yeild nothing that we do not already know which is as follows:
Till, either due to a speech impediment or due to a childish wish to show off, made a whistling sound at a white woman in a candy store. Because of this, at least two white men came to the home of Till's uncle and removed him at gunpoint. He was taken somewhere beaten and shot in the head. He was bound with barbed wire to a weight and dumped in a river. His body was found by someone fishing. The white men involved were put on trial and aquitted. The main argument used was that the body was not Till's. The men involved eventually confessed to the killing before they died.
So what else do we need to know? Were there more people involved? Perhaps, but there will not be anything found on the body to prove that. What else? That the Klan was behind it? Maybe, but given that white men in the South, Klanmen or not, could up and take a black man's life on a whim means that it really doesn't matter. If there were indeed more people involved why wasn't that said in the documentary? The uncle and a couple of other blacks who had direct knowledge of the event never took the opportunity to tell who else was involved. So since I don't think they are liars I'm inclined to believe the crime was done by the two men who are now dead.
Personally I think this is graps for attention by the old guard of the Civil Rights movement, who are struggling to find some relevance as their time on the earth comes to an end. Instead of dealing with the issues of the here and now, they retreat to the horrors of the then.
So I say, put the body back in the ground.. We honor Emmett Till by addressing the problems of today.
Links:
http://eurweb.com/story.cfm?id=20672
I remember the photo of Emmett Till's bloated body in a book that discussed his killing. I was there in NYC for the premier of the Emmett Till documentary. It is something I keep with me always. It with this that I find myself objecting to the exhbumation of Emmett Till's body and the dragging of this case into the present. And I am not the only one as there are members of the Till family that also object. But let's focus on my objections. Today I read a piece by Earl Ofari Hutchinson in which he argues that the Till case still matters:
Yet Justice Department officials still refused to do anything. They claimed that state officials were solely responsible for prosecuting racially motivated crimes, and if they refused or conducted a farce of a prosecution as was the case with the Till murder, there was little they could do about it. This, however, was blatant legal evasion. Federal statutes gave the Justice Department the power to prosecute individuals on civil rights charges when state prosecutors either failed to bring charges, or conducted a weak, ineffectual prosecution that resulted in acquittals. Federal law also gave the Justice Department the power to prosecute public officials and law enforcement officers who committed or conspired with others to commit acts of racial violence. Congress enacted the latter statutes immediately after the Civil War and they were aimed at specifically punishing racial attacks against blacks. In many of the racial killings local sheriffs and police officers directly participated in the attacks, or aided and abetted the killers.
On the surface this seems like a string argument but in fact it is sentimental and emotative and in my opinion will yeild nothing that we do not already know which is as follows:
Till, either due to a speech impediment or due to a childish wish to show off, made a whistling sound at a white woman in a candy store. Because of this, at least two white men came to the home of Till's uncle and removed him at gunpoint. He was taken somewhere beaten and shot in the head. He was bound with barbed wire to a weight and dumped in a river. His body was found by someone fishing. The white men involved were put on trial and aquitted. The main argument used was that the body was not Till's. The men involved eventually confessed to the killing before they died.
So what else do we need to know? Were there more people involved? Perhaps, but there will not be anything found on the body to prove that. What else? That the Klan was behind it? Maybe, but given that white men in the South, Klanmen or not, could up and take a black man's life on a whim means that it really doesn't matter. If there were indeed more people involved why wasn't that said in the documentary? The uncle and a couple of other blacks who had direct knowledge of the event never took the opportunity to tell who else was involved. So since I don't think they are liars I'm inclined to believe the crime was done by the two men who are now dead.
Personally I think this is graps for attention by the old guard of the Civil Rights movement, who are struggling to find some relevance as their time on the earth comes to an end. Instead of dealing with the issues of the here and now, they retreat to the horrors of the then.
So I say, put the body back in the ground.. We honor Emmett Till by addressing the problems of today.
Links:
http://eurweb.com/story.cfm?id=20672
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Black Church Seduced by the "Dark Side"
One of the hallmarks of this administration has been the aggressive courting of the Christian Right. Unawares to many in the Black Community there is a large showing of Black Christians in this corner and they are not a new breed. Back when Martin Luther King Jr. was agitating for Civil Rights he was driven to write a letter from a jail cell to these "men of faith" who were content to line their pockets with tithes and offerings while doing nothing for black peoples progress.
So now these types have been given new life, like Anakin by "The Emperor." I know that's a lot of Star Wars analogies but the "Revenge of the Sith" is an excellent story of how those with good intentions can be sidetracked by their own lust for power. Let me begin with an article from Agape Press:
(AgapePress) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is getting support from a group of black pastors who say judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up-or-down vote.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate have filed a "cloture petition," a move that is intended to force an end to the Democratic-led filibuster of judicial nominees. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the matter on Tuesday. Two-thirds of the senators (67) must vote in favor of the cloture for it to pass. Frist says if that vote fails, he will move to have the filibusters declared out of order for federal judicial nominees -- a move Democrats have labeled the "nuclear option."
On Thursday (May 19), black religious leaders demanded that senators stop filibustering, and vote "up or down on Janice Brown." At a Capitol Hill news conference with Frist, the clergy members accused Democrats of blocking a confirmation vote on Brown because she is a black conservative.
Bishop Harry Jackson, president of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said judges like Brown are needed to stop courts from overruling the people with decisions like those requiring the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Standing outside the Capitol, Jackson asked a question about those leading the filibuster: "Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?"
Jackson contends Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she will not find new constitutional rights that are not in the text. "The advocates for issues like same-sex marriage cannot find popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land," he said. "Therefore they are using the back door in what I'm going to call 'legal sleight of hand' in order to get their way."
Jackson said America needs moral judges like Judge Brown and the other filibustered nominees on the courts -- not more judicial activists.
These particular black clergy are motivated by a great fear of Gay Marriage. With this single issue they have allowed themselves to be used by the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. Of particular interest is this comment:
Jackson contends Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she will not find new constitutional rights that are not in the text. "The advocates for issues like same-sex marriage cannot find popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land," he said. "Therefore they are using the back door in what I'm going to call 'legal sleight of hand' in order to get their way."
Someone ought to remind the "good pastor" that the 13, 14 and 15 Amendments to the Constitution were at their times against "popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land." The "good reverend" should also be reminded that the various Civil Rights Acts and the ruling of Brown V. among many other pieces of legislation also were against "popular support" yet I doubt seriously that he would want those laws overturned.
Now some idiot reading this will interpret my statements as equating "Same-Sex marriages" with Civil Rights. I do not. For the record I do not support Same Sex marriages. I also think the state should not be involved in what is actually a religious matter. I Believe the state should not be giving out marriage licenses or providing benefits based on marital status. Nor do I believe that insurance companies and the like should be doing so. I believe in a single payer who designates those who he or she wants to cover. Marriage should be left to whatever religious institution provides such services and they can choose who and under what circumstances they will perform marriages without interference from the state.
That said, the true nature of these black ministers are treading on ground they clearly do not understand and have stooped to racial scare tactics in order to support their claims:
"Years ago there were people in the South who wore white robes and white hoods. They intimidated many ethnic groups and other groups," he stated. "Today I believe that black-robed vigilantes are operating in the guise of American tradition, and they have taken away the true rights on an entire culture."
Christians, he said, are uniting against immoral judicial rulings. "The black church is going to clasp hands with the white evangelical church, and we are going to be a part of turning America's moral compass back to the way that it needs to be." Black and white churches, he said, are uniting to restore "America's moral compass."
Is this person serious? Klan imagery? And this man has people in his congregation that approve of this? It is highly likely that he does since I suppose that people like me, left once they saw the game for what it was OR like my mother just let it pass. But this isn't the first time that such imagery has been used. Other articles I have read have discussed how Dixiecrats used the filibuster to prevent votes on Civil Rights Legistlation. True indeed. However, the smart person knows that the tool isn't the problem, it's the person wielding it. How does a member of a minority group advocate the removal of a tool that preserves minority strength? Easy, this group of people, so obsessed by same-sex marriages identify with what white evangelicals have sold them that they now identify with them to the detriment of their own.
So this leads to the most recent article on the slipping moral character of the Black Church. The LA Times posted an article entitled: A U.S. Faith Initiative for Africa where it was reported that ministers such as TD Jakes, Donnie McClurklin and others were invited by the Head Liar in Charge, Condoleeza Rice to discuss Faith Based initiatives for Black Churches to provide Aid to Africa:
WASHINGTON — Escalating its courtship of a politically powerful constituency, the Bush administration is teaming up with some of the nation's best-known and most influential black clergy to craft a new role for U.S. churches in Africa.
The effort was launched last week, when more than two dozen leading African American religious figures met privately with Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice and senior White House officials at the State Department, according to administration officials and meeting participants.
The hour longg session focused largely on how the administration's faith-based initiative could be expanded to combat the spread of HIV and provide help for tens of millions of children orphaned by the epidemic across Africa.
Some of the pastors said it was a matter of national security — that those orphans were susceptible to recruitment by Islamic extremists unless they could be exposed to churches such as theirs.
This meeting raises the othebogeymanan of the Black Church: Islam. Since the rise of the Nation Of Islam, many many Churhes have been upset by the rising numbers of blacks (especially males) turning to Islam. Many have said many disparaging remarks regarding Islam and Minister Farrakhan and Mohammed in their efforts to blunt defections to the NOI camp. Indeed for a few years the work of the NOI, culminating in the Million Man March had Church Leaders up in arms over the influence and credibility that Muslims had developed. So I cannot say that it is surprising at all to see that the "leadership" would want to step into Africa to turn people to "their churches."
If the Bush administration was so serious about the plight of Africa, why not invite Dr. James Smalls of Cornel University or the numerous Scholars and thinkers and organizers who have spent much of their lifetimes studying the issues that face Africa. No doubt they know who they are given that the FBI keeps tabs on such people in the US. But Rice didn't go there because this isn't about allieviating AIDS this is about political points and stripping away more black votes from the Democrats.
Going back to our Star Wars analogy: Anakin's fall to the Dark Side is precipitated by his want to save his wife. Palpatine uses this knowledge to offer Anakin hope. However; in order to get the power he wants he must do things that are not good. Eventually, Anakin does not see what he is doing as wrong but as neccessary to save his wife and assure effecient government. The parrallel is clear. Who would argue that AIDS relief efforts is a bad thing? If it takes axing fillibusters then what's the harm? It stands in the way of the greater good. "I know better than everybody else...."
The LA Times article pointed out some of the poisonous fruit being conceived by this meeting:
The meeting reflected the expanding relationship between some of the country's best-known black clergy and the Bush administration — a relationship that has been nurtured through a White House program that encourages funneling government grants to religious charities.
Illustrating the political benefit of that relationship, White House officials injected some Capitol Hill strategy into the session. They solicited support among the black pastors for controversial legislation that would allow faith-based charities in the U.S. to discriminate in hiring based on an applicant's religious beliefs — a provision that has spurred opposition from some Democrats and civil rights groups.
"Compassion has a way of cutting across partisan lines," said James Towey, the top White House official in charge of the faith-based programs, who asked the pastors to sign a letter endorsing the legislation.
Blacks, who have been at the forefront of fighting discrimination in the workplace, now have representatives who want to legalize discrimination in hiring. Imagine that!! I personally would not be applying for a job at a Church since I don't particular care to be bombarded with the general prejudices that are found in such places. Similarly I would not be applying for a job at a Temple , Mosque, or the like, However, some people don't have the same luxery of picking and choosing the jobs they apply for. Imaging you being a bus driver who happens to be Buddhist. And the ALAN AME church has a need for a bus driver and you qualify. Why should you be denied the job because you don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?
Of course this is/was the same situation facing Africans. If you didn't accept Church doctrine you couldn't get into schools. So now we get blacks doing the discriminating.
The other very obvious thing about this piece is that the administration made a clear political move with the "letter of support". So just as it was clear to us who had eyes to see and ears to hear, that Palpatine was using Anakin to further his own agenda, So is the White House is also using black clergy to furttheirhier aims. It is fitting that people in the Church are described as sheep. Sheep are not the smartest animals in the world. So long as their is some sort of leader they will follow. In fact Sheep will blindly follow the sheep in front of it even to it's death.
Links:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/202005f.asp
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-ministers29may29,1,1269719.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
One of the hallmarks of this administration has been the aggressive courting of the Christian Right. Unawares to many in the Black Community there is a large showing of Black Christians in this corner and they are not a new breed. Back when Martin Luther King Jr. was agitating for Civil Rights he was driven to write a letter from a jail cell to these "men of faith" who were content to line their pockets with tithes and offerings while doing nothing for black peoples progress.
So now these types have been given new life, like Anakin by "The Emperor." I know that's a lot of Star Wars analogies but the "Revenge of the Sith" is an excellent story of how those with good intentions can be sidetracked by their own lust for power. Let me begin with an article from Agape Press:
(AgapePress) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is getting support from a group of black pastors who say judicial nominees like Janice Rogers Brown deserve an up-or-down vote.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate have filed a "cloture petition," a move that is intended to force an end to the Democratic-led filibuster of judicial nominees. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the matter on Tuesday. Two-thirds of the senators (67) must vote in favor of the cloture for it to pass. Frist says if that vote fails, he will move to have the filibusters declared out of order for federal judicial nominees -- a move Democrats have labeled the "nuclear option."
On Thursday (May 19), black religious leaders demanded that senators stop filibustering, and vote "up or down on Janice Brown." At a Capitol Hill news conference with Frist, the clergy members accused Democrats of blocking a confirmation vote on Brown because she is a black conservative.
Bishop Harry Jackson, president of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, said judges like Brown are needed to stop courts from overruling the people with decisions like those requiring the legalization of same-sex "marriage." Standing outside the Capitol, Jackson asked a question about those leading the filibuster: "Why are they afraid to put a black woman on the court?"
Jackson contends Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she will not find new constitutional rights that are not in the text. "The advocates for issues like same-sex marriage cannot find popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land," he said. "Therefore they are using the back door in what I'm going to call 'legal sleight of hand' in order to get their way."
Jackson said America needs moral judges like Judge Brown and the other filibustered nominees on the courts -- not more judicial activists.
These particular black clergy are motivated by a great fear of Gay Marriage. With this single issue they have allowed themselves to be used by the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. Of particular interest is this comment:
Jackson contends Democrats oppose Janice Rogers Brown because she will not find new constitutional rights that are not in the text. "The advocates for issues like same-sex marriage cannot find popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land," he said. "Therefore they are using the back door in what I'm going to call 'legal sleight of hand' in order to get their way."
Someone ought to remind the "good pastor" that the 13, 14 and 15 Amendments to the Constitution were at their times against "popular support to change the long-standing institutions of our land." The "good reverend" should also be reminded that the various Civil Rights Acts and the ruling of Brown V. among many other pieces of legislation also were against "popular support" yet I doubt seriously that he would want those laws overturned.
Now some idiot reading this will interpret my statements as equating "Same-Sex marriages" with Civil Rights. I do not. For the record I do not support Same Sex marriages. I also think the state should not be involved in what is actually a religious matter. I Believe the state should not be giving out marriage licenses or providing benefits based on marital status. Nor do I believe that insurance companies and the like should be doing so. I believe in a single payer who designates those who he or she wants to cover. Marriage should be left to whatever religious institution provides such services and they can choose who and under what circumstances they will perform marriages without interference from the state.
That said, the true nature of these black ministers are treading on ground they clearly do not understand and have stooped to racial scare tactics in order to support their claims:
"Years ago there were people in the South who wore white robes and white hoods. They intimidated many ethnic groups and other groups," he stated. "Today I believe that black-robed vigilantes are operating in the guise of American tradition, and they have taken away the true rights on an entire culture."
Christians, he said, are uniting against immoral judicial rulings. "The black church is going to clasp hands with the white evangelical church, and we are going to be a part of turning America's moral compass back to the way that it needs to be." Black and white churches, he said, are uniting to restore "America's moral compass."
Is this person serious? Klan imagery? And this man has people in his congregation that approve of this? It is highly likely that he does since I suppose that people like me, left once they saw the game for what it was OR like my mother just let it pass. But this isn't the first time that such imagery has been used. Other articles I have read have discussed how Dixiecrats used the filibuster to prevent votes on Civil Rights Legistlation. True indeed. However, the smart person knows that the tool isn't the problem, it's the person wielding it. How does a member of a minority group advocate the removal of a tool that preserves minority strength? Easy, this group of people, so obsessed by same-sex marriages identify with what white evangelicals have sold them that they now identify with them to the detriment of their own.
So this leads to the most recent article on the slipping moral character of the Black Church. The LA Times posted an article entitled: A U.S. Faith Initiative for Africa where it was reported that ministers such as TD Jakes, Donnie McClurklin and others were invited by the Head Liar in Charge, Condoleeza Rice to discuss Faith Based initiatives for Black Churches to provide Aid to Africa:
WASHINGTON — Escalating its courtship of a politically powerful constituency, the Bush administration is teaming up with some of the nation's best-known and most influential black clergy to craft a new role for U.S. churches in Africa.
The effort was launched last week, when more than two dozen leading African American religious figures met privately with Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice and senior White House officials at the State Department, according to administration officials and meeting participants.
The hour longg session focused largely on how the administration's faith-based initiative could be expanded to combat the spread of HIV and provide help for tens of millions of children orphaned by the epidemic across Africa.
Some of the pastors said it was a matter of national security — that those orphans were susceptible to recruitment by Islamic extremists unless they could be exposed to churches such as theirs.
This meeting raises the othebogeymanan of the Black Church: Islam. Since the rise of the Nation Of Islam, many many Churhes have been upset by the rising numbers of blacks (especially males) turning to Islam. Many have said many disparaging remarks regarding Islam and Minister Farrakhan and Mohammed in their efforts to blunt defections to the NOI camp. Indeed for a few years the work of the NOI, culminating in the Million Man March had Church Leaders up in arms over the influence and credibility that Muslims had developed. So I cannot say that it is surprising at all to see that the "leadership" would want to step into Africa to turn people to "their churches."
If the Bush administration was so serious about the plight of Africa, why not invite Dr. James Smalls of Cornel University or the numerous Scholars and thinkers and organizers who have spent much of their lifetimes studying the issues that face Africa. No doubt they know who they are given that the FBI keeps tabs on such people in the US. But Rice didn't go there because this isn't about allieviating AIDS this is about political points and stripping away more black votes from the Democrats.
Going back to our Star Wars analogy: Anakin's fall to the Dark Side is precipitated by his want to save his wife. Palpatine uses this knowledge to offer Anakin hope. However; in order to get the power he wants he must do things that are not good. Eventually, Anakin does not see what he is doing as wrong but as neccessary to save his wife and assure effecient government. The parrallel is clear. Who would argue that AIDS relief efforts is a bad thing? If it takes axing fillibusters then what's the harm? It stands in the way of the greater good. "I know better than everybody else...."
The LA Times article pointed out some of the poisonous fruit being conceived by this meeting:
The meeting reflected the expanding relationship between some of the country's best-known black clergy and the Bush administration — a relationship that has been nurtured through a White House program that encourages funneling government grants to religious charities.
Illustrating the political benefit of that relationship, White House officials injected some Capitol Hill strategy into the session. They solicited support among the black pastors for controversial legislation that would allow faith-based charities in the U.S. to discriminate in hiring based on an applicant's religious beliefs — a provision that has spurred opposition from some Democrats and civil rights groups.
"Compassion has a way of cutting across partisan lines," said James Towey, the top White House official in charge of the faith-based programs, who asked the pastors to sign a letter endorsing the legislation.
Blacks, who have been at the forefront of fighting discrimination in the workplace, now have representatives who want to legalize discrimination in hiring. Imagine that!! I personally would not be applying for a job at a Church since I don't particular care to be bombarded with the general prejudices that are found in such places. Similarly I would not be applying for a job at a Temple , Mosque, or the like, However, some people don't have the same luxery of picking and choosing the jobs they apply for. Imaging you being a bus driver who happens to be Buddhist. And the ALAN AME church has a need for a bus driver and you qualify. Why should you be denied the job because you don't accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour?
Of course this is/was the same situation facing Africans. If you didn't accept Church doctrine you couldn't get into schools. So now we get blacks doing the discriminating.
The other very obvious thing about this piece is that the administration made a clear political move with the "letter of support". So just as it was clear to us who had eyes to see and ears to hear, that Palpatine was using Anakin to further his own agenda, So is the White House is also using black clergy to furttheirhier aims. It is fitting that people in the Church are described as sheep. Sheep are not the smartest animals in the world. So long as their is some sort of leader they will follow. In fact Sheep will blindly follow the sheep in front of it even to it's death.
Links:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/202005f.asp
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-ministers29may29,1,1269719.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Fili-Busted
It came as a small surpise that the a few Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement that averted the showdown in the Senate over Justice appoinments. It was little surprise because it has become very clear that the Democratic party is like a horse with a broken leg: lame.
Under the agreement reached the Democrats apparently will roll over and play dead on the three justices currently up for approval. In return the Republicans will agree well not to officially kill them off (not use the "nuclear option"). The Democrats would reserve the "right" to filibuster any "extreme" justices.
Translation:
Democrats play dead on these extreme justices, one of which believes that most labor, environmental and civil rights legistlation are unconstitutional. They beg to not be officially locked out of decision making in the Senate.
Republicans can still "Nuke 'em" should they be in the mood.
Thats not much of a compromise. Somewhere in the discussion of the "excessive use" of filibusters by Democrats is the fact that the vast majority of Bush appointees have been approved by both Democrats and Republicans. The ones who have been stalled are the extreme ones. And the Democrats just gave a free pass to those. That's not a compromise, thats crumbs off the table.
On the other side there is much ranting about Republicans selling out their base. Maybe they think so, but I think it's a ruse. Three appointees have just been given the all clear and as soon as the Democrats make a stink about the next two the Republicans can go and threaten them all over again. If I were a Republican I would be very happy with this compromise. Each time the Dems get out of line, I'll threated to lock 'em out and they will roll over. It's less convenient than an outright lockout, but the appearance of negotiation makes for a good cover.
Personally I think the Democrats should have held thier ground and allowed the Republicans to change the rules. They would have been creamed in the next election where the ever popular Bush cannot run and the true nature of the Republican Party would have been exposed. And of course because all things change at some point the Democrats will gain a majority again they would then wave that magic stick handed to them by Republicans and tell them to complain to Bill Frist if they don't like it. Sometimes you need to let the monkey climb.
It came as a small surpise that the a few Democrats and Republicans reached an agreement that averted the showdown in the Senate over Justice appoinments. It was little surprise because it has become very clear that the Democratic party is like a horse with a broken leg: lame.
Under the agreement reached the Democrats apparently will roll over and play dead on the three justices currently up for approval. In return the Republicans will agree well not to officially kill them off (not use the "nuclear option"). The Democrats would reserve the "right" to filibuster any "extreme" justices.
Translation:
Democrats play dead on these extreme justices, one of which believes that most labor, environmental and civil rights legistlation are unconstitutional. They beg to not be officially locked out of decision making in the Senate.
Republicans can still "Nuke 'em" should they be in the mood.
Thats not much of a compromise. Somewhere in the discussion of the "excessive use" of filibusters by Democrats is the fact that the vast majority of Bush appointees have been approved by both Democrats and Republicans. The ones who have been stalled are the extreme ones. And the Democrats just gave a free pass to those. That's not a compromise, thats crumbs off the table.
On the other side there is much ranting about Republicans selling out their base. Maybe they think so, but I think it's a ruse. Three appointees have just been given the all clear and as soon as the Democrats make a stink about the next two the Republicans can go and threaten them all over again. If I were a Republican I would be very happy with this compromise. Each time the Dems get out of line, I'll threated to lock 'em out and they will roll over. It's less convenient than an outright lockout, but the appearance of negotiation makes for a good cover.
Personally I think the Democrats should have held thier ground and allowed the Republicans to change the rules. They would have been creamed in the next election where the ever popular Bush cannot run and the true nature of the Republican Party would have been exposed. And of course because all things change at some point the Democrats will gain a majority again they would then wave that magic stick handed to them by Republicans and tell them to complain to Bill Frist if they don't like it. Sometimes you need to let the monkey climb.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Our Shining Prince
Today Black folks around the world, who care about black folks around the world are remembering Malcolm X, as described by the Egun Ossie Davis, our Black Shining Prince. We live today in a world where black self-hate and lack of cooperation has become the norm. Many black youth are enamoured with Hip Hop artists and consider them hero's though that have done squat to build anything other than their personal bank accounts. We have witnessed unspeakable horrors of black on black hate in the form of the Genocide in Rwanda and today in the Sudan. We have watched as Haiti was overrun and a democratically elected president ousted while black so called "power brokers" could do nothing but complain, wring their hands and make speeches that resulted in squat. We have witnessed the rise of the sellout class with the aid of white corporate money/. The same types that put us on ships in order to have the latest gun, pot, pan, bathtub and cloth. We are witnessing the Government's continued slap in our face as they tell us that Assata Shakur is a terrorist, and those telling us these things are now black and brown.
We are witnessing an increased gap in wealth between blacks and whites due both to institutional practices as well as or own unwillingness to put off self serving "wants." for our future.
We are witnessing black men increasingly going to jail while decreasing their presence in University commencement lines. There is no doubt that things have changed since Malcolm's time, but other than sitting in front of busses and sitting in Denny's the things that matter in America: economic and political power are worse than during Reconstruction. Internationally we constinue to see war and coups in various parts of Africa. AIDS is ravaging the population and we are thouroughly unprepared for the 21st century.
We should take time out today and reflect on the legacy of Malcolm X. We should reflect on those ideologies that preceeded and informed him. We should then decide where and what we can do to make the changes that need to be made in our own space and time that is consistent with the overall goals of Malcolm. Malcolm sacrificed all for his passion, his people. Most of us are either unwilling and unable to do so. We should not be ashamed of this! Every person has thier limits. What we should do is determine how much we can sacrifice we can make. Can we give a student, not related to us money for school? A computer? books? Can we give someone a ride that we pass every day? Can we put a book in our kids school libraries? Can we start a little business and put aside a portion of the profits? There are many many ways we can make sacrifices for our people. In fact these small, "invisible" sacrifices are what make mass movements. We do not hear of these things but they are the foundation of any movement.
Peace
Ase -O!
GG
Today Black folks around the world, who care about black folks around the world are remembering Malcolm X, as described by the Egun Ossie Davis, our Black Shining Prince. We live today in a world where black self-hate and lack of cooperation has become the norm. Many black youth are enamoured with Hip Hop artists and consider them hero's though that have done squat to build anything other than their personal bank accounts. We have witnessed unspeakable horrors of black on black hate in the form of the Genocide in Rwanda and today in the Sudan. We have watched as Haiti was overrun and a democratically elected president ousted while black so called "power brokers" could do nothing but complain, wring their hands and make speeches that resulted in squat. We have witnessed the rise of the sellout class with the aid of white corporate money/. The same types that put us on ships in order to have the latest gun, pot, pan, bathtub and cloth. We are witnessing the Government's continued slap in our face as they tell us that Assata Shakur is a terrorist, and those telling us these things are now black and brown.
We are witnessing an increased gap in wealth between blacks and whites due both to institutional practices as well as or own unwillingness to put off self serving "wants." for our future.
We are witnessing black men increasingly going to jail while decreasing their presence in University commencement lines. There is no doubt that things have changed since Malcolm's time, but other than sitting in front of busses and sitting in Denny's the things that matter in America: economic and political power are worse than during Reconstruction. Internationally we constinue to see war and coups in various parts of Africa. AIDS is ravaging the population and we are thouroughly unprepared for the 21st century.
We should take time out today and reflect on the legacy of Malcolm X. We should reflect on those ideologies that preceeded and informed him. We should then decide where and what we can do to make the changes that need to be made in our own space and time that is consistent with the overall goals of Malcolm. Malcolm sacrificed all for his passion, his people. Most of us are either unwilling and unable to do so. We should not be ashamed of this! Every person has thier limits. What we should do is determine how much we can sacrifice we can make. Can we give a student, not related to us money for school? A computer? books? Can we give someone a ride that we pass every day? Can we put a book in our kids school libraries? Can we start a little business and put aside a portion of the profits? There are many many ways we can make sacrifices for our people. In fact these small, "invisible" sacrifices are what make mass movements. We do not hear of these things but they are the foundation of any movement.
Peace
Ase -O!
GG
Friday, May 13, 2005
Ohhh the Lies we tell!
In the run up to the war in Iraq. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair used "intelligence" about Saddam, specifically his possession and prior use of WMD. The London Times already exposed the fact that the Bush administration had long planned to attack Iraq. Furthermore the article show that Both Britain and the US were looking to create a political climate for such an attack:
The minutes, published by The Sunday Times today, begins with the warning: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know.” It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam.
“If the political context were right, people would support regime change,” said Blair. He added that the key issues were “whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to work”.
The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.
Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.
We know that one of the arguments used by Bush to get into Iraq was how he gassed the Kurds. It now seems that claim is untrue. Counterpunch has published an interview with Ghazwan -al-Mukhtar in Iraq, who states:
In comparing Saddam with US actions there are remarkable similarities. Both Iraq and Iran had and used chemical weapons in their war. The United States and the United Kingdom assisted, encouraged, armed, priovided intelligence and protected Iraq in the UN during Iraq's war with Iran for their own political and economic goals. Iraq used gas in Halabja then the two governments, UK and US, made every effort to cover-up facts, again for their political and economic interests. Saddam supposedly "gased" his own people during the war with Iran: Not according to the CIA offical who wrote in the N.Y. Times that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that said this was speculation and that in fact it was likely Iran used gas on the Kurds.
The New York Times article in question, A War Crime or an Act of War?, written by a senior CIA political analyst claims:
all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians; explains that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths; notes Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time; explains that Iran sought control of key dam near Halabja, part of impressive Iraqi waterway system that is most extensive in Mideast; adds that Bush administration owes Americans full facts before going to war (M)
Clearly then the Bush administration has used the ignorance of the public (and members of Congress) to justify the war in Iraq. That this January 31.2003 Op-Ed piece was simply allowed to disappear in the press is amazing. Even the anti-war peopl have conceeded that Sadddam gassed the Kurds. We shall see what happens during Saddam's trial. I expect much embarrasing information to be revealed, if he isn't killed first.
Links:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482
http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05112005.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html
In the run up to the war in Iraq. President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair used "intelligence" about Saddam, specifically his possession and prior use of WMD. The London Times already exposed the fact that the Bush administration had long planned to attack Iraq. Furthermore the article show that Both Britain and the US were looking to create a political climate for such an attack:
The minutes, published by The Sunday Times today, begins with the warning: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know.” It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam.
“If the political context were right, people would support regime change,” said Blair. He added that the key issues were “whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to work”.
The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”.
Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.
We know that one of the arguments used by Bush to get into Iraq was how he gassed the Kurds. It now seems that claim is untrue. Counterpunch has published an interview with Ghazwan -al-Mukhtar in Iraq, who states:
In comparing Saddam with US actions there are remarkable similarities. Both Iraq and Iran had and used chemical weapons in their war. The United States and the United Kingdom assisted, encouraged, armed, priovided intelligence and protected Iraq in the UN during Iraq's war with Iran for their own political and economic goals. Iraq used gas in Halabja then the two governments, UK and US, made every effort to cover-up facts, again for their political and economic interests. Saddam supposedly "gased" his own people during the war with Iran: Not according to the CIA offical who wrote in the N.Y. Times that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report that said this was speculation and that in fact it was likely Iran used gas on the Kurds.
The New York Times article in question, A War Crime or an Act of War?, written by a senior CIA political analyst claims:
all that is known for certain is that Kurds were hit with poison gas that day, during battle with Iranians; explains that US Defense Intelligence Agency's report found both sides used gas during battle, and blamed Iranians for Kurdish deaths; notes Kurds died of cyanide-based gas that Iran, but not Iraq, had at time; explains that Iran sought control of key dam near Halabja, part of impressive Iraqi waterway system that is most extensive in Mideast; adds that Bush administration owes Americans full facts before going to war (M)
Clearly then the Bush administration has used the ignorance of the public (and members of Congress) to justify the war in Iraq. That this January 31.2003 Op-Ed piece was simply allowed to disappear in the press is amazing. Even the anti-war peopl have conceeded that Sadddam gassed the Kurds. We shall see what happens during Saddam's trial. I expect much embarrasing information to be revealed, if he isn't killed first.
Links:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60816FC3D5C0C728FDDA80894DB404482
http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05112005.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Hands Off Assata!!
Recently it was reported that the bounty for Assata Shakur's capture has been raised from $150,000 to a cool 1 millon. Why?
For those of you who do not know, Assata Shakur alone with Malik Shakur and Sundiata Akoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1979 for "having a tailight out." Let me pause here to comment on this:
I live in New Jersey. I have been stopped twice for "having a tailight out" by racist pig cops one of whome had me exit my vehicle, IN THE FUCKING RAIN, so he could show me the "out"taillight" that was clearly on. His intent was clearly to agitate me as an excuse for taking me to jail or worse. fortunately for me a white male in a minivan stopped behind the officer and started askign for directions. At this point I went back into my vehicle. I am positive that had that individual not stopped I would have been brutalized or worse.
My second incident involved no less than FOUR state troopers, one of which had a gun pointed at me. The absolutely BOGUS claim that the officer had "never seen a temporary out of state transport plate." was the excuse he had to have me surrounded by officers and ask me at gunpoint whether he could search my vehicle.
So let me say that I have absolutely NO SYMPATHY for any police Officer who gets leaded for violating the rights of black people to travel freely.
Continuing:
According to the Afro-Cuba website Shakur states:
On May 2, 1973 I, along with Zayd Malik Shakur and Sundiata Acoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, supposedly for a "faulty tail light." Sundiata Acoli got out of the car to determine why we were stopped. Zayd and I remained in the car. State trooper Harper then came to the car, opened the door and began to question us. Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became "suspicious." He then drew his gun, pointed it at us, and told us to put our hands up in the air, in front of us, where he could see them. I complied and in a split second, there was a sound that came from outside the car, there was a sudden movement, and I was shot once with my arms held up in the air, and then once again from the back. Zayd Malik Shakur was later killed, trooper Werner Foerster was killed, and even though trooper Harper admitted that he shot and killed Zayd Malik Shakur, under the New Jersey felony murder law, I was charged with killing both Zayd Malik Shakur, who was my closest friend and comrade, and charged in the death of trooper Forester. Never in my life have I felt such grief. Zayd had vowed to protect me, and to help me to get to a safe place, and it was clear that he had lost his life, trying to protect both me and Sundiata. Although he was also unarmed, and the gun that killed trooper Foerster was found under Zayd’s leg, Sundiata Acoli, who was captured later, was also charged with both deaths. Neither Sundiata Acoli nor I ever received a fair trial. We were both convicted in the news media way before our trials. No news media was ever permitted to interview us, although the New Jersey police and the FBI fed stories to the press on a daily basis. In 1977, I was convicted by an all- white jury and sentenced to life plus 33 years in prison. In 1979, fearing that I would be murdered in prison, and knowing that I would never receive any justice, I was liberated from prison, aided by committed comrades who understood the depths of the injustices in my case, and who were also extremely fearful for my life.
I'm going to assume that Either Acoli or Shakur actually shot the officer involved. And with that assumption they are still innocent. That the officer fired at the unarmed passengers meant that these individuals were in danger and had the right to defend themselves, with deadly force.
Meanwhile Superintendant "Fuentez" (Who I will refer to as a "spanish speaking cracker") makes a press announcement:
State Police Superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes said he hopes the sweetened reward will encourage someone to come forward with information leading to the capture of Chesimard, who has been living in Cuba under the protection of Fidel Castro's government.
"We have pretty long institutional memories," Fuentes said at a news conference at State Police headquarters on the 32nd anniversary of the killing. "This is a debt that she owes to the residents of the state of New Jersey for the crimes she committed."
"Fuentes" doesn't represent me or a great deal of people in Newark, Irvington, Englewood, Trenton and other black neighborhoods.
Albertop Gonzalezm, the new "spanish speaking cracker" in the Just-us department apparently approved new funds for this new public interest in Shakur:
The money from the United States Justice Department, personally approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, will be paid for information leading to her safe capture. It would not be paid if Chesimard is killed in a capture attempt, Fuentes said.
BUt what is perhaps saddest about this thing is the silence emanating from the so-called "black press" and so called "black leadership." who concerned with advertisers and votes are to scared to even take on these evil people. Even if one does not agree with my position that crooked cops deserve lead, the evidence presented in Shakurs trails clearly shows that she and he comrades were victims. And we're taling 1979. 1979 folks. And it is CLEARLY documented how the NJ STate Troopers do. CLEARLY!!.
I thank Olodumare for Fidel Castro having the balls to stand up to the US in this case and hope anyone who attempts to put a hand on Shakur gets leaded.
Recently it was reported that the bounty for Assata Shakur's capture has been raised from $150,000 to a cool 1 millon. Why?
For those of you who do not know, Assata Shakur alone with Malik Shakur and Sundiata Akoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1979 for "having a tailight out." Let me pause here to comment on this:
I live in New Jersey. I have been stopped twice for "having a tailight out" by racist pig cops one of whome had me exit my vehicle, IN THE FUCKING RAIN, so he could show me the "out"taillight" that was clearly on. His intent was clearly to agitate me as an excuse for taking me to jail or worse. fortunately for me a white male in a minivan stopped behind the officer and started askign for directions. At this point I went back into my vehicle. I am positive that had that individual not stopped I would have been brutalized or worse.
My second incident involved no less than FOUR state troopers, one of which had a gun pointed at me. The absolutely BOGUS claim that the officer had "never seen a temporary out of state transport plate." was the excuse he had to have me surrounded by officers and ask me at gunpoint whether he could search my vehicle.
So let me say that I have absolutely NO SYMPATHY for any police Officer who gets leaded for violating the rights of black people to travel freely.
Continuing:
According to the Afro-Cuba website Shakur states:
On May 2, 1973 I, along with Zayd Malik Shakur and Sundiata Acoli were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike, supposedly for a "faulty tail light." Sundiata Acoli got out of the car to determine why we were stopped. Zayd and I remained in the car. State trooper Harper then came to the car, opened the door and began to question us. Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became "suspicious." He then drew his gun, pointed it at us, and told us to put our hands up in the air, in front of us, where he could see them. I complied and in a split second, there was a sound that came from outside the car, there was a sudden movement, and I was shot once with my arms held up in the air, and then once again from the back. Zayd Malik Shakur was later killed, trooper Werner Foerster was killed, and even though trooper Harper admitted that he shot and killed Zayd Malik Shakur, under the New Jersey felony murder law, I was charged with killing both Zayd Malik Shakur, who was my closest friend and comrade, and charged in the death of trooper Forester. Never in my life have I felt such grief. Zayd had vowed to protect me, and to help me to get to a safe place, and it was clear that he had lost his life, trying to protect both me and Sundiata. Although he was also unarmed, and the gun that killed trooper Foerster was found under Zayd’s leg, Sundiata Acoli, who was captured later, was also charged with both deaths. Neither Sundiata Acoli nor I ever received a fair trial. We were both convicted in the news media way before our trials. No news media was ever permitted to interview us, although the New Jersey police and the FBI fed stories to the press on a daily basis. In 1977, I was convicted by an all- white jury and sentenced to life plus 33 years in prison. In 1979, fearing that I would be murdered in prison, and knowing that I would never receive any justice, I was liberated from prison, aided by committed comrades who understood the depths of the injustices in my case, and who were also extremely fearful for my life.
I'm going to assume that Either Acoli or Shakur actually shot the officer involved. And with that assumption they are still innocent. That the officer fired at the unarmed passengers meant that these individuals were in danger and had the right to defend themselves, with deadly force.
Meanwhile Superintendant "Fuentez" (Who I will refer to as a "spanish speaking cracker") makes a press announcement:
State Police Superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes said he hopes the sweetened reward will encourage someone to come forward with information leading to the capture of Chesimard, who has been living in Cuba under the protection of Fidel Castro's government.
"We have pretty long institutional memories," Fuentes said at a news conference at State Police headquarters on the 32nd anniversary of the killing. "This is a debt that she owes to the residents of the state of New Jersey for the crimes she committed."
"Fuentes" doesn't represent me or a great deal of people in Newark, Irvington, Englewood, Trenton and other black neighborhoods.
Albertop Gonzalezm, the new "spanish speaking cracker" in the Just-us department apparently approved new funds for this new public interest in Shakur:
The money from the United States Justice Department, personally approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, will be paid for information leading to her safe capture. It would not be paid if Chesimard is killed in a capture attempt, Fuentes said.
BUt what is perhaps saddest about this thing is the silence emanating from the so-called "black press" and so called "black leadership." who concerned with advertisers and votes are to scared to even take on these evil people. Even if one does not agree with my position that crooked cops deserve lead, the evidence presented in Shakurs trails clearly shows that she and he comrades were victims. And we're taling 1979. 1979 folks. And it is CLEARLY documented how the NJ STate Troopers do. CLEARLY!!.
I thank Olodumare for Fidel Castro having the balls to stand up to the US in this case and hope anyone who attempts to put a hand on Shakur gets leaded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)