RE: To Be or Not to Be

Dr. Goddess posted an entry on her blog about Ebonics entitled To Be or Not to Be: Revisting the Ebonics Controversy. There she does as the title suggests and defends the existence of Ebonics. I am not an adherent of the "Ebonics as distinct language" argument and so what follows is a critique of the good Dr's piece.

Her piece has this statement which is at the heart of my disagreement:

Ebonics (African American Vernacular English), thus he posted this picture on his brief

You'll note that it says Ebonics (African American [sic] Vernacular English). You'll note that during the debate on Ebonics, particularly around the Oakland School District controversy the use of "language" was depreciated in favor of either dialect and vernacular.

What is "Vernacular"?

As an adjective we find the following defintions

1.
(of language) native or indigenous (opposed to literary or learned).
2.
expressed or written in the native language of a place, as literary works: a vernacular poem.
3.
using such a language: a vernacular speaker.
4.
of or pertaining to such a language.
5.
using plain, everyday, ordinary language.
6.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of architectural vernacular.
7.
noting or pertaining to the common name for a plant or animal.
8.
Obsolete. (of a disease) endemic.

We can dismiss definitions one and two because Ebonics is not native to either Africa or strictly speaking, America.
Definition 3 makes sense because it discusses the use of language. Similarly definition five makes sense because when we observe it (or read it in the case of Zora) we see that it is definitely a plain, everyday and ordinary language for a number of people (some of whom are not black). Clearly by calling it "African American Vernacular English" there is an admission that this is first and foremost English and secondly it is reference to English as commonly used by African Americans. Since it is English, then it is not a separate language.

Dr. Goddess then goes on to quote from Spoken Soul by John R. Rickford:

But treating Spoken Soul like a disease is no way to add Standard English to their repertoire. On the contrary, building on Spoken Soul through contrast and comparison with Standard English, is likely to meet with less resistance from students who are hostile to "acting white". It is also likely to generate greater interest and motivation, and as experiments have shown...to yield greater success, more quickly.

That is a matter of conjecture. Students who have the idea that speaking "Standard English" is "acting white" have a larger psychological problem I've addressed this phenomenon elsewhere [1,2]. I dare say that they are victims of parents who themselves do not value the mastery of one's "primary" language. Let me use myself as an example.

When I was growing up I was taught to read by my mother. She taught me phonics and was very adamant that I pronounce and annunciate. Anyone who knows me knows I annunciate. I do not recall ever saying "axe" for "ask". "Likkle" for "little" or other common African-American or Jamaican vernaculars. I recall one evening at a parent teachers night I swallowed a consonant at the end of a word. My mom stopped me and asked "What did you say?" and had me repeat the word properly. The lesson was clear. Unless I was with my friends or in some other social environment, common "street talk" was not acceptable.

But again the point here is that John's position is not only debatable but it also does not show that Ebonics is anything other than a form of English language usage.

Dr. Goddess then points to the 1977 text Talkin and Testifyin a text that is in support of the idea of Ebonics. Ironically you'll find again that the book is classified under "English Language"

It is interesting reading the early pages of "Talkin'" and referencing Dr. Goddesses piece. There is a whole discussion of "be" and "bes" as used by Detroit African-Americans. Still though even reading pieces of the text it is still evident that these examples are clearly incorrect grammar structures. In other cases there is a comparison of tone and inflections in African-American vernacular and the Boston accent, something I had pointed out to an individual on Twitter. There I was arguing that if we are going to argue that idioms and pronunciations of words constitute a language then even in England you'd have to declare a multitude of languages.

Dr. Goddess then posts a series of questions:

Our discussion led me to observe four pertinent issues/questions that arose from the debate:

1. What is the extent of African culture on the Diaspora (especially in America?)

2. To what extent does mainstream mockery of all things Black/African influence our desire to disassociate from them?

3. Does racial discrimination in education and employment mean we should assimilate, fight or be otherwise ashamed?

4. What parts of slavery or slave culture are actually African culture misunderstood and how do we determine the difference?

So as a person who rejects "Ebonics" as a distinct language and who also rejects White Supremacy and actually practices an African Religion (something most African-American scholars who prop up Ebonics do not do), let me address those questions in order:

1) The effects of African cultures on the Diaspora varies with population and usually relative populations of Africans to whites. Since Africans came to the Americans from a variety of geographic locations with varied languages (and many with knowledge of multiple languages) we should be careful and specify what "African culture" we are referring to. An good example of the diversity of expressions would be the forms of Ifa found in the new world. It has different names and spellings for various orisas and most importantly some of them combine religious forms and icons from non Yoruba religions. Still though, many Ifa pracitioners recognize those diaspora Ifas as Ifa. Even as we call them Candomble or Santeria. When we see Santeria we see Ifa with Catholic idiograms and images. We do not say it is Catholicism with Ifa images.

2) The extent of mainstream mockery is large, even among those who are highly educated in them. Going back to the religion issue I brought up we should ask why are so many learned African American scholars still Christians when their research must have shown that Christianity is not the original religion of most Africans? I think that question is important. Religion informs a lot of people's morals and worldview. It heavily influences concepts of right and wrong and for many people is a transmitter of culture. If scholars who are attempting to impart an appreciation and even adoption of African culture and value in their lives are unable to break free from a clearly imposed religion, we need to ask what other things they are willing to allow black people to remain hooked into. It's a fair question particularly if they are going to suggest that those of us rejecting Ebonics are falling under the ideological sway of white supremacists.

3) Assimilation and discrimination are entirely different issues altogether from 'Ebonics". I don't think anyone is arguing that black people should not speak how they like with and to each other. Just as no one would assert that Chinese should not speak whatever they do, or the French, Italian or whatever. However; in an English speaking country our children ought to understand that mastery of that language is paramount. This isn't even about shame. It is simply about knowing what is correct. It's one thing to say "where they at?" knowing that it should be "Were are they?" It's entirely different when someone does not realize that "where they at?" ought not be written on a school paper unless you're writing like Zora.

4) This is a good question. When one looks at the gold encrustment (for lack of a better term) of the Ashanti and then look at the affinity of chunk gold jewelry on display of 80's era rappers one must propose that there is an African connection there. When one looks at Criss-Cross' "Jump" video and then look at the Massai you have to wonder. When you see step shows and Boot dances you have to admit that African-American culture has many "Africanisms" that are often not consciously acknowledged. There are all manner of Africanisms in black churches some that would pass for so called 'voodoo' ceremonies. Don't tell them though.

So we can do studies to see behaviors that are traceable to African cultures such as libation pourings, sankofas on burial grounds, etc. That said though, when referencing language we have to be careful when assigning "African derived" to common vocalization errors such as "them" and "dem". In this case we note that the the "th" sound and the "d" sound involve very similar tongue placement. Since children are subject to imprecise motor control such a mistake can easily become "vernacular" when adults who have not mastered a language fail to correct such mistakes likely because they do not realize they are mistakes. Similar issues can be made between 'Think" and "T'ink" and "those and "dos (pron: doze)"

Carrying on, lets look at Dr Goddesses' next example:

These questions led me back to the Rickfords' text and I found more great gems, including the fact that, in 1972, psychologist Robert L. Williams [not the DEA, not "The Man"] coined the term, "Ebonics" and via his varied testing, demonstrated that:
Many of the terms are not slang...these historically "black" words refer to unique aspects of the black experience, including the physical attributes, social distinctions, and cultural practices and traditions of African Americans.

 Perhaps the funniest example is when he relayed the following:
Many blacks don't realize that their use of many of these words differs from that of other Americans....When a group of African American college students was told recently that ashy in the sense of "dry skin" was not standard English usage---you wouldn't find it with that meaning in standard American dictionaries, much less British ones---they were bowled over.

An interesting observation that still does not prove a distinct language. That a group uses English words out of a "white" context does not make a distinct language. Taking on the example of "Ashy" it is clear that by observation it is highly unlikely that white people (forget the tanned ones) would even consider using a word that normally describes the end product of combustion to describe the state of ones skin. Though it is recorded that whites do use a form of ash (ashen) to describe a particular state of complexion. The fact that "Ash" is an English word (apparently of Germanic origins). Knowledge of this word by an African person would be due to familiarity with English. That a noun became an adjective in vernacular use would be hardly surprising to any English speaker. In any case Ashy may not show up in the dictionary in 1972 but it is present in 2010. In fact Mirriam-Webster notes it's origins to the 14th century which is clearly prior to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Dr. Goddess then references American Regional English (DARE):

One result was a comprehensive picture of which terms were used among Black speakers...[such as]...ace-boon-coon...bid whist...bubba...bad-eye...bad-mouth...big-eye [and even suck-teeth. And guess what?].....Like suck-teeth, these are translations into English of literal & metaphorical expressions in West African languages (e.g. Mandingo da-jgu & Hausa mugum-baki for bad-mouth, and Igbo ima oso, Yoruba kpose, Hausa tsaki, Efik asiama, Kikongo tsiona & Wolof cipu for suck-teeth sound).

While I believe her argument would have been better served by making examples of actual African words used in African Vernacular such as "Funk"(a reference to the smell of a hard working man. See Robert Farris Thompson's Flash of the Spirit) and "Jazz/Jizz", her examples only do more to undermine the idea of Ebonics as a distinct language The author of the above quote clearly states that these phrases are translations of phrases from Yoruba etc. into English. I am sure that the same thing can be said of French, Italian, German and other immigrants to the US whom had to adopt English.


Lets look at two well known "Englishes" American and British. If you have a word processing program you will usually have an option to use British or American English. You would think that these are two different languages but they are not. American and British English share the same rules of grammar as well as the vast majority of it's vocabulary. The reason there is a different dictionary is because there are differences in spelling such as "center" and "centre". "Labor" and "labour". One doesn't want to have your spell check trip up on "wrong" spellings even though both Americans and Brits know that "center' and "centre" are the same thing. That "Theater" and "Theatre" are the same things. We know that "erm" and "umm" signify the same mind state but a different pronunciation. We know That "chips" and "fries" are the same thing.

Ultimately while I agree with Dr. Goddess that there is often a desire to minimize Africanisms in America due to shame and that there are a number of people who reject the notion of Ebonics because they reject their roots, to make that assumption of all those who critique the concept is wrong. I think that it is equally wrong to elevate what is demonstrably bad grammar and poor English mastery as something worthy of pride. I honestly believe that doing so will continue the abysmal performance of African-American performance in math and verbal tests.

Let me close with a discussion of an example from Malcolm Gladwell's work 'Outliers". Gladwell discusses the Chinese and math. He noted that the language structure of Chinese makes learning math "easy" From what he writes, the way one says "multiply" actually describes the steps needed to be taken to multiply. So the Chinese who masters his language has a better chance at mastering math.
Similarly my own observations during tutoring has shown that many students with math issues also have reading issues. Students who have problems with word problems typically have low reading comprehension skills. recent research shows that African-American children are typically exposed to far fewer words than white children during their formative years[3]. If years 1-5 of a black child is spent hearing fewer words and hearing many of those words used incorrectly is it any surprise that child then has issues in school? And we want to compound that issue by validating those speech structures? I cannot back such an idea.

This is not like teaching a child Chinese, Yoruba, Wolof or Spanish as a second language. Those languages are clearly distinct in vocabulary and grammar that a developing brain is unlikely to have translation issues that are unavoidable when someone is unable to comprehend "standard" written (or spoken) English because of a lack of exposure to it. I wont even get into the discussion of how txt messaging language is creeping into common language and how students (white even) are having difficulty properly writing.

So do African-Americans, like any other American ethnic group have a "special" form of English vernacular? Yes.
Is it a distinct language like English is to Spanish is to French is to German? Wolof to Yoruba to Housa? No.
Should African-Americans be ashamed to speak it? No.

Amos Wilson: African Manhood

Garvey Day 2010

For today only (Aug 17). Purchase a Garvey's Ghost T-shirt and we will micro-lend the proceeds to Africa via our Kiva Initiative. See the sidebar for our lending history.

http://olatunji-foundation.org/garvey_day_donations.html

This is for our existing stock of shirts. See the above link for the count. Clearly if we have to print new shirts, we can't donate the money.

NY Time Columnist admits to White Supremacy Syndrome

See people don't like when I call people who do not have sheets on, shaved heads or what-have-you White Supremacists. But when we understand the concept of White Supremacy as a system and culture as outlined by Dr. Welsing, we come to see the "everyday" acts and attitudes of White Supremacists. Even the ones that "liberal" black folk readily give a pass too. Wyclef's announcement that he was running for president brought out the White Supremacist leanings of one Sean Penn. Who the hell is Sean Penn to be telling ANY Haitian whether they are or are not qualified to run for the highest office of their country?

Fuck him.

All these white folk who presume to know who is and is not qualified to run Haiti ought to be making statements like" We pledge to work with whomever the Haitian people decide to represent them. Period. Who they think should run Haiti or any other country amounts to so much dirt on an ant hill. But this isn't about Penn. This is about Kristof of the NY Times. The NYTpicker website discusses an episode of honesty that Kristof had:

"Very often I do go to developing countries where local people are doing extraordinary work," Kristof conceded Friday in a video posted on his blog, "and instead I tend to focus on some foreigner, often some American, who’s doing something there."

See this is how historical whitewash happens. This is how white people get the sense that Africans and other people suffering from the fallout of those weapon of mass destruction called Colonialism, Imperialism, International Monetary Funds, fake Socialism, true Capitalism, etc., have not the intellect to help themselves and therefore are in need to them to parachute in and save them.

Careers are made. Foundations are made in the names of the most popular. They are called on as experts in such and such exotic locations. And most insultingly, they get to look down their noses at African-Americans as they tell them about how lucky they are to be here and they are just being too lazy to take advantage.

Hence the reason, by and large I ignore Kristof. I know there are plenty of black folk helping black folk in Africa and I'd rather read about them. That's why I have the Timbuktu Chronicles in my blogroll

African History Video

Hat Tip to the Indigenist Opinion

A Perfect Storm of Pathologies

This morning a report of a brutal gang rape of a mentally handicapped 18 year old female landed on my twitter feed. You may read and watch the associated video here:

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/special_report/disabled-chicago-teenager-gang-raped-south-side-basement-20100802

Usually such rape stories are "simple." You have a victim and a perpetrator. However; this case is an example of a confluence of pathologies that go far beyond the normal "random victim" discussion.

Firstly we have the group of males involved. By the reports there were adult males of undetermined age and boys of various age. So the first thing we have to ask is why are "grown men" leading "immature" males to have sex with a person known to be mentally disabled? If I were the 'hood type I would ask "where they do that at?"

This is similar to the situation that took place in Trenton NJ where another group of "grown" men raped a child who had been brought to them by another child and involved other minor males.

I'm not sure how widespread this particular phenomenon is but I find it particularly disturbing that male minors are being this influenced by "grown" men who have clear psychological issues.

The next issue here was the willingness of the males to violate a female whom they could not determine had or could give consent. I'm not naive. I know that there are in fact women who do engage in sex with multiple people at one time. Some do so in private some do so in very public settings. Therefore I'm not going to spend space here discussing whether persons ought to be engaged in that behavior. It's just not my business if they do.

The problem with this case is that the victim was apparently beaten and bloody. In what state of mind does one have to be in to engage in intercourse with someone who is bloodied and bruised? Even with the clearly warped sense of "consent"that the interviewed male had. How does one's mind work to think " Bloody? Bruised? She must want it."

Which leads to the next issue: Consent. From the videotape it is clear that the one fellow did not understand what the legal definition of consent was. When he was asked whether he thought a mentally disabled person could consent to intercourse, particularly in this particularly atypical manner, he just looked dumbfounded. That sad few seconds where it was clear that he really did not understand the impact of the words that were about to come out his mouth.

He said "But she let 'em".

Essentially this fellow, who had previously gotten in line for his turn but decided the wait was too long, admitted on national TV (and now the global internet) that he is a rapist. Yet he has no clue at all just how dumb he sounded. Why?

That leads to my final issue. The mother of the male who was too impatient to get his rape on, who, like those "grown" men involved should have known better. Backed up her son's outrageous claim of the victim's consent. Clearly we have a failure on the part of the parent. If you are a parent and your son thinks that it's OK to engage in intercourse with someone who is unable to give consent, you have failed.

This goes beyond a mentally handicapped person. This applies to the chick at the bar who had too many and is falling in your lap. It applies to the "girl" you "found" laying passed out on a bed at a party. And yes, it includes the chick that let you suck on her left teat while finger popping her who later decides it's not going any further. Though in the latter case I suggest unhitching that person pronto.

Essentially it is your job as a parent to teach your son that "no" means "no" and "unable to consent" means "no" too. This is not a hard conversation. It is not even a long conversation.

This incident shows a total failure of the adults from the men who assaulted the victim to the parents who defended this BS. It is sad that in the latter part of 2010 we have parents who are not instructing their sons on how to treat women. These guys are going to be trying to involve themselves with our daughters. We cannot stand for this kind of abdication of parental and community responsibility.

Reframing Your Reality

In NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) There is a technique referred to as reframing. Generally speaking we all see the world through a set of beliefs. Those beliefs are based on information that has been fed to us in one way or another. Our brains process all incoming information as if it was true and then we analyze the information and determine it is false. Because our frame of references are dependent upon our beliefs we can control these by changing our belief systems. Reframing usually involves a person who has a fear or some other anxiety. They face the trigger of this anxiety and see if there is a way to look at that situation in such a way that their anxiety or fear is reduced or eliminated. This technique is used to deal with PTSD among other issues.

At the heart of this technique is that we are both responsible for and in control of our emotions and therefore our emotional responses to circumstances. We recognize things that are outside of our control and train ourselves to control our reactions to those things. In other words we strive to eliminate worry about and fear of things beyond our control and instead focus on those things which we can.

On Monday evening a woman on my Twitter list expressed that she was feeling fear of sexual assault. I don't usually see such things fly across my timeline (which is roughly 50% female) and felt that I should assist this woman in dealing with her fear. To that end I said that she could look at it this way: Males tend to assault other males and she is unlikely to be a victim of assault today or any other day. What followed was a textbook example of what I will refer to as "The Fear Narrative(tm)".

The Fear Narrative(tm) is what the larger society trains the general population to default to. This narrative takes on many forms. examples are:
Immigrants are taking our jobs.
Immigrants are the cause of crime in x,y or z neighborhood.
Crime is everywhere, you are constantly at risk and therefore you need a,b or c security product.
There are x-amount of pedophiles lurking out there to take your kids so your kids need a cell phone, leash, and what have you. The terrorists are over there plotting on killing us so we need to send troops over there to subdue them lest they kill us.

In reference to this blog post, The Fear Narrative centers around the following:

1 out of 4 women is sexually assaulted at some point in her life.

Read that carefully. Many people make a few fatal assumptions in regards to the above:

1) They equate sexual assault with rape.
2) They assume that their individual chance of being sexually assaulted, on any given day, is 25%.

The usual frame of reference for this statistic is "MY GOD that's so many". Indeed only an imbecile would think that any instance of sexual assault is acceptable. Since I'm not an imbecile I never made such a statement, implied or otherwise. Yet a number of people made the ridiculous assertion that I had. How did they come to such a conclusion? Let me show you.

The other side of the 1 of 4 statistic are 3/4 women who in their lifetime will never be sexually assaulted. 75% of women will never experience anything from an unwanted grope to a full on rape. Folks this is a good thing. Certainly there are many people in other countries who will not enjoy such odds. Thus my suggestion to the young lady to focus on the 3/4 rather than the 1/4 as a means of relieving her anxiety was an attempt at relieving her anxiety by reframing the same information. My suggestion was that she move from victim/subjective Fear Narrative to the conquerer/self-determinitive 'Power Narrative".

So looking at our discussion of NLP and reframing we see that my suggestion was, contrary to objections, in fact supportive of that particular woman and women in general. Those who claim that suggesting that a man (or woman) ought not lay out statistics as a means of helping a women to deal with her fear are making the implicit argument that a woman cannot be expected to use her rational faculties to deal with her emotions. That is a sexist and patriarchal idea, flowing directly from the Greek concept (since this is a society steeped in Greco-Roman ideas) that women are ruled by their emotions and cannot be expected control them. How ironic that so called independent women and the "men" who hang on their teats, who decry sexist and patriarchal notions of womanhood, will object to a male challenging a women to break such sexist and patriarchal expectations?

What got on a few people's "wrong nerve" was my use of the term "remote" when discussing the day to day odds of any individual woman being sexually assaulted. People failed to understand how I came to use that particular term, so let me lay it out.

The Maths

We can look at the Departmemt of Justice's data on reported sexual assaults. On twitter I happened to link to Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, but you can go to the American Bar Association or any other number of third parties who report on this information. Using info from the linked source we have for 2007

248,300 victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

They sourced that information from the 2007 US Department of Justice 2007 National Crime Victimization Survey. As I indicated in my discussion if that statistic is wrong, please do drop me a line with the correct information.

The current US population for 2007 was 301,621,157. Out of that 152,962,259 were female.

Simple math will tell us what percentage of women in the year 2007 were victims of sexual assault. The math is:
((the number of sexual assaults) / (total number of US females) )*100.

hopefully I don't have to explain order of operation.

(248,300 / 152,962,259) * 100 = .162%

So a total of less than 2/10 of a percent of women in the US were unfortunate enough to have experienced a sexual assault, attempted or actual rape in 2007.

Let that sink in for a minute.

My friends this is THE definition of remote. How can anyone familiar with the math even begin to move their mouths to object to this mathematical fact? In my opinion, they are stuck in The Fear Narrative (tm) They need to hold onto the frame of the victim of random, faceless, actors "out there"and they pass this on to their sisters.

Some point out that many, up to 60% of sexual assaults go unreported. If we assume that the 2007 assault cases did not include unreported instances and add those to the reported instances we can find that total expected instances of sexual abuse.

SA(t) = Total sexual assault cases = 248,300 + X (X being the unreported cases)

SA(t)*.40 = 248,300

That is 40% of the total expected instances of sexual assault = 248,300 so to find SA(t) we divide 248,300 by .40

So 248,300/.40 = 620,750

So we have an expected instances of sexual assaults to equal 620,750

again dividing this total by the total female population, we get:

(620,750/ 152,962,259) * 100 = .405%

So taking into account a 60% unreported incidents we still do not reach 1% of the total US female population at risk for sexual assault on any given day.

Of particular importance here are African-American instances.

In 2006, reported incidences of rape or sexual assault on blacks were 17,920. Blacks being 32 million strong and roughly 50% female, we can say that there are approximately 16 million black women in the US. doing the same math as above:

(17,920/16,000,000)*100 = .11%

If we take as valid the claim that only 17% of sexual assaults on black women are reported and that therefore 83% go unreported, we can operate on the same assumptions as we did for the larger population and determine the total number of expected sexual assaults against black women.

.17*SA(t) = 17,920
SA(t) = 17,920/.17 gives 105,411

So

(105,411/16,000,000)*100 = .65%

So black women, relative to white women have a definite relative higher risk of sexual assault. But the math still shows that it is still less than 1% for any single individual on any given day.

So lets take this back to the 1 in 4. This 25% number is the sum of all those yearly reports taking into consideration births, deaths and fluctuations in the incidences of sexual assault. If we use the above general US female population percentage of sexual assaults that includes the 60% not reported and multiply that out by the expected life expectancy of the average American female (79.1 years) we get:

79.1 * .405% = 32.03%

That is just a hair under 1/3 of women who live to age 79 will have experienced a sexual assault. The reason we don't see the 1/3 number is, as previously stated, due to birth and death rates, fluctuations in actual incidences of assault, and the fact that life expectancy has increased over the past few decades. In fact in just 1970 the average life expectancy of a US female was 74.7 years. Clearly with the increase in the longevity of life in US females, more are around to report their experiences.

So it is important to note how this 1 in 4 number is a huge eclipse over other much smaller numbers that inform it. The average mind can readily comprehend 1 in 4. Most people cannot picture 0.4% Even saying it seems cold, unreal and unfeeling. I'm sure that a large portion of the persons reading this not only glossed over the math but didn't check it and said to themselves I don't even want to be bothered with all that. As one commentator said "What's the math got to do with it?"

Well here's the answer:

Going back to reframing we understand that we can shift our focus and therefore our responses to situations. The Fear Narrative would have women look at the 1 in 4; identify with or as the 1 in 4 (assuming she has not already been a victim) and ignore the 3 of 4. The Fear Narrative would have a woman look at the .4% and not the 99.6% The Fear Narrative views the glass as containing milk. The Power Narrative and the power frame says that the chances on any given day of being a victim of violent crime on any given day are so small as to be generally incomprehensible. The Power Frame asks "Why should I be afraid of something so remote?"

Yes, remote.

The Power Narrative:

Every day I wake up I have a 99.6% chance of going back to bed sans drama.
For 75% of women, they will live their entire life for 79 years and never have a male violate them.
Everyday I choose to identify with the 99.6% and the 75%.
Every day I choose to not allow a male I do not know to have space in my head.
Every day I choose not to allow any male I do know to trigger fear in my head.

That last point is very important since a large portion of sexual assaults on women involve either intimate partners (husbands, boyfriends) or family members.

In conclusion lets admit that it would be powerful for our sister to wake up everyday knowing that as sure as she woke up this morning, she is going to come home safe because she knows that's the odds. That she knows that she's too old to be molested by uncles (or aunts). That she knows how to read men and situations that may cause her to be a statistic? That if that intimate partner decides to "go there", that she knows how to defend herself? Isn't that a preferable state of mind?

Shouldn't we support those individuals who readily pass along information that informs and therefore empowers women? Why should we wait until a woman becomes a victim before we give her the tools and information to reduce the odds of her victimization?

None of this is about minimizing the very real fear that any woman has. It is about minimizing the level of fear any woman has. If you don't get the change in emphasis on the last sentence then I can't help you.

None of the above negates the continued need for adequate post trauma support of those women who have been abused.
None of the above negates the continued need to educate and re-educate males about the importance of consent.
None of the above negates the continued need to be hard on women who lie about sexual assault since such actions maintain a climate of disbelief of actual victims.

This is only an offering of an alternative means of thinking. If you prefer a frame of fear and to follow The Fear Narrative that's your problem. Not mine. I can't and won't help you with that.

Mugabe get's a clue

"We are still being treated as if we don't own this country. They want to tell us, do A, B and C of that, remove so-and-so and they are now saying Mugabe must go first," he said. "Whoever told them that their will is above that of the people of Zimbabwe?"

I coulda told him that. On another note, why hasn't he left yet?

Reuters

Israel-Qaeda

And so we find a nice gem on counterpunch:

In the 230-page book, Shapira and his co-author, Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, also from Yitzhar, argue that Jewish law permits the killing of non-Jews in a wide variety of circumstances. The terms “gentiles” and “non-Jews” in the book are widely understood as references to Palestinians.

They write that Jews have the right to kill gentiles in any situation in which “a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives” even if the gentile is “not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”.

The book sanctions the killing of non-Jewish children and babies: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

Nice.

As for You Negroes....

And so I read that a judge decided to block portions of SB1040 in Arizona. Of interest was the reasoning for the blocking of a particular provision:

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose,” she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a “ ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

NY Times

Now stop and think about this, "Negroes" in NYC are regularly stopped and frisked, risking arrest and death and the best we can get is an edict from the governor to purge the records of those stopped who were doing nothing to warrant being stopped in the first place. Let that sink in for a minute.

It is absolutely amazing that people are up in arms about the burden that may be placed on persons who are required by federal law to have their papers on them at all times yet born citizens can be stopped on the street for "furtive movements" and suspicious activity such as "other" and not a SINGLE black talking head on TV will bring up the clear contradiction.

And all this time I thought Dred Scott was overturned.

Police Brutality as an Organizational Problem

Yesterday Kriss from Insanity Report had a minor disagreement in regards to whether president Obama, or any other president for that matter, could have an effect on police brutality. I say that the president (on down) can have an effect on the number of incidences of police brutality because police departments are hierarchal organizations in which behavior is promoted or discouraged based on a rewards and punishment system.

Some of Kriss's points were as follows:

Police brutality is a problem that comes from people having power and abusing it. It's human nature. someone [sic] gets power, they abuse it. others [sic] around them support them cause they abuse it too

This point is true for all cases of police brutality and is not in contention. Kriss highlights a point I made that is relevant to the organization: others around the abusing officer(s) support them 'cause they abuse it too. That may or may not be the case. Certainly there is the institutional practice of the Blue Wall of Silence in which officers who are not even involved do not come forward to point out fellow officers who abuse civilians because those officers fear reprisal at the hands of the same officers.

One of the more recent examples of this with the NYPD was the officer who went on air to discuss the rampant harassment of black and/or Latino males in order to make certain quotas. He's under investigation and there are reported to be personnel actions being taken against him. This underscores my position that the problem is organizational rather than just the actions of a few individuals.

Police brutality did not start with police beating up black people. It's always been around. Just in different forms

In that discussion I didn't mention black people specifically since I know other people meet the "short end" of the baton.

to me, it's [police brutality] is a fact of life that won't change

I don't live in the fairy tale land that a lot of liberals live in. I don't believe that crime will be eliminated (particularly in large cities). I do not believe Obama can wave his hand and eliminate racism, police brutality, etc. I'm not under any of those illusions. However; I do not accept the status quo. I do not accept that when such officers commit those crimes and those officers that cover it up should be able to avoid prosecution the way that they have been able to. I believe that it is entirely possible to lower the rate of such incidences by making changes to the organizational culture of police departments. Kriss disagrees:

but the justice department and increasing convictions won't fix that. It'll only make those groups even more prominent. being an officer is a thankless shitty job. As long as it's a low paying, thankless shitty job, there will be abuse and coverup... We underestimate how treating cops like shit (citizens, with pay, benefits, etc.) leads to them not giving a fuck

I disagree with Kriss's position that increasing convictions won't put a serious dent in police brutality. Nobody wants to go to jail, well let me rephrase: most sane people do not want to go to jail. If it is made clear from the top down that shooting civilians in the back, etc. will simply not be tolerated (since it is 100% possible to do police work without shooting someone in the back) and that those who do so will be prosecuted, sent to jail, and sued bankrupt. If that announcement is followed up by the successful high profile prosecution of offenders I believe that there would be a decrease in incidences of police brutality. In fact I would say that changes would be seen in as little as a year. In addition providing incentives to police for breaking the Blue Wall in terms of pay, bonus, commendations, would provide a decent carrot to complement the enforcement stick.

In regards to policing being a shitty thankless job. The first thing I would say is that if one cannot deal with jobs with a high level of personal interaction, then one ought not take such a job. But lets be clear here, there are a lot of people who get into the profession simply because they like being able to exercise dominance over people. I will not forget the conversation I overheard in a gym locker earlier this year, where a student who intends to go into law enforcement waxed poetic about how he'll be toting a gun around.

In terms of low pay the base pay of NYPD fresh out the Academy is $44,744 (http://www.nypdrecruit.com/NYPD_BenefitsOverview.aspx). That's more than I made fresh out of college. According to the NYPD website, one can be pulling in $90k and the end of 5.5 years on the force. Also by year 5 they have 27 paid vacation days and unlimited sick leave, medical, 401K and I.R.A's among other things. That may not be BP CEO compensation but it's not poverty wages by any stretch of the imagination. So I think, at least in the case of the NYPD, claiming poor wages as a motivator for violating a persons rights is pretty specious.

Do citizens give police a hard time? OF course. Sometimes they have cause sometimes not. I took the side of the officer in Seattle who punched a female teenager in the mouth after she interfered with his duties because I don't agree that citizens ought to be laying hands on police who are doing their jobs. I have an entirely different opinion on what officers who break the law ought to be subject to. In fact, I am one who believes that Mumia shot the officer in question AND that the officer deserved to be shot for violating the rights of the man he was threatening.

One of the reasons that citizens give police grief is because the state has enacted laws that are clearly aimed at raising revenue and not about safety. Speeding tickets given to citizens on wide open, clear highways are an example. The stopping and frisking of people without cause is another. I can name others, but when the state increases the power of police at the expense of citizens then there is going to be attitude problems. This highlights why I say that these issues are organizational. Organizations usually take on the values of the leaders. If the leaders promote an hostile environment towards the civilian population, then those under him or her will feel free to act in kind. If the leadership promotes an environment where respect for civilian rights are paramount then those who don't act in that manner will make themselves known and can be dealt with. People will be more likely to report abuse because they will feel that the department will reward them for it. On the outside such behavior towards to public is rewarded by more cooperation by civilians.


There are a few things that the justice department under Obama can do immediately to address police brutality:

1) A public address on the subject. Make it clear to all police departments that police police brutality cases will be investigated with the full force of the federal government.

2) Private meetings with the mayors and chiefs of police of major metropolitan areas outlying the issue and pressing upon them the seriousness of this issue. This puts the local management on notice that the fed is serious.

3) High profile prosecutions of the most egregious cases of police misconduct.

4) Establishment of an anonymous tip line for officers to report on brutality cases in their department so as to get around fear of repercussions.

I'm sure there are others but the above would definitely go a long way to reducing the incidences, help the public understand that their concerns on this subject are taken seriously, and help police departments have better relations with the communities where these incidences happen.

Bill Quigley on The Just-Us System

The question is – are these facts the mistakes of an otherwise good system, or are they evidence that the racist criminal justice system is working exactly as intended? Is the US criminal justice system operated to marginalize and control millions of African Americans?

Counterpunch

Rwanda 70% Female?

Women like Ndizigiye are the economic backbone of today's Rwanda. The 1994 genocide left behind a population 70 percent female and when the bloodshed stopped it was women who picked up the pieces and started to rebuild.

If they are not practicing polygamy now, there is going to be a serious problem.

CNN

Rev Wright, Van Jones, Sherrod and Responsible Negroes

The knee jerk firing of a black USDA official over a misrepresented speech by her white boss is another example of presidential "Responsible Negro" moments.

Many dispute the link of Rev Wright to the Sherrod incident but they fail to see that the attack on Obama with Rev. Wright as a tool started in the same place as that on Van Jones and Sherrod. Right wing "racist" Faux news the self proclaimed defender of "real Americans". Sherrod is yet another example of the historic role of "responsible negroes" as the forerunner of the Klan/Cracker mentality that is endemic to white America.

The role of responsible Negro goes as far back, for our purposes, to the enslavement of Africans in Africa. Indeed it is known that the role of capturer and transporter of Africans from the interior to the coast was done by Responsible Negroes. Once in America, there were special places on plantations for Africans willing to be enforcers for the small minority on white people. Throughout our stay here religious persons have been used as go-betweens who would on one hand try to talk white folks out of lynching or otherwise harming a community member and on the other hand, making calls for the community to "chill out" lest the white community come down on them.

Indeed even the peaceable Dr. King Jr. had many "community leaders" complain that he was rocking the boat by being too confrontational, asking for too much and too soon. Dr. King was seen as someone who would get communities burned down and get people lynched if he kept "carrying on like that". Indeed Responsible Negroes have been part and parcel of the southern (and northern) strategy to keep blacks "in their place". As I have said many times the purpose of the Klan was not to terrorize black people or to kill them, but to keep blacks in their place. If that meant a lynching or two then so be it. Blacks got the message.

To this day in many corporate places and other somewhat public places, the vast majority of black people are scared witless to say anything negative about white people within earshot of other white people. Most times if the subject of white folks comes up they will either use code words or whisper. Sometimes they'll do both. There are possibly many reasons for this, but the overwhelming reason is that most black people have been taught to nearly an instinctual level that to upset white people can be an existential threat. It also known on an equally near instinctual level that to make white people comfortable is not only a means of corporate survival but of advancement (even outside of the job). Equally, just as the black preacher Responsible Negro could be the gatekeeper of access to white largess by vouching for the "responsibility" of the Negro seeking favour, today's political and corporate Negroes behave in the same manner.

These corporate and political responsible negroes regularly vet the bonafides of other negroes attempting to "get in on the action". They regularly sideline so called "radical negroes" because such negroes (provided they are sane) represent a threat to their power. One the one hand, if these gate keeper negroes are seen as being friendly with said radical negroes then the gatekeeper becomes suspect and loses prestige and perhaps access. Thus we come to Obama.

Obama is the ultimate 2010 Responsible Negro. If we go back to the Rev. Wright situation by all facts, Rev Wright did and said nothing wrong. The "Goddam America" quote was known to be a quote of a book by a white man discussing the fall of nations. It was religious discourse discussing the possible parallels between the US and other past kingdoms. You can debate the merits of it, but Wright had not "damned" America. The "antics" of the press club appearance is credited with the break. But lets be serious what exactly was said and done that warranted presidential candidate level condemnation? A "Q" sign? Snarky remarks to a questioner? Really? Again, how were those a reflection of or on Obama?

But of course the real issue with Rev. Wright was the usual attempt at keeping this black guy, Obama, in his place. How dare he listen to a black person for so long who speaks so "radically". "Who does he think he is?" They said to themselves. "We'll test this Negro." And of course that was what was done. Obama let white folk know he could be counted on to be a Responsible Negro when he gave his Philly speech. I went through that speech so I wont repeat it here, but when he made the claim that Wright represented a bitter/angry old man who's time is past. That was clear "Responsible Negro" talk. Just as of old when the old Reverend said: Don't mind the boy. He's crazy and doesn't know what he's doing. I will personally make sure he never does x,y or z, again. Please don't take it out on our home."


Similarly we had Van Jones who made some comments that upset some white folk. He's known as a leading proponent of green jobs that is good for every American. But it did not matter. Just as bus segregation was costly to the bus lines in Montgomery the idea of White Supremacy had to be defended regardless of any economic consequences. And so again the old Responsible Negro action kicked in. On the surface this was about saving the health reform bill. But in reality this was about appeasement of a segment of white people hell bent on keeping Obama (and Jones) in their place. Neither Van Jones or Rev Wright ever belonged to an organization that actually killed people due to their race. None of them actually belonged to a group that not only believed in the racial superiority of their group but actually went about disenfranchising people over their race like a certain former Senator from West Virginia. Yet here they were getting the Responsible Negro treatment.

The right wing came to understand that Obama was vulnerable to racial attacks. All they had to do is make a situation look racist, and Obama and his people would do whatever they needed to in order to not seem to be harboring racists AKA: be Responsible Negroes. And so we have Sherrod. If anything, this latest incident shows just how week the Obama camp is on race. Not only was Sherrod the victim of a smear campaign but the very persons and organizations that ought to have been at the forefront of helping her out were so worried about What White People Think (TM) they didn't even bother to fact check the claim that came from an organization KNOWN for attacking relatively outspoken black people.

I wont even get into the problem of Sherrod's white boss calling her up on the phone to demand her resignation. Why was he willing to believe a rumor about his employee rather than get the record straight? Why do we have a "black" president and this cracker still has a job? It is clear that the tone has been set by Obama that his 'Responsible Negro" image needs to be protected at all costs. I've made the comment before in regards to the Cirroc Vodka advertising flap that the head of the company sets the tone for what is acceptable. If the CEO of a company sets the tone that he prefers light skinned "exotic" women to represent his brand then an advertising agency hired by his representatives will make that known. If president Obama makes it clear that he will not go for the firing or harassment of his black staff by right wing commentators without cause, then his people will, for the sake of keeping their jobs, make sure that anyone fired is fired after a thorough investigation.

If Obama and other Negroes insist on playing the Responsible Negro role, then they should expect more of the same. The saddest thing about the Responsible Negro is that most times after he's left the company of the white folk he's doing his best to be on good terms with, they go back to calling him a nigger. He's just "fortunate" they don't say it to his face.

[Update: Cheryl Cook a Department of Agriculture undersecretary was the one who actually called Sherrod and demanded the resignation[/update]

Taser America: The Death Of Oscar Grant

Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that the officer that shot Oscar Grant in the back while laying on the ground was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. While a lot of people are rightfully not satisfied with that verdict, legally it was probably the only one that had any chance of sticking.

When I followed the Sean Bell trial I thought that the evidence against Oliver was so compelling given that he saw no weapon, Hadn't been fired upon, walked across the front of a vehicle he claimed shots were coming from (who does that?) and of course, famously reloaded more times than Neo in the Matrix. In the end though I came to understand why the Sean Bell case ended with acquittals of all involved:

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

I also wrote:

So the question that needs to be asked is why was there no second degree manslaughter (or attempted manslaughter if such a charge exists) leveled at Isnora and Oliver?

Indeed this case answered that question. I will repeat the observation from that blog post: It is near impossible to prove intent when convicting a police officer. All police shootings are intentional and police are assumed by the general public to have no malice in that intent. Those who do not hold this view are vigorously opposed by the defense. It appears that the prosecutors of the Oscar Grant case either learned from the "mistake" of the NY prosecutors or they aren't as corrupt as NY prosecutors in throwing the case from the very beginning. So generally the successful prosecution of Mehserle is a step in the right direction. Yes, I too would have preferred a murder conviction, but this is a start. However, this is not what really bothers me.

The real problem I have is with the widespread misuse of tasers by police and other security personnel. The taser was invented as a non-lethal means of subduing a dangerous suspect. The point of the taser was that it be used in cases where a ballistic gun would be used. The understanding that such weapons would only be used if a police officer was in mortal danger or the suspect presented a clear danger to other people. unfortunately tasers are increasingly being used as punishment devices by police who in some cases feel that they can "get even" with a "difficult" suspect without leaving black and blue marks or other clear signs of police misconduct.

Recently tasers made a brief entry into the popular consciousness when a student protestor/questioner at a college event with John Kerry, was infamously tasered by security, while he repeatedly cried out "don't taze me bro!"
There was absolutely no justification to subject that student to a potentially lethal jolt of electricity. Yes I said "lethal". For those who have not been on the pain end of an electric shock, I will inform you that there are two potential death scenarios from a taser:

1) You already have a heart condition such as an arrhythmia. An electric shock could stop your heart causing death.
2) Since the taser causes the person to lose control of all muscle function they tend to fall. Such a fall could result in a blow to the head as it hits either an object or the ground. Such a blow could either be fatal or cause permanent brain damage.

Given these risks it is shocking....yes shocking, that police tase people multiple times.

So a student who was asking a question (and being quite long winded with it) earned that kind of treatment? He posed an immediate threat to the public and the officers? No. yet it took Senator Kerry a long time to even realize that something very wrong was going on. While the video got many hits on YouTube, there was no public outcry to regulate the use of taser, though you and I, as civilians are barred in many states from carrying such electrical self-defense devices.

The next publicly aware miss-use of a taser occurred in NY, where a man who was off his medication and butt naked had been chased by police onto a ledge. His deadly weapon? A florescent lamp. The police who clearly felt they had better things to do with their time than spend it talking this man down, shot him with the taser. And as expected, he lost control of his limbs, fell off the ledge and died of head injuries. Of course it is well known that the NYPD is not shy about using other "tools" to beat on and kill civilians whom are "annoying them" with their "furtive movements" and the like.

As problematic as that was, there was still one that showed that the public itself is really at fault for the misuse of tasers in America. Recently at a baseball game a kid decided he would draw attention to himself (and his favorite team I suppose) and jumped onto the outfield and ran around dodging an overweight security guard who, probably annoyed at the fact that he could not catch the fellow, got within taser range and shot him. When the news broke, a majority of people felt that the officer had done nothing wrong. The victim of this action deserved the tasering because he was being a dick.

But again, a taser is supposed to be an alternative to deadly force. How does running around a field making an ass of oneself rise to "deadly force"? The disincentive to go out on a baseball field is the arrest and conviction for trespassing, the fine, and possible banning from future games. Millions of people attend baseball games without such incidents. How do we justify the use of potential deadly force (no one knows if this kid had a heart condition) for "being a dick"?

And so we get to Oscar Grant. Mehserle claimed that he thought he had grabbed his taser. Lets ignore that a taser and ballistic gun are shaped differently, weight differently and are on different sides of an officer; why was Mehserle trying to tase a person who was on his stomach and handcuffed? The answer lies in the Taser culture that has taken over America. It is only because it is acceptable to tase a suspect that Oscar Grant is dead. Had the officer not had the option to "apply punishment" to Oscar Grant and his only course of action was to shoot Grant in the back, which would have been provable murder (I know I'm being optimistic here). So assuming that Mehserle did not intend to shoot Grant, but rather "punish" him we see that the taser is THE game changer here.

This is why I think that taser use needs to be regulated and misuse of tasers to "punish" suspects ought to be grounds for disciplinary action including prosecution. Given that the taser is supposed to be a substitute for a ballistic weapon, then it's use should be taken as seriously as any shooting. The officer should have to show that the suspect was an immediate danger to the public or the officer involved. In the Grant case, the officer should have been charged with a felony assault and murder. It is my position that the use of the taser against Oscar grant was intentional. The officer intended to do physical harm to Grant and therefore should have been tried for felony assault. And since anything else that happens in the commission of a felony is also on the hook, then the charge for murder would have more weight, since the assault portion should have been provable without doubt. Personally I don't like the felony murder rule, but while it's being used, why not put it to good use for officers who kill civilians while assaulting them?

Africa Solar Power

From AfricaNews:

Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade has said that African industries are at risk of vanishing if Europe harnesses the potential of the sun as they will have the added advantage of producing at cheaper cost, making any competition from the continent less likely...

“Solar energy is unique in that the investment is expensive initially, but after three years it decreases … So I can say I'm going to offer free energy to the continent,” Wade told Les Afriques in an exclusive interview.

The Senegalese leader said the energy consumption of Africa is 70,000 megawatts, and he added that with a 100,000-megawatt plant, “we could have energy self-sufficiency for fifteen more years.”

Diop long said that Africa could be solar powered.

A lot of Gall

So one of the officers involved in the shooting death of Sean Bell is suing the Bell estate over the injuries he sustained when Bell ran into him with his vehicle:

Police Officer Michael Carey's lawsuit says Bell was boozed-up when he got behind the wheel of the car after his bachelor party on Nov. 25, 2006, and also claims the doomed groom failed to wear glasses or contact lenses despite having poor eyesight.

"[Officer Carey] suffered serious leg injury when [Bell] crashed into the vehicle he was riding in before Officer Carey ever drew his gun and fired a shot," said Carey's lawyer, Richard Signorelli.

It was Officer Isnora that stood in front of Bell's vehicle pointing while pointing a gun. It was Isnora who fired the first shots that caused Bell to drive off. It was the negligence of Isnora that started the entire situation. Officer Carey is injured because those officers threatened the life of a citizen who thought he was being held up and defended himself.

The GALL of this "officer of the law" to suggest that the situation was other than what it was.

Beauty Standards in African Communities

I've mentioned before my disdain at seeing skin-lightening creams in the predominantly black supermarket I go to. Recently I was in the UK and in the location I was staying were a number of "beauty" shops that had a majority African customer base (a few white women were observed in the shops). The attached photo is typical of the kinds of images that were the norm in those shops (I was with my aunt so...). Of particular interest to me was the number of African women with "perms" who didn't do anything else with their "newly" straight hair. By that I mean, here in the stats I'm used to seeing straightened hair styled. Many of the women I saw simply were "happy" to have the hair straight (and weaved) down their backs even though most times it looked ridiculous.

Colonialism has always had the cooperation of the locals

The NY Times has a piece on Angola's booming economy and the "return" of the Portuguese to that country. The article has this quote:

“Clearly, we share the same language and have much more in common with Angolans than the Chinese and others, but Portuguese investors also need to make huge efforts not to be seen as pushing for a return to colonial times,” he said. “Little can be achieved in Angola without full help and cooperation from local partners.”

As I discussed in an episode of Garvey's Ghost TV on the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade, the colonization and enslavement of Africans in what is today Angola happened with the cooperation of the locals. The only way this would be any different is if the leadership of Angola takes the "investment" from the Portuguese and used it to develop non-urban areas and improve the education and quality of life for it's residents. One sign that this may not happen is the apparent high amount of imports that Angola is dealing with. No doubt these imports will have an adverse impact on local producers.

It's the 4th Amendment Stupid

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-4th Amendment to the US Constitution


Heather Mac Donald, the local "expert" on black crime is apparently out turning tricks for the NYT today. I know that's harsh but I have such little respect for this woman, who I say she is whoring for attention and the NYT is her latest john. I've dealt with Ms. MacDonald before So I'll leave it to the reader to go there and see why I am so harsh on this woman. However; in this case I must point out the obvious flaw in Mac Donald's argument.

Nowhere in her opinion piece for the NYT does Heather Mac Donald even discuss that most of the people stopped and frisked by the NYPD have done nothing to warrant being stopped and therefore their 4th Amendment rights are being violated. Often multiple times. They are simply black (or brown) and often making "other" kinds of behavior that allegedly constitutes probable cause. No, to mention that would be to inconvenient for Mac Donald's argument about "where crime is".

I suppose Heather Mac Donald comes to use via a time machine where she thinks Dred Scott is still in effect. Well at least legally. I'm sorry to break it to Heather but the NYPD's Stop and harass policy is unconstitutional and unfortunately the so called leadership of NYS and NYC are afraid to call it what it is and stop it.

I suppose it doesn't bother Heather Mac Donald that 95+% of the people stopped have not only not done anything, were not in the process of committing a crime and shockingly had no weapons or other contraband on them at the time of harassment. It's stuff like that which got the state of New Jersey in trouble. Essentially you cannot claim "this is where crime happens" as an excuse to end run the 4th Amendment.

So the next time Heather Mac Donald gets to writing about black crime, someone ought to remind her of that little document called the U.S. Constitution.

Joseph Nevins is on Crack

I swear that the advocates for illegal immigrants make more and more absurd arguments with each passing day. To be sure, straight up White Supremacists give them a whole lot of ammo with their clear xenophobic rantings, but the arguments that come from the supposedly intelligent left also give much ammo to those who oppose them. Even I have to wonder at times whether these individuals think that a law is wrong simply because it inconveniences them or a family member.

Like for example a piece I read online some time ago about a couple that met on a cruise ship. She was a citizen of another country and he a US citizen (how, I don't care). They fell in love and decided to marry. One problem was that her visa was a work visa and specifically tied to the ship she was on. They didn't want to "wait" for the process of legal immigration so she decided to violate the terms of her visa and stay in the US. The consequences for this, which apparently were known by both parties, was not only that she risked immediate deportation should she be caught, but upon return to her country of origins, she could not re-enter the US for at least 10 years. Sucks doesn't it.

Of course rather than blame themselves for walking head first into such a situation, they want to blame US immigration. See this is what bothers me about most of the so called "immigrant rights" groups that I read about. People make decisions to enter the US knowing full well that they are breaking US law. They do not care. They are willing to take the chance. And hey I admire that. But the flip side, is if enforcement finds you, the gig is up. The host country owes no-one who violates their immigration law, nothing but a return trip. It's even written in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Read it.

The source of today's rant was a piece in Counterpunch by Joseph Nevins where he, like a few others compare the issues that Illegal immigrants with the Civil Rights Movement.

This time, however, the target is not Jim Crow, but what some have referred to as Juan Crow. Like its pre-Civil Rights cousin, it, too, is effectively a system of apartheid. It is one that denies “illegal” immigrants many basic rights—no matter how long they have been present in this country. And just as in the 1960s, fundamental decency—one informed by an expansive notion of human rights—requires a dismantling of this unjust system.

No my friend, the enforcement of US immigration law, not even to get into the issues of identity fraud, are in no way shape or form equivalent to aparthied South Africa. It is an insult to both African-Americans and South-Africans to string these two things in the same paragraph.

You'll note that Joseph here has to use the term "expansive notion" of human rights, because he knows like I know that the UN Declaration of Human Rights does not support his argument.

I won't repeat the discussion of the UN DOHR here but in reference to the above quote, a person who violates immigration law of a given country, in this case illegal entry, is in violation of that law so long as he or she remains in that country. For those having a hard time wrapping your head around this let me give another example.

In NYS if your car insurance lapses you are required to pay a fine of $5 per day (it's probably more now) that you do not have insurance. Not having car insurance is a "rolling offense" in that you are not just guilty on the day it was reported you are guilty for every subsequent day you go without insurance.

Similarly with illegal residence in any country. That presence is illegal at all times. To be more blunt, Legally every person who in in a country illegally whether it is by overstaying their visa or jumping a fence is a fugitive from the law. Length of stay is no argument against this. Just like you can't say to the NYSDMV that you shouldn't have to pay the fine for lack of insurance because you never had an accident during that time.

Moving on:

This era’s would-be Greensboro took place at Senator John McCain’s Tucson office—on May 17, the 56th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education decision...The action led to the arrest of four youths for trespassing. As three of them are unauthorized immigrants, Pima County sheriffs subsequently turned them over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE released them the next day, but they will have to appear before a judge at a later date, and face possible deportation to their countries of birth.

This guy is straight faced comparing the decision that legally desegregated schools in the US, which currently enrolls students regardless of immigration or citizenship status, to the issue of deportation? Really? My other cheek is stinging right now.

Even worse, the organizers showed a complete lack of concern for the four boys now facing deportation. Unlike the Greensboro sit-ins where citizens were exercising their rights as citizens and who could not face deportation or trespassing unless somehow trespass laws apply to public spaces (I'm not a lawyer), these fellows, as discussed above were already committing a Federal Civil infraction.

Let me detour for a minute here. The reason immigration is not a legal "crime" in the US is because criminal defendants have more "rights" than one in a civil court. Not only is the burden of proof less in a civil proceeding (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt) but they can be handled by administrative judges (no jury) and other things that allow for an expedited process.Anyway, back to the story.

By putting these 4 young men on the radar, they guaranteed that they would be picked up by ICE. The law is clear that once lawful contact is made with a person, their citizenship status may be ascertained by law enforcement. This has always been the case, even before the new Arizona law. That is not going to change regardless to what amnesty occurs. So I have little sympathy for the four, unless they were not informed of the additional risk they faced by coming into voluntary contact with law enforcement. Even my mother, a legalized citizen has said on many occasions that it is "not wise" to bring legal attention to yourself while you are not documented.

Joseph then forwards the "Great Lie":

That the young people risked such draconian punishment to champion what is ultimately a very modest legislative measure speaks to the deep-seated frustration among immigrant communities and advocates in a climate of growing repression of non-citizens living in the United States, and the dim prospects for significant change.

The great lie here is the "climate of repression of non-citizens living in the United States."
An utter and complete lie. First and foremost, not every non-citizen is an illegal immigrant. Some are resident aliens (that is a legal term). Some are permanent aliens. They have not sought US citizenship but remain in the US. Then you have plain ol' visitors who are here for work and tourism. To conflate all non-citizens with illegal/undocumented immigrants is a "great lie". Are there segments of US society that have issues with, say, H1B visas which import computer science engineers from India displacing (perhaps) US born engineers? Certainly. And why should they NOT be concerned with such a practice?

Moving on:

While critics of extra-legal migration typically resist attempts to liken efforts to enhance immigrant rights with the efforts of African Americans to end Jim Crow, matters of citizenship were also at the center of the Civil Rights movement. It was precisely because white society treated African Americans as, at best, second-class citizens which necessitated the struggle against institutionalized racism. And just as today, supporters of the then-status quo pointed to the law as a way of perpetuating its ugly reality and criticizing those who would defy it.

Extra-legal? I do believe that is the first I've heard that particular phrase used. But again with the Jim Crow. Let me clue Joseph in to the differences here. Black Americans are not immigrants to America (we'll ignore certain historical things for the time being). Secondly they legally had the same rights as every other citizen (certainly they had all the obligations). Their citizenship rights and privileges were being illegally abridged by the states. The CRM was not about gaining rights that they didn't have. The CRM was about getting the states to stop abridging those rights in blatant violation of the constitution.

Immigrants are guests in a country. They are allowed in under specific circumstances and are allowed to enjoy such hospitality so long as they agree to the terms of entry. violation of the terms of entry result in deportation. This is universally known. What illegal immigrants who follow Joseph are asking for is to not have to abide by the rules of entry. They feel that they are special. They deserve some special treatment that other immigrant who went "by the book" don't even get. In fact many of them are currently getting privileges that citizens cannot get. Some states hand out drivers licenses to persons who clearly do not have Social Security cards or other proof of ID. Citizens can't do that.

More:

Citizenship is ultimately about membership. Whether we like it or not, immigrants—“illegal” and “legal”—are members of American society and should be fully treated as such. They live and work here, and make myriad contributions, while reaping a disproportionately small share of the benefits given their lack of formal citizenship rights. That such inequality is legally enshrined makes it no more just than laws of previous eras such as those against interracial marriage or the right of women to vote.

I suppose then that Joseph is a proponent of giving corporations person status. After all they "work" and "live" here and make a myriad of contributions. Or perhaps toss the distinction between a foreign entity and a domestic one. After all, as far as he's concerned so long as you live and work here you should be a citizen. In fact how about anyone who has lived and worked anywhere just declare themselves a citizen and be done with it. Elections ought to be really fun then.

In reality Joseph simply does not believe in immigration law at all. He should just say so. As far as he's concerned the US (and I assume only the US) ought to simply grant citizenship to any and all who request it. Lets stop with the charade about civil rights and such. If Joseph does believe that a country, including the US, has a right to determine not only who can be a citizen but how many people may immigrate into the country at any given time, then he must also agree that the state would have the right to enforce it's immigration laws. And once he agrees to that, he would find himself on the other side of his own argument. But that's not the point here.

The point here is that advocates for "extra-legal" immigrants would be better served to not compare their issue with the Civil Rights Movement. Doing so really underscores the lack of understanding as to what the Civil Rights Movement was about and alienates those of us who do know what it is about.

BP and Iran

From Counterpunch:

What goes around comes around. One of the greatest bailouts in history came in 1953, when the Eisenhower administration authorized a CIA-backed coup in Iran. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, owned by the British government, had been expropriated and nationalized in 1951 by unanimous vote of Iran’s parliament. The ’53 coup evicted prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed Shah Reza Pahlevi, the creature of the West’s oil companies , with full tyrannical powers. The AIOC got back 40 per cent of its old concession and became an internationally owned consortium, renamed… British Petroleum.

So when we see all the talk about Iran and sanctions please do keep the above in mind.

Don't Count On It

So I found this gem sitting in my twitter timeline.

The linked piece has a slideshow of different women holding signs about what they would do if they had that alleged:

There’s a $10,622 gap between the median yearly earnings of men and women. That’s $10,622 less per year for women and their families in a difficult economy.

Now the truth of that statement is that the $10,622 is a statistical median. This means half of the women have a much smaller gap or are out-earning men and the other half have a greater deficit. But the odds of a random woman on the street actually being paid 10 grand less than men of equal position, time on the job, etc. are very slim. So it is rather amusing to see random women, whom we know nothing of their actual employment situation, holding up signs about what they would do with 10 grand as if somehow they individually are owed 10 grand. And the quote implies somehow that some nefarious man group up and decided that since the market has collapsed they'll stick to women by paying them even less (never mind that men have been seeing the short end of the employment stick since the Great Crash(tm) )

I could take a picture of what I would do with 10 grand, but honestly I can't even prove that I am being paid less than what I should be SIMPLY based on my race. So the pictures of women with babies may pull at the heartstrings but I seriously doubt any of them are actually owed anything close to that amount as individuals.

Of course this slide show could explain why certain women feel that Ellen Woods is entitled to $3/4 billion from Tiger Woods.

Jonathan Cook Joins Richard Cohen in Dumb Land

He argues, in defense of Helen Thomas:

But 62 years on from Israel’s creation, most Jewish citizens have no home to go to in Poland and Germany -- or in Iraq and Yemen, for that matter. There is also an uncomfortable echo in her words of the chauvinism underpinning demands from some Jews -- and many Israelis -- that Palestinians should “go home to the 22 Arab states”.

No you twit. That Jews from Germany or Poland up and left their property and lives in those countries to take up residence in land stolen from others does not give some kind of squatters rights to stay.

You left your home to invade someone else land? Well sucks to be you. And it doesn't even compare to the argument that Palestinians ought to go back to the "22 Arab States".

Look fool it's called Palestine. They're called Palestinians. What part of that don't you understand?

And this fellow fashions himself to be a supporter of Helen Thomas and a liberal of sorts. That's why I cannot stand most of these white liberals. Always being paternalistic to "colored folk" (and we'll give Helen a pass for now) who speak contrary to the White Liberal Orthodoxy(tm).

What Richard Cohen Missed

Yesterday I saw this piece by Richard Cohen entitled "What Helen Thomas Missed" In what was a largely accurate but entirely irrelevant piece in regards to the "flotilla incident".

Thomas, of Lebanese ancestry and almost 90, has never been shy about her anti-Israel views, for which, as far as I'm concerned, she is wrong and to which she is entitled. Then the other day, she performed a notable public service by revealing how very little she knew.

To take my cue from Cohen let's rewrite his intro paragraph:

Cohen of apparent Jewish ancestry and who-the-fuck knows what age but certainly old has never been shy to apologize for Israeli actions and other acts of racism for which, as far as I'm concerned, He is wrong and to which he is entitled. Then the other day he performed a notable public service by yet again showing how totally racist he is.

I certainly don't think that the Washington Post would allow a columnist to post an intro like that (disregarding the F-bomb) 'cause I doubt they would find it appropriate to or even relevant to discuss Cohen's supposed Jewishness, age or consistent "Anti-Palestinian" views. But hey, He's writing for the Washington post and I'm complaining on a blog. Such is life.

Here is the meat of Cohen's argument:

In the Polish city of Kielce, on July 4, 1946 -- more than a year after the end of the war -- rumors of a Jewish ritual murder triggered a pogrom in which 42 Jewish Holocaust survivors were killed. The Kielce murders were not, by any means, the sole example of why Jews could not "go home." When I visited the Polish city where my mother had been born, Ostroleka, I was told of a Jew who survived Auschwitz only to be murdered when he tried to reclaim his business. In much of Eastern Europe, Jews feared for their lives.

Sounds good until you realize that the above has shit to do with Palestinians. And the above point is what the Iranian president has been badly presenting when he discusses the subject. That Europeans committed atrocities against Jews is not for the Palestinians or any other group of people to be made to make up for. Period.

Not a single Palestinian was involved with that Polish Pogrom.

Not a single Palestinian was involved in Nazi Germany or any of the sympathetic states.

So quite honestly, if they didn't give a damn it would be well within their rights. Take that argument up with the people who actually committed the crimes.

There is a reason why out of all the "Western" people, white Americans are especially attached to Israel. Israel is a little America. America was founded in large part by persons escaping persecution in Europe. They were tired of being harassed by the Church for having the gall to interpret the Bible differently. They set sail for that rumored land over the sea where they could make a fresh start. Of course the problem was that people already lived there. Undeterred these colonists decided that the people living in the "Americas" were backward heathens who's purpose prior to their arrival was to prep the land for them. Their vision of Christianity moralized the subsequent theft of land, relocation, reservations and genocide as the white man's burden.

Today a great deal of white America sees the current republic as a testament to the rightness of such manifest destiny ideology and I believe the story of Israel stirs the same primal "patriot" emotions. Israel being founded by Europeans seeking to relieve themselves of the oppression of Christian, Anti-Semitic Europe, went and grabbed land clearly inhabited by other people. They stole their property, created reservations, broken treaties, etc. Clearly Israel is a little Jewish America. Cohen, who I will assume is an American, therefore has a double dose of this white manifest mentality and it shows.

Lastly, there is an absurdity to Cohen talking about 1946 Poland. That's like a black guy going into a Starbucks and looking for the Negro section of the store. How one whips out some 50 odd year old event as proof that European Jews ought to stay put in occupied Palestine is beyond dumb.

Let me take the time to respond to the asinine comparison made in the comments section of the offending article where some prick asked if it is not OK to tell Blacks to go back to Africa, then....

Stop.

Africans in America, recent immigrants aside, did not come here voluntarily.
We did not get a papal bull, Company Charter or UN mandate to come to America and appropriate land inhabited by other people.

So enough with the black people comparisons.

In the end Cohen's piece is irrelevant. Had Cohen simply decided to discuss past atrocities in Europe and perhaps how they may be avoided if Jews did return to such places, you know, a useful discussion, and left the attack on Helen Thomas out I wouldn't have much to say. But his opening attack on Thomas, and by extension those who agree with her reveals the piece for what it is, a propaganda piece to justify the settler state that is Israel. Besides what happened in Poland is particularly irrelevant for those Jews in Israel who came from the US. What's their excuse?

Legal Jim Crow

There’s reason for the preacher’s strong language. In the fourth chapter (titled “The Cruel Hand”) of The New Jim Crow, Alexander shows how once you’re branded as a felon, all the “old forms of discrimination – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service – are suddenly legal. As a criminal,” Alexander observes, “you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow.”[2]

The One's Sitting in Your Face

A bit before Slim Thugg decided to represent "nawfside" and make mostly unsupportable claims in a Vibe magazine interview, I had a thought going through my head that I had refused to post. However; since it has found it's way into my face I suppose it is my Karma to put it out there. I'll use their words though:

Most of us know a beautiful, intelligent, 30-something black woman who swears she can't find a man, in spite of the fact that she might likely know several men who would marry her at the drop of a dime. In some cases, her perception of the perfect man is elevated to the point that every man she meets misses the mark (except for unavailable ones).

-Black Voices

And I will add that many men fall into that same thing as well.

Let me state that there are two reasons for this. Firstly I've come to the conclusion that a lot of people simply do not understand how attraction works. A lot of these good men that women overlook are simply not "attractive" to them. Perhaps they lack "swagger" perhaps they are simply not physically attractive to her. Who am I to tell a woman she ought to lay up with a man who turns her stomach just because he has a decent job and worships the ground she walks on?

But getting back to the 'swagger" issue, the thing about that is, when it comes down to it. When the babies are made, the mortgages are due, the homework to be checked and the PTA meeting to attend, Swagger really doesn't mean too much.

Where I live there are a number of Indian families. The women generally stay home and take care of the children and the men go outside the home and earn. No I am not promoting this. The majority of these men have no swagger whatsoever. I'm talking white socks under dress slacks and black shoes. I'm talking "walk funny". I'm talking all the stuff that would mark your average negro as "boring as fuck".

What these fellows all have in common though is dedication to family and a hell of a work ethic. Though I haven't actually asked any of the women, I would suppose that they chose, or their parents chose for them, their husbands for the qualities that made him a good husband and not a good entertainer.

I'll be honest and say that I've passed on some women for reasons that were purely selfish and had no real bearing on their value as a wife or mother and similarly I think there are not a few women who have passed on men for reasons that have nothing to do with what they claim they want long term in a husband.

If we're not honest with ourselves about the choices we make, we will end up 40, wondering what the hell happened and fail to realize that we are most likely single due to the decisions we made and not for the lack of "good" men and women available to us.

Bizarro World

Israel just finished killing civilians in open/international waters and what's on the front page of the NYT?

U.S. Presses Its Case Against Iran Ahead of Sanctions Vote

And then we wonder why people fly planes into buildings and leave bombs in Times Square, NYC.

The Public Erasure of Black Women in Brazil

One recurring theme on my Twitter timeline, thanks to one Kola Boof is the marginalization of black women. And let me be clear, I am talking about those dark, hershey dark chocolate skinned women with tightly coiled hair. I'm talking those thick lipped, wide nosed and sometimes gapped in the front teeth black women.

OK?

It is clear to most who observe this phenomenon that the mass media has a Scale of Acceptable Blackness (tm) that is used for black women in particular. At the top of the scale are those who can pass. Next are those who can't pass for what is nominally "white" but who have "white features" such as narrow noses (which is not only the domain of white people but that's another discussion) and relatively small lips.

Right under this group are darker women with same features. with each shade acceptable so long as the nose and lips are relatively thin and the hair stays permed. There are a few exceptions.

Few. Particularly in the modeling world. Which brings me to the point of this post. This morning in the NYT I found a piece about Brazilian models :

RESTINGA SÊCA, Brazil — Before setting out in a pink S.U.V. to comb the schoolyards and shopping malls of southern Brazil, Alisson Chornak studies books, maps and Web sites to understand how the towns were colonized and how European their residents might look today.

The goal, he and other model scouts say, is to find the right genetic cocktail of German and Italian ancestry, perhaps with some Russian or other Slavic blood thrown in. Such a mix, they say, helps produce the tall, thin girls with straight hair, fair skin and light eyes that Brazil exports to the runways of New York, Milan and Paris with stunning success.

In a country that is at least 50% non-white, these photographers go to the least populated areas to find the whitest of the white to represent Brazil on the world stage.

Clóvis Pessoa studies facial traits that are successful on international runways and looks for towns in the south that mirror those genes.

“If a famous top model looks German with a Russian nose, I will do a scientific study and look for cities that were colonized by Germans and Russians in the south of Brazil in order to get a similar face down here," Mr. Pessoa said.

What struck me (and almost made me lose my oatmeal) was this:

The next morning, Mr. Chornak studied the girls returning with red lollipops from recess. “There is nothing special here,” he declared.

Really?

I haven't seen what this fellow was looking for, but when I'm in the supermarket in queens, frequented by many black people of varied nationalities I run across "model material" every week. Women who would simply blow away the young lady shown in the NYT video.

Blow away. Even with her hair in rollers.

It is so sad to see how blinded these men are by visions of whiteness as inherently beautiful that they choose "ordinary" white women over 11 on a scale of 10 black women.

Oh and the other insult. Advising one girl to stay out of the sun and wear sunblock when she has to work outside. That would be shocking had I not known a light skinned African-American woman who was essentially told the same thing by her boyfriend who was from Trinidad.

In any case it's very sad that a small portion of Brazil with actual no genetic makeup that reflects the country of origin can be "most desirable".

Of course Brazil is a country that had a lightening up policy so I suppose this type of stuff should not come as a surprise.

Garvey's Ghost TV 6-7-2010

Part 1 is been tagged by YouTube for copyright violation even though the clip in question doesn't even BELONG to the so called "copyright holder". You'll have to follow the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_ar145bHkI

Part 2 below. But really you need to watch part 1 first. Really. So much so I won't embed the video until this "dispute" is finished with. Whenever that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX47fRj2wbE

The Only Way He Could Get Her Attention?

Timothy Johnson told the officers, according to their report, "I admit it. I hit her, that's the only way I can get her attention." Felix-Johnson told the officers he restrained her on the couch, holding down her neck. One officer reports Ofelia Felix-Johnson saying that Johnson also punched her breasts, saying that she had no heart, and hit her over the back and buttocks with a plastic shoe rack, breaking the rack. The police report in the court file states that Johnson broke his wife's nose and toes, causing her to be hospitalized.

What the he'll? Republicans let this fool actually represent them?
Alternet

Garvey's Ghost TV 5-24-2010

What Rand Paul Would Likely Get Right

Here’s Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky’s current attorney general, Jack "I'm a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch" Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders, no doubt a hero to Maddow and Goodman. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?

Yup.

Counterpunch

In Other News

Felipe Calderon speaks out against the recent law passed in Arizona because of how it "affects his people".

Barack Obama, in the wake of reports of black people stopped and frisked in NYC for making "furtive movements" "looking criminal" or just plain "other" is reported to have said absolutely nothing.


Al Sharpton apparently approves of Obama's silence.

Police State in NYC

Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report lays it out:

Why has New York created a police state for Blacks and Latinos? Because the powers-that-be think that a voting majority of citizens approve, and because Black and brown leadership are in the pockets of those in power.

Garvey's Ghost TV 5-10-2010