Dangerous Precedences
Yesterday a Jury found Lynne Stewart a lawyer for blind cleric Abdel Rahman, guilty of providing material support to terrorists when she acted as a conduit for a message by her client to a Egyptian reporter in which her client claimed to not support the cease fire that was agreed to by an organization he was a member of an the Egyptian government. The actual basis for the trial was that Mrs. Stewart had signed a form indicating that she agreed to the administrative ruling that barred Abdel Rahman from communicating with anyone other than his wife and his lawyer.
There are serious problems I have with this whole circus around this Rahman fellow. First, as I wrote about earlier, how did the prosecution even win a case against someone who's "crime" was speaking? I have never been a supporter of criminalized speech, be it religious, racial or whatever. Crimes should involve specific actions. There are many many many people who think George Bush ought to be shot. I know this because I've heard it said. None the less, not a single one of these people can be arrested, much less prosecuted, for such speech. Even if someone actually took a shot at the President, no one could be held responsible if all they did was say that they agree with the act. Getting back to the blind cleric. There was no evidence at all that shows that he gave money too the individuals who attempted ot bring down the WTC. Nor is there any evidence that he himself attempted to do the act. therefore his conviction was for merely doing what any other person in America is free to do, Express his political opinion about the situation he finds himself in and what he thinks could bring about change. Therefore the whole basis of his conviction was bogus and plainly unconstitutional, if popular.
Thus the "gag order" is equaly bogus and unconstitutional. Again the man committed no crime ( regardless of how odius the speech may or may not be), thus the government had no place gaging the man. Abdel Rahman, like it or not was in fact a political prisoner of the US. Lynne Stewart clearly knew this and I suspect it is the reason why she signed the form in the first place. Contract law specifically states that a contract is void if in it's term it requires the breaking of the law.
The jury claimed that it convicted Mrs. Stewart because they felt she broke her contract. That she somehow felt that she was above the law. I suppose that the Judge "mis"-informed the jury about Abdel Rahman's conviction and the "rights" of the government. Notwithstanding the clear bias of the Jury given the prosecutions use of Osama Bin-Ladin video (which should have been ruled irrelevant), it clearly seems to be that the US was attempting to stiffle political speech. by using "adminstrative" rules to blow up into providing material support for terrorists.
Americans have become so complacent about the basic rights that are afforded to them, that they are willing to strip them from anyone that's not them when in reality the defense of those rights is what keeps government transparent.
(17 years of informed commentary)
Friday, February 11, 2005
The High Price of Dependency
It was with a very angry heart that I had to watch as Brian Ross of the ABCNEws corp. report on UN. Sex Crimes in the Congo:
quote:
The range of sexual abuse includes reported rapes of young Congolese girls by U.N. troops, an Internet pedophile ring run from Congo by Didier Bourguet, a senior U.N. official from France, a colonel from South Africa accused of molesting his teenage male translators, and estimates of hundreds of underage girls having babies fathered by U.N. soldiers who have been able to simply leave their children and their crimes behind.
Ravaged by decades of civil war, and one of the poorest countries in the world, Congo has relied on the United Nations for both military protection and humanitarian aid.
"The U.N. is there for their protection, so when the protectors become violators, this is particularly egregious," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch who investigated the allegations on behalf of her organization. "This is particularly bad."
Meanwhile just north-east of there the NY times reminds us of the genocide and ethnic "cleansing" going on in the Sudan, in a report entitled: Darfur's Babies of Rape on Trail fro Birth. In this report they discuss the babies of the systemic rape of women by the Janghaweed Militias.
All in all it is simply a sad day for Africa, where innocent civilians, women and children become the victims of government agents, both domestic and foreign. Where the men have not the will or abilty to defend thier women from the predations of those who would be their protectors and those who would be thier killers.
My question is when will enough be enough? When will we stop selling out ourselves? When will we become emboldened by the ideal of "freedom or death?"
I'm not saying that the people who committed these acts are absolved by our own vulnerability, I am saying that it does not make sense that after everything Africans have been through, we still allow ourselves to be helpless spectators in the world around us.
This needs to stop and no UN peacekeeping force, no AU ( African Union) force is going to stop this. We have got to get to the point where we just will not accept living under so called leadership that does nothing but enrich itself. How did Mobutu live so long when he had servants in his house who could have "removed" him from power? Where is the self-respect?? Where is the outrage at what we allow our own to do for us?
Every time I see or read articles and newscasts about Rwanda and Congo and Sudan, everyone blames Europe and America ( and China), Tey get blamed for providing weapons, For not providing food or medicine or whatever else, But I don't see anyone seriously discussing why We are doing these things to ourselves? It is unfashionable to "blame the victim." I understand that ideology but clearly doing the same thing over and over again is NOT solving a damn thing. The same old wait for the UN to step in or wait for this or that Donor?
A recent article in The Black Commentator discussed how when Belgium pulled out of what is now the DRC they left all of 4 doctors. When Mobutu left I understand he left the banks with a couple hundred thousand dollar equivalent in currency. WE can defintitly fault belgium (and the US) for starting the problem in Africa, but since then Africa has sent many many professionals, especially in the medical field, to Europe and America. Many of those came for the better economic opportunities. Can I fault those indiviiduals? No. But if they are here or in Europe then they are not in Africa. In many instances the doctors and nurses were trained in State supported schools and thus the investments in that human capital is gone. Clearly then those who could be serve the medical needs of Africans are best serving the needs of Europeans. Do they care about Africans? Is there no will to sacrifice for the future of the country? Is it going to continue to be the case that Doctors without Borders and WHO will be the suppliers of medical services rather than locals? Is this acceptible to us?
Nation building is not a get rich quick scheme. It doesn't happen over night and it's not free. Franz Fanon, Amilcar Cabral and Kwame Nkrumah among others warned us what would happen once black faces got into the high places. I was truely hoping that they would eventually be proven wrong. It seems I was overly optimistic.
It was with a very angry heart that I had to watch as Brian Ross of the ABCNEws corp. report on UN. Sex Crimes in the Congo:
quote:
The range of sexual abuse includes reported rapes of young Congolese girls by U.N. troops, an Internet pedophile ring run from Congo by Didier Bourguet, a senior U.N. official from France, a colonel from South Africa accused of molesting his teenage male translators, and estimates of hundreds of underage girls having babies fathered by U.N. soldiers who have been able to simply leave their children and their crimes behind.
Ravaged by decades of civil war, and one of the poorest countries in the world, Congo has relied on the United Nations for both military protection and humanitarian aid.
"The U.N. is there for their protection, so when the protectors become violators, this is particularly egregious," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch who investigated the allegations on behalf of her organization. "This is particularly bad."
Meanwhile just north-east of there the NY times reminds us of the genocide and ethnic "cleansing" going on in the Sudan, in a report entitled: Darfur's Babies of Rape on Trail fro Birth. In this report they discuss the babies of the systemic rape of women by the Janghaweed Militias.
All in all it is simply a sad day for Africa, where innocent civilians, women and children become the victims of government agents, both domestic and foreign. Where the men have not the will or abilty to defend thier women from the predations of those who would be their protectors and those who would be thier killers.
My question is when will enough be enough? When will we stop selling out ourselves? When will we become emboldened by the ideal of "freedom or death?"
I'm not saying that the people who committed these acts are absolved by our own vulnerability, I am saying that it does not make sense that after everything Africans have been through, we still allow ourselves to be helpless spectators in the world around us.
This needs to stop and no UN peacekeeping force, no AU ( African Union) force is going to stop this. We have got to get to the point where we just will not accept living under so called leadership that does nothing but enrich itself. How did Mobutu live so long when he had servants in his house who could have "removed" him from power? Where is the self-respect?? Where is the outrage at what we allow our own to do for us?
Every time I see or read articles and newscasts about Rwanda and Congo and Sudan, everyone blames Europe and America ( and China), Tey get blamed for providing weapons, For not providing food or medicine or whatever else, But I don't see anyone seriously discussing why We are doing these things to ourselves? It is unfashionable to "blame the victim." I understand that ideology but clearly doing the same thing over and over again is NOT solving a damn thing. The same old wait for the UN to step in or wait for this or that Donor?
A recent article in The Black Commentator discussed how when Belgium pulled out of what is now the DRC they left all of 4 doctors. When Mobutu left I understand he left the banks with a couple hundred thousand dollar equivalent in currency. WE can defintitly fault belgium (and the US) for starting the problem in Africa, but since then Africa has sent many many professionals, especially in the medical field, to Europe and America. Many of those came for the better economic opportunities. Can I fault those indiviiduals? No. But if they are here or in Europe then they are not in Africa. In many instances the doctors and nurses were trained in State supported schools and thus the investments in that human capital is gone. Clearly then those who could be serve the medical needs of Africans are best serving the needs of Europeans. Do they care about Africans? Is there no will to sacrifice for the future of the country? Is it going to continue to be the case that Doctors without Borders and WHO will be the suppliers of medical services rather than locals? Is this acceptible to us?
Nation building is not a get rich quick scheme. It doesn't happen over night and it's not free. Franz Fanon, Amilcar Cabral and Kwame Nkrumah among others warned us what would happen once black faces got into the high places. I was truely hoping that they would eventually be proven wrong. It seems I was overly optimistic.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Did they actually say (or write) that?
This morning on"This Week" was comedy hour as Donald Rumsfeld made the following statement regarding Nuclear vs. Biological agents:
"Unlike nuclear agents Biological agents can affect people over generations."
Is he serious? Perhaps he's not seen what radiation can do to people.
Yesterday, while doing my laundry I stumbled upon some Jehoviah's Witness material. I decided to entertain myself by reading the article they had entitled: "Can the Environment be saved?"
Folks..They spent about 3and one half pages, out of four, discussing what is wrong with the environment. The last half page contained a "solution" that basically was: "man" cannot do anything but destroy and the only solution is the Second Coming. The thing that scared me about this piece was that there are many many people who believe this and therefore do not care about theier impact on the environment. This belief in the Second Coming of Christ has been around for some 2000 years, with each generation believing it would happen in thier lifetime and all being wrong. You would think that with 2000 years of incorrect guessing as to when the Second Coming would happen, that people such as Jehoviah's Witnesses would at least say:
"Well since we have NO CLUE when this Second Coming is going to occur, we suggest the following actions be taken by believers so that just in case the Second Coming doesn't happen in the lifetime of our children's children's children's to the seventh generation, we do not hand them Asthma and Cancers of every kind."
No I guess that would be too worldly.
This morning on"This Week" was comedy hour as Donald Rumsfeld made the following statement regarding Nuclear vs. Biological agents:
"Unlike nuclear agents Biological agents can affect people over generations."
Is he serious? Perhaps he's not seen what radiation can do to people.
Yesterday, while doing my laundry I stumbled upon some Jehoviah's Witness material. I decided to entertain myself by reading the article they had entitled: "Can the Environment be saved?"
Folks..They spent about 3and one half pages, out of four, discussing what is wrong with the environment. The last half page contained a "solution" that basically was: "man" cannot do anything but destroy and the only solution is the Second Coming. The thing that scared me about this piece was that there are many many people who believe this and therefore do not care about theier impact on the environment. This belief in the Second Coming of Christ has been around for some 2000 years, with each generation believing it would happen in thier lifetime and all being wrong. You would think that with 2000 years of incorrect guessing as to when the Second Coming would happen, that people such as Jehoviah's Witnesses would at least say:
"Well since we have NO CLUE when this Second Coming is going to occur, we suggest the following actions be taken by believers so that just in case the Second Coming doesn't happen in the lifetime of our children's children's children's to the seventh generation, we do not hand them Asthma and Cancers of every kind."
No I guess that would be too worldly.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
I was wrong...kinda
I've been having debates on Social Security and have been using numbers from the Office of Management and Budget to bolster my case. Unfortunately I was using some wrong numbers, That is I was looking at discretionary spending rather than Mandatory Outlays. The distinction is important. The Department of Defense, which is budgeted for $401 billion in discretionary spending, is supposed to use that money for all it's operations including paychecks for all soldiers, aquisition of arms. It should be noted that $200 billion is earmarked for R&D. The DOD basically has no "mandatory outlays" as the Social Security Administration and Human Services department have.
When we look at the mandatory outlays that the SS administration has, we would note that it must put out upwards of $500 billion for 2005 in SS benefits alone. The Department of Human Services also has a large mandatory outlay in the form of Medicare/Medicaid which is $286 billion and $188 billion respectively.
The next mistake I made, and it is a very important one, was to look at these totals next to the GDP. That was wrong. Looking at the GDP which is expected to be $12 trillion in 2005, one could easily argue that it would be easy to fund SS, Medicaid and Medicare. After all their mandatory outlays are but 10% of the GDP. However, the GDP is not what the Federal Government actually takes in. What the Fed actually takes in is faaaaaar less than the GDP. In fact it is about 10% of the GDP. In 2004 the receipts of the Federal Government was $1.79 trillion. This is very important in the diuscussion of SS (and why I should have been more careful in my initial argument). If SS will take $500 out of those receipts and Medicare and Medicaid another $474 billion then combined these two programs actually take out over 1/2 the receipts of the Federal Government. The DOD would take out half of what is left, leaving $600 billion to divide up among the remaining agencies (17 large and many small) and programs.
This should alarm folks becuase when you look at the US debt. The actual Gross Debt of the Federal Government is 2003 was $6.76 trillion. Out of this amount $2.846 trillion is held by Government Accounts. and $3.914 trillion is held by "the public".
In fact the official US Budget as proposed by President Bush plans on deficits through 2009.
It would appear that the US is one big bad check waiting to hit the bank. There is absolutely no way that the US debt can be paid at any time in the near future. All the people who know these numbers know it and don't really care. If anything, the problem is not Social Security, it's the Debt. the Social Security debate pre-supposes that the US will continue to operate on borrowed money. This supposition only means that at some point the treasury goes bankrupt. The only reason why the Fed has not gone bankrupt is because it's creditors, bond holders and who knows who else have not called in for their money and that convenient issue of Oil being priced in Dollars which makes it the premier currency on the market. But for how long?
At the end of the day it would seem that the US population has apparenly been hoodwinked. Millions of dollars have been paid into a system that may or may not be able to pay out. Furthermore most of these same people have also been made to pay for medical Insurance and the likes, which have been pushing more and more financial responsibility onto the policy holders. It would seem that the only groups that have beeb guaranteed to make out are the medical providers who bill the insurance companies, those doing business with the DOD and those on the receiving end of cashed SS checks.
Either way though, I was wrong in my previous use of the numbers, the corrected numbers indicate that Tax cuts are not the answer. Taxes, both individual and corporate (especially corporate) are going to have to rise. it's not going to be pretty.
I've been having debates on Social Security and have been using numbers from the Office of Management and Budget to bolster my case. Unfortunately I was using some wrong numbers, That is I was looking at discretionary spending rather than Mandatory Outlays. The distinction is important. The Department of Defense, which is budgeted for $401 billion in discretionary spending, is supposed to use that money for all it's operations including paychecks for all soldiers, aquisition of arms. It should be noted that $200 billion is earmarked for R&D. The DOD basically has no "mandatory outlays" as the Social Security Administration and Human Services department have.
When we look at the mandatory outlays that the SS administration has, we would note that it must put out upwards of $500 billion for 2005 in SS benefits alone. The Department of Human Services also has a large mandatory outlay in the form of Medicare/Medicaid which is $286 billion and $188 billion respectively.
The next mistake I made, and it is a very important one, was to look at these totals next to the GDP. That was wrong. Looking at the GDP which is expected to be $12 trillion in 2005, one could easily argue that it would be easy to fund SS, Medicaid and Medicare. After all their mandatory outlays are but 10% of the GDP. However, the GDP is not what the Federal Government actually takes in. What the Fed actually takes in is faaaaaar less than the GDP. In fact it is about 10% of the GDP. In 2004 the receipts of the Federal Government was $1.79 trillion. This is very important in the diuscussion of SS (and why I should have been more careful in my initial argument). If SS will take $500 out of those receipts and Medicare and Medicaid another $474 billion then combined these two programs actually take out over 1/2 the receipts of the Federal Government. The DOD would take out half of what is left, leaving $600 billion to divide up among the remaining agencies (17 large and many small) and programs.
This should alarm folks becuase when you look at the US debt. The actual Gross Debt of the Federal Government is 2003 was $6.76 trillion. Out of this amount $2.846 trillion is held by Government Accounts. and $3.914 trillion is held by "the public".
In fact the official US Budget as proposed by President Bush plans on deficits through 2009.
It would appear that the US is one big bad check waiting to hit the bank. There is absolutely no way that the US debt can be paid at any time in the near future. All the people who know these numbers know it and don't really care. If anything, the problem is not Social Security, it's the Debt. the Social Security debate pre-supposes that the US will continue to operate on borrowed money. This supposition only means that at some point the treasury goes bankrupt. The only reason why the Fed has not gone bankrupt is because it's creditors, bond holders and who knows who else have not called in for their money and that convenient issue of Oil being priced in Dollars which makes it the premier currency on the market. But for how long?
At the end of the day it would seem that the US population has apparenly been hoodwinked. Millions of dollars have been paid into a system that may or may not be able to pay out. Furthermore most of these same people have also been made to pay for medical Insurance and the likes, which have been pushing more and more financial responsibility onto the policy holders. It would seem that the only groups that have beeb guaranteed to make out are the medical providers who bill the insurance companies, those doing business with the DOD and those on the receiving end of cashed SS checks.
Either way though, I was wrong in my previous use of the numbers, the corrected numbers indicate that Tax cuts are not the answer. Taxes, both individual and corporate (especially corporate) are going to have to rise. it's not going to be pretty.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Sellouts Strike Back
Well I know it's been a while since I posted but a couple of things I've stumbled across has made me have to comment. Just in time for Black History Month, Black Conservatives have come out swinging to gain more mindshare among African-Americans. the LA Times has an article entitled "recasting Republicans as The Party of Civil Rights"
quote:
Condoleezza Rice took the oath Friday as the first black woman to be secretary of State, then immediately reached back into history to invoke the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
Her words were the latest example of President Bush and his top aides citing the Republican Party's often-forgotten 19th century antislavery roots — a strategy that GOP leaders believe will help them make inroads among black voters in the 21st century.
And if it reminds voters that the Democrats once embraced slavery, that's not such a bad byproduct, strategists say.
Bush, who keeps a bust of Lincoln prominently displayed in the Oval Office, is making Civil War references a staple of his speeches promoting democracy overseas and policy changes at home. And a glossy, GOP-produced "2005 Republican Freedom Calendar," spotlighting key moments in the party's civil rights history, has been distributed to party officials nationwide.
"We started our party with the express intent of protecting the American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that expressly made people inferior to the state," Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) wrote in a letter printed on the calendar.
The letter continued: "Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was then: free people, free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited individual opportunity."
The push also was evident during last year's presidential campaign in the crucial state of Florida.
A Palm Beach Republican group paid for a newspaper ad that listed a raft of black Republican officeholders during the 19th century and said, "Throughout the history of America, the Republican Party has been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights."
ahhhhh yes... The Party of Lincoln. I never bought that whole Abraham Lincoln as savior mentality that took hold on so many black minds, but I never imagined that it such a thing would find itself at the cutting edge of Republican propaganda. Poor thought on my part. The sad thing about this propaganda is that much of it is technically true. Void of any real analysis, such propaganda will play well to younger blacks who, by and large are not well informed on Black History on either side of the Atlantic, and woefully mis-informed about much of US history. For example, while Radical Republicans may well have been at the forefront of Civil Rights at the end of the Civil War, it should be noted that when the Democratic Party took on Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's the result was all the "racists' in the Democratic Party bolted for the Republican party. See Conservatism for them meant "keeping niggers in their place." In fact much of the rise of Republicanism, and Conservatism is one great big white backlash against Civil Rights Legislation, Affirmative Action and many social programs of the 'Great Society."
However; as we all know, Democrats, having locked the Black vote eventually took Blacks for granted. Thus instead of Jimmy Carter or Clinton giving us the first black Secretary of State we get Republicans doing so (even if we don't care for the choice).
What is most troubling, and indeed is something I warned about last year, is the cooption of ideologies and personalities that have traditionaly been the bedrock of "Black Nationalists" such as Frederick Douglass. We should expect to see more co-option in the future
The next article that got my attention was entitled GOP Sees a Future in Black Churches
quote:
The effort will be visible today at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest black churches, headed by televangelist Frederick K.C. Price. More than 100 African American ministers are to gather in the first of several regional summits to build support for banning same-sex marriage — a signature issue that drew socially conservative blacks to the Republican column last year.
Before the meeting, one prominent minister plans to unveil a "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," a call for Bible-based action by government and churches to promote conservative priorities. It is patterned loosely on the "Contract With America" that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used 10 years ago to inaugurate an era of GOP dominance in Congress.
A separate group with ties to Gingrich will announce a similar "Mayflower Compact for Black America" later this month in Washington, which includes plans to organize in key states ahead of the 2006 and 2008 elections. And at the end of the month, the Heritage Foundation will cosponsor a gathering of black conservatives in Washington designed to counter dominance of the "America-hating black liberal leadership" and to focus African American voters on moral issues.
I want to focus on the "Bible based action by government to promotye conservative priorities." This is a serious problem and I'm appalled that blacks are actually participating in this. But I am not surprised. I have long said that black Christians are some of the most bigoted people in America. There is no worse combination than Christianity and Self Hate. Apparently this group has taken no consideration for the vast numbers of Blacks who are non-Christian. Well I'm wrong, they have considered them and their position is that we do not matter, we should be converted or see damnation. Period. I won't blame the leadership entirely though. This kind of behavior could not happen without the cooperation and financing by members of their congregations. They could not do what they do without the silent approval of those who may disagree but say nothing.
Speaking of silent approval, the NY Times ran an article today about how teachers are dealing with pressure to not teach the Theory of Evolution. The article entitled: Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes
Quote:
In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue.
Teaching guides and textbooks may meet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities.
"The most common remark I've heard from teachers was that the chapter on evolution was assigned as reading but that virtually no discussion in class was taken," said Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, an evangelical Christian and a member of Alabama's curriculum review board who advocates the teaching of evolution. Teachers are afraid to raise the issue, he said in an e-mail message, and they are afraid to discuss the issue in public.
Dr. Frandsen, former chairman of the committee on science and public policy of the Alabama Academy of Science, said in an interview that this fear made it impossible to say precisely how many teachers avoid the topic.
"You're not going to hear about it," he said. "And for political reasons nobody will do a survey among randomly selected public school children and parents to ask just what is being taught in science classes."
But he said he believed the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.
This is a serious problem. Why are people who are in the right simply balling up and allowing themselves to be rolled over? I'll tell you why: So called "liberals" have refused to fund their platforms. Fundamenatalists and Cobservatives have set up a vast network of institutions and foundations to fund thier agendas. Liberals are the epitome of "divided we fall." Each teacher, each professor, each student simply "does what he can" and they all get beat. Why haven't these teachers, these educators, put their money where their mouths are and fund thier own defense? Perhaps it's because some believe it's just that one subject. It's not:
quote:
He said the teaching of evolution was portrayed not as scientific instruction but as "an assault of the secular elite on the values of God-fearing people." As a result, he said, politicians don't want to touch it. "Everybody discovers the wisdom of federalism here very quickly," he said. "Leave it at the state or the local level."
But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.
"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."
Expansion, the very heart of Christianity. It does not stop. By it's nature, by it's design it is meant to expand and consume(just like Capitalism). These people will not go away and they will not compromise unless forced to by an equally or greater organized movement. Better get a move on.
Links:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-slavery29jan29,1,4432752,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-pastors1feb01,1,4630381.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html?oref=login
Well I know it's been a while since I posted but a couple of things I've stumbled across has made me have to comment. Just in time for Black History Month, Black Conservatives have come out swinging to gain more mindshare among African-Americans. the LA Times has an article entitled "recasting Republicans as The Party of Civil Rights"
quote:
Condoleezza Rice took the oath Friday as the first black woman to be secretary of State, then immediately reached back into history to invoke the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
Her words were the latest example of President Bush and his top aides citing the Republican Party's often-forgotten 19th century antislavery roots — a strategy that GOP leaders believe will help them make inroads among black voters in the 21st century.
And if it reminds voters that the Democrats once embraced slavery, that's not such a bad byproduct, strategists say.
Bush, who keeps a bust of Lincoln prominently displayed in the Oval Office, is making Civil War references a staple of his speeches promoting democracy overseas and policy changes at home. And a glossy, GOP-produced "2005 Republican Freedom Calendar," spotlighting key moments in the party's civil rights history, has been distributed to party officials nationwide.
"We started our party with the express intent of protecting the American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that expressly made people inferior to the state," Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) wrote in a letter printed on the calendar.
The letter continued: "Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was then: free people, free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited individual opportunity."
The push also was evident during last year's presidential campaign in the crucial state of Florida.
A Palm Beach Republican group paid for a newspaper ad that listed a raft of black Republican officeholders during the 19th century and said, "Throughout the history of America, the Republican Party has been at the forefront of the fight for civil rights."
ahhhhh yes... The Party of Lincoln. I never bought that whole Abraham Lincoln as savior mentality that took hold on so many black minds, but I never imagined that it such a thing would find itself at the cutting edge of Republican propaganda. Poor thought on my part. The sad thing about this propaganda is that much of it is technically true. Void of any real analysis, such propaganda will play well to younger blacks who, by and large are not well informed on Black History on either side of the Atlantic, and woefully mis-informed about much of US history. For example, while Radical Republicans may well have been at the forefront of Civil Rights at the end of the Civil War, it should be noted that when the Democratic Party took on Civil Rights in the 50's and 60's the result was all the "racists' in the Democratic Party bolted for the Republican party. See Conservatism for them meant "keeping niggers in their place." In fact much of the rise of Republicanism, and Conservatism is one great big white backlash against Civil Rights Legislation, Affirmative Action and many social programs of the 'Great Society."
However; as we all know, Democrats, having locked the Black vote eventually took Blacks for granted. Thus instead of Jimmy Carter or Clinton giving us the first black Secretary of State we get Republicans doing so (even if we don't care for the choice).
What is most troubling, and indeed is something I warned about last year, is the cooption of ideologies and personalities that have traditionaly been the bedrock of "Black Nationalists" such as Frederick Douglass. We should expect to see more co-option in the future
The next article that got my attention was entitled GOP Sees a Future in Black Churches
quote:
The effort will be visible today at the Crenshaw Christian Center, one of Los Angeles' biggest black churches, headed by televangelist Frederick K.C. Price. More than 100 African American ministers are to gather in the first of several regional summits to build support for banning same-sex marriage — a signature issue that drew socially conservative blacks to the Republican column last year.
Before the meeting, one prominent minister plans to unveil a "Black Contract With America on Moral Values," a call for Bible-based action by government and churches to promote conservative priorities. It is patterned loosely on the "Contract With America" that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich used 10 years ago to inaugurate an era of GOP dominance in Congress.
A separate group with ties to Gingrich will announce a similar "Mayflower Compact for Black America" later this month in Washington, which includes plans to organize in key states ahead of the 2006 and 2008 elections. And at the end of the month, the Heritage Foundation will cosponsor a gathering of black conservatives in Washington designed to counter dominance of the "America-hating black liberal leadership" and to focus African American voters on moral issues.
I want to focus on the "Bible based action by government to promotye conservative priorities." This is a serious problem and I'm appalled that blacks are actually participating in this. But I am not surprised. I have long said that black Christians are some of the most bigoted people in America. There is no worse combination than Christianity and Self Hate. Apparently this group has taken no consideration for the vast numbers of Blacks who are non-Christian. Well I'm wrong, they have considered them and their position is that we do not matter, we should be converted or see damnation. Period. I won't blame the leadership entirely though. This kind of behavior could not happen without the cooperation and financing by members of their congregations. They could not do what they do without the silent approval of those who may disagree but say nothing.
Speaking of silent approval, the NY Times ran an article today about how teachers are dealing with pressure to not teach the Theory of Evolution. The article entitled: Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes
Quote:
In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue.
Teaching guides and textbooks may meet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities.
"The most common remark I've heard from teachers was that the chapter on evolution was assigned as reading but that virtually no discussion in class was taken," said Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, an evangelical Christian and a member of Alabama's curriculum review board who advocates the teaching of evolution. Teachers are afraid to raise the issue, he said in an e-mail message, and they are afraid to discuss the issue in public.
Dr. Frandsen, former chairman of the committee on science and public policy of the Alabama Academy of Science, said in an interview that this fear made it impossible to say precisely how many teachers avoid the topic.
"You're not going to hear about it," he said. "And for political reasons nobody will do a survey among randomly selected public school children and parents to ask just what is being taught in science classes."
But he said he believed the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.
This is a serious problem. Why are people who are in the right simply balling up and allowing themselves to be rolled over? I'll tell you why: So called "liberals" have refused to fund their platforms. Fundamenatalists and Cobservatives have set up a vast network of institutions and foundations to fund thier agendas. Liberals are the epitome of "divided we fall." Each teacher, each professor, each student simply "does what he can" and they all get beat. Why haven't these teachers, these educators, put their money where their mouths are and fund thier own defense? Perhaps it's because some believe it's just that one subject. It's not:
quote:
He said the teaching of evolution was portrayed not as scientific instruction but as "an assault of the secular elite on the values of God-fearing people." As a result, he said, politicians don't want to touch it. "Everybody discovers the wisdom of federalism here very quickly," he said. "Leave it at the state or the local level."
But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.
"They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."
Expansion, the very heart of Christianity. It does not stop. By it's nature, by it's design it is meant to expand and consume(just like Capitalism). These people will not go away and they will not compromise unless forced to by an equally or greater organized movement. Better get a move on.
Links:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-slavery29jan29,1,4432752,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-pastors1feb01,1,4630381.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01evo.html?oref=login
Saturday, January 29, 2005
The Black Kid's Burden: Black Culture?
A couple of months back a PDF was posted on a website of a working document of a paper from the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University. Apparently, one of the authors, William Darity had given an interview to a publication and gave the address of the paper. The main reason he was interviewed was due to the then recent comments by Bill Cosby, specifically referring to the commonly spoken of issue of black students not wanting to “act white” by doing well in school. The title of the paper is “Breeding Animosity: The ‘Burden of Acting White’ and Other Problems of Status Group Hierarchies in Schools.”
What this paper attempted to do was explore the issue of “Acting white.” The authors came to the general conclusion that such a sentiment did not exist or at least exist to the extent that is generally believed. The problem I had with this was that to my knowledge the accusation was limited to a proportion of the black population and therefore would never be shown to be a “general assumption.” Let’s look at the general conclusion of the authors:
1) There is a general sentiment against high academic achievement among adolescents in North Carolina, regardless of race.
2) There is no evidence of the specific racialized form of opposition to high achievement –the burden of acting white – at the elementary school level. This suggests that it is not an attribute that is a cultural import from a widely held outlook in black America.
3) We do not find limited evidence of racialized peer pressure against academic achievement at the high school level. The context in which is most likely to occur is a school where black students are grossly underrepresented in the most demanding courses, e.g. Advanced Placement (AP) and Honors courses. For example, in a school where 40 –60 percent of students are black but only one or two make their way into AP or Honors classes, those one or two are more likely to be the object of the charge that they are “acting white.” Black students legitimately view those classes as the property of white students; they are overwhelmingly excluded.
Keep these things 3 things in mind because some of the data presented here will present you the reader with some interesting things to consider which this statement does not take in to consideration. Page 5 of the working paper has an interesting paragraph:
The term [acting white] also has come to be used with respect to indicators of academic performance and success (Bergin and Cooks 2002; Neil-Barnett 2001). Using focus groups to understand how black teenagers define “acting white,” Neal-Barnett (2001:82) reported that the list of items the students identified included “being in honors or advanced placement classes.” Incidentally, the list also included Speaking Standard English, dressing in clothes from the Gap or Abercrombie and Fitch rather than Tommy Hilfiger and Fubu, [and] wearing shorts in the winter (Neal-Barnett 2001:82)
What we should note is the issue of Standard English. It is well known that they way one speaks and the way one writes is connected. The less of a grip on language the less well a person does in areas that require reading comprehension. Thus it would be important to track the academic performances. The paper continues:
According to the theory, academic achievement is not valued among [certain] African Americans because it is perceived as conforming to standard norms of success among white Americans. Moreover, it does not pay off for blacks like it does for others.
Therefore, black students are confronted with a choice between representing an authentic “black” self or striving for academic success. Fordham and Ogbu claimed that this dilemma, this “burden of acting white,” that contributes [but not necessarily causes] to the relatively low academic performance of black students…faced with this dilemma, the authors believe, many black students choose to stifle their academic ability and achievement in order to stay true to the race and avoid charges of “acting white” and other ridicule and ostracism from their black peers. _-writers interspersed commentary and emphasis.
What is critical in this section is to remember that we are talking about a portion of the black population and that such attitudes are not necessarily causative of poor academic performance. What is also important to ask here, which is a question I will continue to ask during this analysis is: Who are these “peers?”
Something else to be considered from the paper:
Another more recent analysis of survey data from schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, also found very little evidence of a peer culture that is oppositional to achievement among black adolescents (Ferguson 2001). Ferguson found that black and white students with similar family background characteristics were not very different in respect to their satisfaction with school, interests in their studies or opposition to achievement -writers emphasis
Shaker Heights, Ohio, is not a poor area. In fact, ABC recently did a news piece on Shaker Heights Ohio where the black families that first moved into that area conspired with the whites in that neighborhood to keep the area at a specific racial mix by denying opportunities to certain black families to move into the neighborhood. I would suppose in an effort to keep the neighborhood from going down hill. I could say that the parents in this particular instance were acting quite white but I would be digressing. The point here is that the finding of that study is not surprising given the attitude of the parents and perhaps the current inhabitants of Shaker Heights.
On odd addition to the study was a group of females who were members of the Nation Of Islam. I would not have expected any “oppositional” attitudes because of the ideology of the NOI do not foster that kind of attitude regardless of socio-economic placement.
However; a nice twist in the paper gives us a nice frame of reference:
But students in virtually all racial and ethnic groups confront similar dilemmas with respect to high academic achievement, and they also tend to employ similar strategies.
The question that should be asked here is what are the results of this? If Asians are exhibiting the same strategies, as claimed in this work, then why are their particular academic rankings so far ahead of blacks? In fact the only other group that exhibits similar academic issues as African-Americans are Hispanics, who in many urban areas live in similar neighborhoods and involve themselves in the same sub-cultures. We also must take into account the very specific phenomenon that blacks found themselves in regard to schools where there were told explicitly that certain types of academic achievement was “not for them.” Furthermore; we must look at the phenomenon of the “uppity nigger” and it’s affect of defining “black “ behavior.
Getting further into the paper we find the following:
We would expect to find evidence of a ‘burden of acting white” wherever we find black students, whether high or low achieving, for we assume that people carry their culture with them wherever they go.
Now I disagree with this statement. I do not expect to see such a burden in high achieving students because they are not susceptible to such ideas as they are not susceptible to the pressure of those who would accuse of “acting white.” The statement above assumes a monolithic “black culture” which does not exist. There are very distinct groupings of African-Americans of which only a few of them that actually get any real media or even academic attention. The next statement is at the heart of my disagreement with this paper:
in 2000-2001 =, we undertook a study for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction examining the under representation of minority students in rigorous courses and programs
As stated before, I believe that asking the folks least susceptible to “acting white” pressure about that pressure really proves nothing. In fact using my own experience as a student in AP classes, the people who had such “acting white” attitudes simply were not my peers and I had very little contact with them. In fact one individual that did have such an attitude about me only stated so about a month before we graduated. I suspect in this experience would be the same for other students in AP classes. But lets get on with the paper:
Both black and white students at the elementary level desired high achievement and to be perceived as “smart” by others…They received only support for their achievements from friends and peers, as long as they did not brag…
This is entirely expected. The American Educator, a UFT publication discussed how reading among students is level up to year 5 and then for some there is a steep drop off. On the issue of bragging, this is a sensitive issue and goes back to my issue of “uppity negroes.” What constitutes “bragging”? I recall having a discussion about my credit and saying how it was 700 and I wanted it to be better. The person I was talking to seemed put off. I then remembered that for many people 700 is the “holy grail.” And saying that I had above 700 credit constituted showing off to them, whereas with my peers, such talk is normal conversation and is a sign of striving and not bragging. So this concept of bragging is very much determined by people’s station in life and their mentality towards life. In fact such aversion to “bragging” may well be a manifestation of ‘acting white” regardless of how illogical it may seem. Let us look at the following statement:
None of the thirteen black of three biracial (with on black parent) elementary school students interviewed ever mentioned the term “acting white” in any context (although on white student at Georgetown did mention that black students accused her of “trying to act black” when she used slang) or gave indication of attitudes oppositional to school achievement. We believe as others have suggested, that race may not be salient a category for grade school children.
Umm how is it that race is not a salient category for grade schoolers, yet it is salient enough that black students felt confident enough to accuse a white student of acting black for using what could be described as racialize language patterns? They didn’t say she was trying to be “cool.” They specifically racialized her speech patterns. In fact the paper makes passing reference to this recognition:
For instance, a few teachers interviewed at Georgetown mentioned that students, even as early as kindergarten, recognized that many of the “smart” children were white, and the teachers expressed concerns about the impact this pattern had on the self-esteem of minority children
Indeed! I had asked to see this data but was unable to obtain it, but it would be very interesting to know how white students were so consistently recognized as “smart.”
Let’s look at the specific statements made by a student identified as “Marc”:
Most of the time, but a lot of the black people will think that they are better than the white people, or vice versa. Or black people will always pick on the white people about what they do [inaudible] and if you’re black and you act like you’re white, then they would hold it against you. The black people would not like you as much. … Well if your black and you act like your –you do stuff that the white people do, then, then, like skateboarding and stuff like that, then they say that you’re white and that you, I don’t know how you really say it, they just say that you’re really white and that you don’t care about everybody’s else that’s black… Just about everything that black people don’t do. Like if it’s not associated with like –I’m not talking about school –but drugs or shooting or something like that, then it’s considered black.
To quote Black Robb:
‘Whoah!!”
Talk about smoking guns here. Marc clearly indicates that he is aware of, if not affected by a mentality that black culture includes as its definition drugs and shooting. Now perhaps he’s just unable to express himself but it seems that from his statement that black behavior has by it’s definition things that are clearly anti-thetical to black achievement. And exactly why is it that black students think they are better than white ones? I would suspect it is a reaction to attitudes from white students. However the interviewer, from what I read did not attempt to discuss this issue with the people actually expressing these ideas to marc. Surely that would have uncovered something more useful. Instead we get:
interviewer: Okay. So does anybody say, “You’re in AG, you’re white. You act white?”
Marc: No.
Of course not. If Marc rejected the “black behavior” that he described he could fail all his classes and still catch flack due to his other behavior. The acting white connection to academics is not necessarily a direct link, but rather an insidious inertia of attitudes pertaining to black behavior that manifests itself in poor academics.
Later in the paper the authors state:
In the present study, particular school circumstances gave rise to particular “strategies of action” among students. Rather than blame themselves for persistent academic failure and underperformance, low-achieving black students, such as those at Dalton, relied on their understanding of the history of race in America to make sense of the racial patterns of achievement they observed. Therefore, their attitudes and behavior is high school are not based on cultural values but rather are a response to the particular set of circumstances they encountered in school…
American Blacks are well aware of the history of race relations in America—the position of whites vis-Ã -vis that of blacks—and that the struggle for equality has traditionally been a collective one. Therefore when some blacks are perceived to be achieving success at the expense of others, or with little concern for fellow blacks, resentment arises
I don’t agree with the assessment. Nothing presented in the paper suggested that a large group of low-achievement students were the subject of the paper. The paper oft quoted students that were in the Advanced Placement courses or for various reasons decided against enrolling in AP classes. These examples cannot and do not address students who are failing, dropping or dropped out or are the sources of class disruption. As I noted before students who are in school and on track to graduate, whether in AP classes or not are not susceptible to the peer pressure to act “black” in the manner that was described by “marc.”
Furthermore, the average knowledge of “racial history” by black students in high school is extremely limited. Most high school students know little more than ‘we were slaves” the “Dream Speech” of Dr. King, Frederick Douglass, Jim Crow and a cursory knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement. And these would be the students that paid attention in history class. At best the documentation provided by the paper only shows that the students recognized that white students were more likely to be labeled “smart” and to be in AP classes. That really does not constitute a real working knowledge or fount of knowledge of “racial history” in America. Also what informs the perception of “some blacks achieving at the expense of others, or with little concern for fellow blacks?” How does a high school student with a very limited knowledge base of racial history in America determine that a black student in an AP class is doing so at the expense of “fellow blacks”? Such a perception must be based on some supposition, some learned experience that has to be a part of some section of black culture. It could randomly occur to so many students. Furthermore why would such attitudes also be seen in blacks that are not necessarily “disadvantaged”?
Let me conclude this commentary by going back to the central issue at hand, which really is: Is there, in general, a perception of what “black behavior” is? If there is can it explain the high drop out rates and poor academic performance that is observed in many black schools? In contrast why is it that poor blacks from other countries do not succumb to such peer pressure despite their poverty? In my mind the existence of blacks outside of the US who do not succumb to such “oppositional attitudes” means that there is a cultural component that may be intertwined with a general American attitude towards “smart” people, but when manifest in black populations can be even more destructive given the intense media programming of “real” black behavior. I believe that this paper would have been better served by focusing not on the people that do achieve but rather the ones that do fall to the wayside and/or under perform and why they did so. Not to ask them what they think of AP students.
A couple of months back a PDF was posted on a website of a working document of a paper from the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University. Apparently, one of the authors, William Darity had given an interview to a publication and gave the address of the paper. The main reason he was interviewed was due to the then recent comments by Bill Cosby, specifically referring to the commonly spoken of issue of black students not wanting to “act white” by doing well in school. The title of the paper is “Breeding Animosity: The ‘Burden of Acting White’ and Other Problems of Status Group Hierarchies in Schools.”
What this paper attempted to do was explore the issue of “Acting white.” The authors came to the general conclusion that such a sentiment did not exist or at least exist to the extent that is generally believed. The problem I had with this was that to my knowledge the accusation was limited to a proportion of the black population and therefore would never be shown to be a “general assumption.” Let’s look at the general conclusion of the authors:
1) There is a general sentiment against high academic achievement among adolescents in North Carolina, regardless of race.
2) There is no evidence of the specific racialized form of opposition to high achievement –the burden of acting white – at the elementary school level. This suggests that it is not an attribute that is a cultural import from a widely held outlook in black America.
3) We do not find limited evidence of racialized peer pressure against academic achievement at the high school level. The context in which is most likely to occur is a school where black students are grossly underrepresented in the most demanding courses, e.g. Advanced Placement (AP) and Honors courses. For example, in a school where 40 –60 percent of students are black but only one or two make their way into AP or Honors classes, those one or two are more likely to be the object of the charge that they are “acting white.” Black students legitimately view those classes as the property of white students; they are overwhelmingly excluded.
Keep these things 3 things in mind because some of the data presented here will present you the reader with some interesting things to consider which this statement does not take in to consideration. Page 5 of the working paper has an interesting paragraph:
The term [acting white] also has come to be used with respect to indicators of academic performance and success (Bergin and Cooks 2002; Neil-Barnett 2001). Using focus groups to understand how black teenagers define “acting white,” Neal-Barnett (2001:82) reported that the list of items the students identified included “being in honors or advanced placement classes.” Incidentally, the list also included Speaking Standard English, dressing in clothes from the Gap or Abercrombie and Fitch rather than Tommy Hilfiger and Fubu, [and] wearing shorts in the winter (Neal-Barnett 2001:82)
What we should note is the issue of Standard English. It is well known that they way one speaks and the way one writes is connected. The less of a grip on language the less well a person does in areas that require reading comprehension. Thus it would be important to track the academic performances. The paper continues:
According to the theory, academic achievement is not valued among [certain] African Americans because it is perceived as conforming to standard norms of success among white Americans. Moreover, it does not pay off for blacks like it does for others.
Therefore, black students are confronted with a choice between representing an authentic “black” self or striving for academic success. Fordham and Ogbu claimed that this dilemma, this “burden of acting white,” that contributes [but not necessarily causes] to the relatively low academic performance of black students…faced with this dilemma, the authors believe, many black students choose to stifle their academic ability and achievement in order to stay true to the race and avoid charges of “acting white” and other ridicule and ostracism from their black peers. _-writers interspersed commentary and emphasis.
What is critical in this section is to remember that we are talking about a portion of the black population and that such attitudes are not necessarily causative of poor academic performance. What is also important to ask here, which is a question I will continue to ask during this analysis is: Who are these “peers?”
Something else to be considered from the paper:
Another more recent analysis of survey data from schools in Shaker Heights, Ohio, also found very little evidence of a peer culture that is oppositional to achievement among black adolescents (Ferguson 2001). Ferguson found that black and white students with similar family background characteristics were not very different in respect to their satisfaction with school, interests in their studies or opposition to achievement -writers emphasis
Shaker Heights, Ohio, is not a poor area. In fact, ABC recently did a news piece on Shaker Heights Ohio where the black families that first moved into that area conspired with the whites in that neighborhood to keep the area at a specific racial mix by denying opportunities to certain black families to move into the neighborhood. I would suppose in an effort to keep the neighborhood from going down hill. I could say that the parents in this particular instance were acting quite white but I would be digressing. The point here is that the finding of that study is not surprising given the attitude of the parents and perhaps the current inhabitants of Shaker Heights.
On odd addition to the study was a group of females who were members of the Nation Of Islam. I would not have expected any “oppositional” attitudes because of the ideology of the NOI do not foster that kind of attitude regardless of socio-economic placement.
However; a nice twist in the paper gives us a nice frame of reference:
But students in virtually all racial and ethnic groups confront similar dilemmas with respect to high academic achievement, and they also tend to employ similar strategies.
The question that should be asked here is what are the results of this? If Asians are exhibiting the same strategies, as claimed in this work, then why are their particular academic rankings so far ahead of blacks? In fact the only other group that exhibits similar academic issues as African-Americans are Hispanics, who in many urban areas live in similar neighborhoods and involve themselves in the same sub-cultures. We also must take into account the very specific phenomenon that blacks found themselves in regard to schools where there were told explicitly that certain types of academic achievement was “not for them.” Furthermore; we must look at the phenomenon of the “uppity nigger” and it’s affect of defining “black “ behavior.
Getting further into the paper we find the following:
We would expect to find evidence of a ‘burden of acting white” wherever we find black students, whether high or low achieving, for we assume that people carry their culture with them wherever they go.
Now I disagree with this statement. I do not expect to see such a burden in high achieving students because they are not susceptible to such ideas as they are not susceptible to the pressure of those who would accuse of “acting white.” The statement above assumes a monolithic “black culture” which does not exist. There are very distinct groupings of African-Americans of which only a few of them that actually get any real media or even academic attention. The next statement is at the heart of my disagreement with this paper:
in 2000-2001 =, we undertook a study for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction examining the under representation of minority students in rigorous courses and programs
As stated before, I believe that asking the folks least susceptible to “acting white” pressure about that pressure really proves nothing. In fact using my own experience as a student in AP classes, the people who had such “acting white” attitudes simply were not my peers and I had very little contact with them. In fact one individual that did have such an attitude about me only stated so about a month before we graduated. I suspect in this experience would be the same for other students in AP classes. But lets get on with the paper:
Both black and white students at the elementary level desired high achievement and to be perceived as “smart” by others…They received only support for their achievements from friends and peers, as long as they did not brag…
This is entirely expected. The American Educator, a UFT publication discussed how reading among students is level up to year 5 and then for some there is a steep drop off. On the issue of bragging, this is a sensitive issue and goes back to my issue of “uppity negroes.” What constitutes “bragging”? I recall having a discussion about my credit and saying how it was 700 and I wanted it to be better. The person I was talking to seemed put off. I then remembered that for many people 700 is the “holy grail.” And saying that I had above 700 credit constituted showing off to them, whereas with my peers, such talk is normal conversation and is a sign of striving and not bragging. So this concept of bragging is very much determined by people’s station in life and their mentality towards life. In fact such aversion to “bragging” may well be a manifestation of ‘acting white” regardless of how illogical it may seem. Let us look at the following statement:
None of the thirteen black of three biracial (with on black parent) elementary school students interviewed ever mentioned the term “acting white” in any context (although on white student at Georgetown did mention that black students accused her of “trying to act black” when she used slang) or gave indication of attitudes oppositional to school achievement. We believe as others have suggested, that race may not be salient a category for grade school children.
Umm how is it that race is not a salient category for grade schoolers, yet it is salient enough that black students felt confident enough to accuse a white student of acting black for using what could be described as racialize language patterns? They didn’t say she was trying to be “cool.” They specifically racialized her speech patterns. In fact the paper makes passing reference to this recognition:
For instance, a few teachers interviewed at Georgetown mentioned that students, even as early as kindergarten, recognized that many of the “smart” children were white, and the teachers expressed concerns about the impact this pattern had on the self-esteem of minority children
Indeed! I had asked to see this data but was unable to obtain it, but it would be very interesting to know how white students were so consistently recognized as “smart.”
Let’s look at the specific statements made by a student identified as “Marc”:
Most of the time, but a lot of the black people will think that they are better than the white people, or vice versa. Or black people will always pick on the white people about what they do [inaudible] and if you’re black and you act like you’re white, then they would hold it against you. The black people would not like you as much. … Well if your black and you act like your –you do stuff that the white people do, then, then, like skateboarding and stuff like that, then they say that you’re white and that you, I don’t know how you really say it, they just say that you’re really white and that you don’t care about everybody’s else that’s black… Just about everything that black people don’t do. Like if it’s not associated with like –I’m not talking about school –but drugs or shooting or something like that, then it’s considered black.
To quote Black Robb:
‘Whoah!!”
Talk about smoking guns here. Marc clearly indicates that he is aware of, if not affected by a mentality that black culture includes as its definition drugs and shooting. Now perhaps he’s just unable to express himself but it seems that from his statement that black behavior has by it’s definition things that are clearly anti-thetical to black achievement. And exactly why is it that black students think they are better than white ones? I would suspect it is a reaction to attitudes from white students. However the interviewer, from what I read did not attempt to discuss this issue with the people actually expressing these ideas to marc. Surely that would have uncovered something more useful. Instead we get:
interviewer: Okay. So does anybody say, “You’re in AG, you’re white. You act white?”
Marc: No.
Of course not. If Marc rejected the “black behavior” that he described he could fail all his classes and still catch flack due to his other behavior. The acting white connection to academics is not necessarily a direct link, but rather an insidious inertia of attitudes pertaining to black behavior that manifests itself in poor academics.
Later in the paper the authors state:
In the present study, particular school circumstances gave rise to particular “strategies of action” among students. Rather than blame themselves for persistent academic failure and underperformance, low-achieving black students, such as those at Dalton, relied on their understanding of the history of race in America to make sense of the racial patterns of achievement they observed. Therefore, their attitudes and behavior is high school are not based on cultural values but rather are a response to the particular set of circumstances they encountered in school…
American Blacks are well aware of the history of race relations in America—the position of whites vis-Ã -vis that of blacks—and that the struggle for equality has traditionally been a collective one. Therefore when some blacks are perceived to be achieving success at the expense of others, or with little concern for fellow blacks, resentment arises
I don’t agree with the assessment. Nothing presented in the paper suggested that a large group of low-achievement students were the subject of the paper. The paper oft quoted students that were in the Advanced Placement courses or for various reasons decided against enrolling in AP classes. These examples cannot and do not address students who are failing, dropping or dropped out or are the sources of class disruption. As I noted before students who are in school and on track to graduate, whether in AP classes or not are not susceptible to the peer pressure to act “black” in the manner that was described by “marc.”
Furthermore, the average knowledge of “racial history” by black students in high school is extremely limited. Most high school students know little more than ‘we were slaves” the “Dream Speech” of Dr. King, Frederick Douglass, Jim Crow and a cursory knowledge of the Civil Rights Movement. And these would be the students that paid attention in history class. At best the documentation provided by the paper only shows that the students recognized that white students were more likely to be labeled “smart” and to be in AP classes. That really does not constitute a real working knowledge or fount of knowledge of “racial history” in America. Also what informs the perception of “some blacks achieving at the expense of others, or with little concern for fellow blacks?” How does a high school student with a very limited knowledge base of racial history in America determine that a black student in an AP class is doing so at the expense of “fellow blacks”? Such a perception must be based on some supposition, some learned experience that has to be a part of some section of black culture. It could randomly occur to so many students. Furthermore why would such attitudes also be seen in blacks that are not necessarily “disadvantaged”?
Let me conclude this commentary by going back to the central issue at hand, which really is: Is there, in general, a perception of what “black behavior” is? If there is can it explain the high drop out rates and poor academic performance that is observed in many black schools? In contrast why is it that poor blacks from other countries do not succumb to such peer pressure despite their poverty? In my mind the existence of blacks outside of the US who do not succumb to such “oppositional attitudes” means that there is a cultural component that may be intertwined with a general American attitude towards “smart” people, but when manifest in black populations can be even more destructive given the intense media programming of “real” black behavior. I believe that this paper would have been better served by focusing not on the people that do achieve but rather the ones that do fall to the wayside and/or under perform and why they did so. Not to ask them what they think of AP students.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Condi and the Hard Place for Blacks and Democrats
As expected Dr. Condileeza Rice was confirmed for Secretary Of State. This happened, despite clear and documented failures while head of National Security, due to two very important issues:
1) Republicans have the Democrats running scared. Most Democrats voted in favor of Dr. Rice, even though some registered "mis-givings" about the appointment. The larger reason is that the Republicans have for the first time that I can tell since Reconstruction, managed to make the Democrats appear to be the party that blocks black progress. You see Democrats, Progressives, and "traditional" black leadership have been put in the position of opposing a "Black first." This gives so called "black conservatives" plenty of ammunition to fire at those who oppose their agenda, which really isn't thiers but...
What is equally Ironic is that we just finished celebrating the birthday of a man who wished we would be judged by the content of our character and our actions rather than our "skin color" yet it must be said that in this case, Rice received some serious Affirmative Action.
Anyway, this marks an important milestone in black progress as more and more blacks are going to "Succeed" in spite of support of black masses, or the black masses are going to be subject to a serious change in ideology, or there will be a large split in "the black community" where a large segment will live among but not be accountable by another segment who will be starved out of existance as the preferable lot are fed by those who favor them.
As expected Dr. Condileeza Rice was confirmed for Secretary Of State. This happened, despite clear and documented failures while head of National Security, due to two very important issues:
1) Republicans have the Democrats running scared. Most Democrats voted in favor of Dr. Rice, even though some registered "mis-givings" about the appointment. The larger reason is that the Republicans have for the first time that I can tell since Reconstruction, managed to make the Democrats appear to be the party that blocks black progress. You see Democrats, Progressives, and "traditional" black leadership have been put in the position of opposing a "Black first." This gives so called "black conservatives" plenty of ammunition to fire at those who oppose their agenda, which really isn't thiers but...
What is equally Ironic is that we just finished celebrating the birthday of a man who wished we would be judged by the content of our character and our actions rather than our "skin color" yet it must be said that in this case, Rice received some serious Affirmative Action.
Anyway, this marks an important milestone in black progress as more and more blacks are going to "Succeed" in spite of support of black masses, or the black masses are going to be subject to a serious change in ideology, or there will be a large split in "the black community" where a large segment will live among but not be accountable by another segment who will be starved out of existance as the preferable lot are fed by those who favor them.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Not to Bullish on Obama
When last I spoke on Barak Obama I noted that he did not stand up in the senate in favour of discussing the issues of voter fraud in Ohio. Leaving it instead to Senator Barbara boxer to "wear the pants." Again it seems that Baraka is finding himself on the wrong side of an important issue: Condeleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. Barak Obama is one of the Democrats who voted in favor of Ms. Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. This is not an issue of Rice's intelligence, but about her lack of perfomance as National Security Advisor where she openly admitted to not "concieving" that Saddam Husseins military would fight a guerilla war against the US rather than face the US head on after 10 years of bombibng and blockade by the US. How someone with the responibility of Top National Security, could first miss the signs of an upcoming attack on the WTC, and then miss the obvious (to many in the online press) fighting options for the "insurgents" not to mention flat out lies about Weapons of Mass destruction, could be qualified for any post in the US government is beyond my comprehension. But then again, I have worked withand under people with far less inteligence and and skill than me so that's not entirely foreign. But what this does signal is that Obama is not the "great black senatorial hope" that he has been made out to be. With each passing decision it is becoming more and more clear that he's a different type of animal. Too bad it takes a white lady from California to do what he should be doing: Being the opposition.
Democrats voting in favor were Senators Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the ranking minority member; Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland; Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut; Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin; Bill Nelson of Florida; and Barack Obama of Illinois.
links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1106197200&en=4c80c9855308a881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
When last I spoke on Barak Obama I noted that he did not stand up in the senate in favour of discussing the issues of voter fraud in Ohio. Leaving it instead to Senator Barbara boxer to "wear the pants." Again it seems that Baraka is finding himself on the wrong side of an important issue: Condeleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. Barak Obama is one of the Democrats who voted in favor of Ms. Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. This is not an issue of Rice's intelligence, but about her lack of perfomance as National Security Advisor where she openly admitted to not "concieving" that Saddam Husseins military would fight a guerilla war against the US rather than face the US head on after 10 years of bombibng and blockade by the US. How someone with the responibility of Top National Security, could first miss the signs of an upcoming attack on the WTC, and then miss the obvious (to many in the online press) fighting options for the "insurgents" not to mention flat out lies about Weapons of Mass destruction, could be qualified for any post in the US government is beyond my comprehension. But then again, I have worked withand under people with far less inteligence and and skill than me so that's not entirely foreign. But what this does signal is that Obama is not the "great black senatorial hope" that he has been made out to be. With each passing decision it is becoming more and more clear that he's a different type of animal. Too bad it takes a white lady from California to do what he should be doing: Being the opposition.
Democrats voting in favor were Senators Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the ranking minority member; Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland; Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut; Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin; Bill Nelson of Florida; and Barack Obama of Illinois.
links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/19/politics/19cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1106197200&en=4c80c9855308a881&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
By Thier fruit
Yes 2005 is shaping up as the year of "no balls" for Democrats. Today the NY Times reports on the confirmation hearings for Condeleeza Rice for Secretary of State. Says she:
Ms. Rice said the United States "is guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone."
"Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations," she said.
"If I am confirmed, that core conviction will guide my actions," Ms. Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a confirmation hearing that occasionally produced bitter exchanges. Her promise seemed intended to reassure longtime American allies, particularly France and Germany, that the United States will not chart a go-it-alone course in President Bush's second term.
Aww isn't that nice? Never mind that she was one of the Architects of the "War at any excuse" that is Iraq. But it get's better...much better:
Under questioning from Mr. Biden, the nominee insisted that President Bush "got good military advice" at the outset. But she said unforeseen events had made the mission in Iraq harder than anticipated.
One problem, she said, was that supporters of Saddam Hussein melted away before advancing American forces to become part of the shadowy, and deadly, insurgency that has spawned almost daily bloodshed even as the Jan. 30 elections draw near.
"They didn't stand and fight," Ms. Rice said.
So let's get this straight right, in Vietnam, the posterboy war of this last election, where the entire war was against a guerilla army and in an area where suicide bombings and the like is standard operating proceedure. How was the current situation "unforeseen?" Almost every online publication I read pointed out that it was highly unlikely that the Iraqi military would take on the US, a vastly superior army, head on. This is the best that the "National Security Advisor" can do? This is a person qualified to be Secretary of State? Ms. Rice has already proven to be unqualified for her current position, and I have no doubt that she is unqualified for the one she's being questioned for. But Democrats have no balls and Republicans have to much power for anything like a "no" vote to happen. I wouldn't have a mechanic who could not forsee putting oil in my car would damage the engine, work on my car. Would you?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1106110800&en=a4b81810d26b44d6&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Yes 2005 is shaping up as the year of "no balls" for Democrats. Today the NY Times reports on the confirmation hearings for Condeleeza Rice for Secretary of State. Says she:
Ms. Rice said the United States "is guided by the conviction that no nation can build a safer, better world alone."
"Alliances and multilateral institutions can multiply the strength of freedom-loving nations," she said.
"If I am confirmed, that core conviction will guide my actions," Ms. Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a confirmation hearing that occasionally produced bitter exchanges. Her promise seemed intended to reassure longtime American allies, particularly France and Germany, that the United States will not chart a go-it-alone course in President Bush's second term.
Aww isn't that nice? Never mind that she was one of the Architects of the "War at any excuse" that is Iraq. But it get's better...much better:
Under questioning from Mr. Biden, the nominee insisted that President Bush "got good military advice" at the outset. But she said unforeseen events had made the mission in Iraq harder than anticipated.
One problem, she said, was that supporters of Saddam Hussein melted away before advancing American forces to become part of the shadowy, and deadly, insurgency that has spawned almost daily bloodshed even as the Jan. 30 elections draw near.
"They didn't stand and fight," Ms. Rice said.
So let's get this straight right, in Vietnam, the posterboy war of this last election, where the entire war was against a guerilla army and in an area where suicide bombings and the like is standard operating proceedure. How was the current situation "unforeseen?" Almost every online publication I read pointed out that it was highly unlikely that the Iraqi military would take on the US, a vastly superior army, head on. This is the best that the "National Security Advisor" can do? This is a person qualified to be Secretary of State? Ms. Rice has already proven to be unqualified for her current position, and I have no doubt that she is unqualified for the one she's being questioned for. But Democrats have no balls and Republicans have to much power for anything like a "no" vote to happen. I wouldn't have a mechanic who could not forsee putting oil in my car would damage the engine, work on my car. Would you?
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/politics/18cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1106110800&en=a4b81810d26b44d6&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Co-option by any other name
Long time no blog. Been busy with different programming projects. Anywhoo, I was perusing over the articles on BlackElectorate.com and stumbled across this piece by Star Parker in which she discusses the "Credibility of black conservatism." Like Armstrong Williams, Star is a Republican Lackey, probably smart enough to not get caught out there like Armstrong Williams. On him she says:
Armstrong Williams' poor judgment in not revealing being compensated by the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind is unfortunate. With his stepping into the line of fire and acknowledging his errors, we'll be able to get this behind us and move on.
Armstrong "stepping into the line of fire? Not quite. He was busted plain and simple. So let's not give him more credit than he deserves. But that really isn't my real point of contention with this piece. My real problem lies with this point:
An increasing number of blacks understand that their future lies in mending their communities, restoring traditional values, rebuilding the black family and helping inner-city black men get control of their lives and aspire to become husbands, fathers and breadwinners, rather than players.
The support for school choice is as strong in the black community as in the white community. As the national dialogue on Social Security reform proceeds, I am confident that increasing numbers of blacks will get the simple message that personal ownership rather than taxes and government will build black wealth and autonomy.
I am far more concerned with the ongoing destruction that occurs every day in the black community that directly reflects the politicization of African-American life that has been going on for the last 50 years.
This statement is really a problem. Among we Pan-Africanist, regularly ignored and dirided from both sides of the black political establishment have always advocated the restoration of black communities, families and traditional ( as in black traditional) values. We have always expoused that Black men become husbands, fathers and co-breadwinners rather than players. What is most insulting about the statement by Star is the implication, that is rife among black conservatives, that so called Black liberals are not for those things. In reality the real issue that black conservatives have with black liberals (and we Pan-Africanists) is the following (from Star's piece)
So, black conservatives outrage black liberals not just because they are supposedly sellouts, but also because they are selling out to whites.
This is an extremely important point, that will be the crux of power plays within the black community: Black conservatives, by and large do not discuss or make real attempts to deal with White Supremacy. What they do is take the economic empowerment philosophies of Garvey and divorce them from their social and political components. What we get is that Blacks would do best to
"do as whites do" in almost every respect. In no place will you find "black conservatives" at the head of liberation struggles anywhere. The ideologies of Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Cabral, Cesaire, etc. with all thier own faults, are not to be seen in black conservative conversation. Why? because as arch-Negro McWhorter likes to state: They ain't Africans. So divorced from their global history, they cling to that which they can only understand, American Ideology, even when the facts on the ground do not support allegiance to such things.
For example, Star supports School choice and says most blacks do too. This is probably true But in reality school choice, as proposed has serious problems. By allowing students who are able to go to other schools and have the money for them follow, leaves a poorer public school for those left behind. So instead of addressing the real issue of public education: That it's budget is but 1% of the Defence budget and property taxes in poor neighboorhoods leads to poor funding, black conservatives advocate that which they do best, run to the white folks. What real black thinkers would propose is the scrapping of property tax based education funding in favour of monetary distribution based on school population/need and an increased education budget. After all if $200 Billion can be found to kill people in Iraq, then there must be aq couple billion to spend on public education. But Black conservatives are too busy supping with the white folks in charge, who love them for not making them feel uncomfortable, to even spend time advocating this line.
That's why black conservatives are such dangerous figures, They are even more dangerous as more and more black youths grow up with no clue of even recent black history to recognize the dangers of this group and this very group is who black conservatives will be targeting in the future and is where Republican Party growth in black membership will come from. Be clear here: Pan-Africanists, and other "Black Power" advocates had best get thier acts together because white money is infiltrating black communities like crack in '85: It ain't gonna be pretty.
Links:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp20050118.shtml
Long time no blog. Been busy with different programming projects. Anywhoo, I was perusing over the articles on BlackElectorate.com and stumbled across this piece by Star Parker in which she discusses the "Credibility of black conservatism." Like Armstrong Williams, Star is a Republican Lackey, probably smart enough to not get caught out there like Armstrong Williams. On him she says:
Armstrong Williams' poor judgment in not revealing being compensated by the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind is unfortunate. With his stepping into the line of fire and acknowledging his errors, we'll be able to get this behind us and move on.
Armstrong "stepping into the line of fire? Not quite. He was busted plain and simple. So let's not give him more credit than he deserves. But that really isn't my real point of contention with this piece. My real problem lies with this point:
An increasing number of blacks understand that their future lies in mending their communities, restoring traditional values, rebuilding the black family and helping inner-city black men get control of their lives and aspire to become husbands, fathers and breadwinners, rather than players.
The support for school choice is as strong in the black community as in the white community. As the national dialogue on Social Security reform proceeds, I am confident that increasing numbers of blacks will get the simple message that personal ownership rather than taxes and government will build black wealth and autonomy.
I am far more concerned with the ongoing destruction that occurs every day in the black community that directly reflects the politicization of African-American life that has been going on for the last 50 years.
This statement is really a problem. Among we Pan-Africanist, regularly ignored and dirided from both sides of the black political establishment have always advocated the restoration of black communities, families and traditional ( as in black traditional) values. We have always expoused that Black men become husbands, fathers and co-breadwinners rather than players. What is most insulting about the statement by Star is the implication, that is rife among black conservatives, that so called Black liberals are not for those things. In reality the real issue that black conservatives have with black liberals (and we Pan-Africanists) is the following (from Star's piece)
So, black conservatives outrage black liberals not just because they are supposedly sellouts, but also because they are selling out to whites.
This is an extremely important point, that will be the crux of power plays within the black community: Black conservatives, by and large do not discuss or make real attempts to deal with White Supremacy. What they do is take the economic empowerment philosophies of Garvey and divorce them from their social and political components. What we get is that Blacks would do best to
"do as whites do" in almost every respect. In no place will you find "black conservatives" at the head of liberation struggles anywhere. The ideologies of Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Cabral, Cesaire, etc. with all thier own faults, are not to be seen in black conservative conversation. Why? because as arch-Negro McWhorter likes to state: They ain't Africans. So divorced from their global history, they cling to that which they can only understand, American Ideology, even when the facts on the ground do not support allegiance to such things.
For example, Star supports School choice and says most blacks do too. This is probably true But in reality school choice, as proposed has serious problems. By allowing students who are able to go to other schools and have the money for them follow, leaves a poorer public school for those left behind. So instead of addressing the real issue of public education: That it's budget is but 1% of the Defence budget and property taxes in poor neighboorhoods leads to poor funding, black conservatives advocate that which they do best, run to the white folks. What real black thinkers would propose is the scrapping of property tax based education funding in favour of monetary distribution based on school population/need and an increased education budget. After all if $200 Billion can be found to kill people in Iraq, then there must be aq couple billion to spend on public education. But Black conservatives are too busy supping with the white folks in charge, who love them for not making them feel uncomfortable, to even spend time advocating this line.
That's why black conservatives are such dangerous figures, They are even more dangerous as more and more black youths grow up with no clue of even recent black history to recognize the dangers of this group and this very group is who black conservatives will be targeting in the future and is where Republican Party growth in black membership will come from. Be clear here: Pan-Africanists, and other "Black Power" advocates had best get thier acts together because white money is infiltrating black communities like crack in '85: It ain't gonna be pretty.
Links:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/sp20050118.shtml
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Where's Obama?
Well, it was expected that this year a senator would rise to the occasion and join with house members in challenging voting irregularities in Ohio. It was widely expected that Barak Obama would be that senator. The NY Times reports:
"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light," Ms. Boxer said in a letter to Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, a leader of the Democratic challenge.
"The goal is to debate the issue," Mr. Tubbs Jones told The Associated Press. "And why not? We go across the world trying to ensure democracy, but there are some problems with the process in the United States."
But when the Senate voted this afternoon on the challenge to the Ohio result, after a session lasting just over an hour, Ms. Boxer stood alone, with 74 other senators rejecting it. The House later rejected the challenge by a vote of 267 to 31.Mr. Kerry, who has been traveling in the Middle East to visit American troops in Iraq, said the Ohio voting procedures raised "very troubling questions," which he vowed to take up this term. But he declined to join the protest.
Oh yes Obama has constituents to think of. No one wants to piss off a state full of non-whites, without whom Obama could not be Senator.He doesn't want to end up like Moseley-Braun. I soon expect Obama to follow in the footsteps of Harold Ford. I guess hoping for another Cynthia McKinney is asking waaaaaay to much of black folks in politics.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/politics/06cnd-elec.html?hp&ex=1105074000&en=5de03a0bc8d6b7a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Well, it was expected that this year a senator would rise to the occasion and join with house members in challenging voting irregularities in Ohio. It was widely expected that Barak Obama would be that senator. The NY Times reports:
"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light," Ms. Boxer said in a letter to Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, a leader of the Democratic challenge.
"The goal is to debate the issue," Mr. Tubbs Jones told The Associated Press. "And why not? We go across the world trying to ensure democracy, but there are some problems with the process in the United States."
But when the Senate voted this afternoon on the challenge to the Ohio result, after a session lasting just over an hour, Ms. Boxer stood alone, with 74 other senators rejecting it. The House later rejected the challenge by a vote of 267 to 31.Mr. Kerry, who has been traveling in the Middle East to visit American troops in Iraq, said the Ohio voting procedures raised "very troubling questions," which he vowed to take up this term. But he declined to join the protest.
Oh yes Obama has constituents to think of. No one wants to piss off a state full of non-whites, without whom Obama could not be Senator.He doesn't want to end up like Moseley-Braun. I soon expect Obama to follow in the footsteps of Harold Ford. I guess hoping for another Cynthia McKinney is asking waaaaaay to much of black folks in politics.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/politics/06cnd-elec.html?hp&ex=1105074000&en=5de03a0bc8d6b7a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Hotel Rwanda: A Who Responsible?
Today I read an article by Mr. Hutchinson entitled Clinton Kept HOtel Rwanda Open
In it he says, in part:
But Clinton's buck-passing covered up the hideous truth that he knew about the genocide from the start, and could have done something about it. Three months before My Life came out the National Security Archive, a Washington D.C. non-government research institute sued in court and got hold of classified intelligence reports. The most damning were the eyes-only national intelligence daily reports that the CIA supplied to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other top administration officials on the Rwanda massacres. In the reports, diplomats, military and UN officials, aid workers, and intelligence operatives on the scene gave first hand accounts of the holocaust, and told of boasts that Hutu leaders made to wipe all Tutsis out.
Well ok. can we be real here for a minute. Was Bill Clinton actually in Rwanda? No.
Did Bill Clinton have a Machete, Machine Gun or any other weapon while in Rwanda? No.
Did Bill Clinton sit at the microphones of various radio stations and incite the killings? No.
Who did these things? Rwandans themselves. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Since our contact with Europeans we, Africans have been buying guns and other outdated military arms from whites and using them to kill, rape and enslave our brothers and sisters. Who's fault is that? Really. So Bill Clinton knew it was happening. So what? The killers themselves knew what was happening and did not care. Instead of seeking means to improve Rwandan society spiritually and materially, they decided that it was better to commit mass murder of some created "other." And exactly what did it get them? Is Rwanda a better place now? Do more people have jobs and wealth? Are life expectancies increased? Is there better healthcare? Is the governement more responsive to the people?
Sure we could sit and discuss how the French did such and such, and how colonialism did such and such. Most of us know this stuff already. If we, Africans are going to continue to act like we don't care about our own welfare then we should not expect or get upset when other people don't lift a finger to help us out.
Let's stop this Bill Clinton shoulda or the US shoulda and start with the what we should would and could have done OURSELVES.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20872/
Today I read an article by Mr. Hutchinson entitled Clinton Kept HOtel Rwanda Open
In it he says, in part:
But Clinton's buck-passing covered up the hideous truth that he knew about the genocide from the start, and could have done something about it. Three months before My Life came out the National Security Archive, a Washington D.C. non-government research institute sued in court and got hold of classified intelligence reports. The most damning were the eyes-only national intelligence daily reports that the CIA supplied to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other top administration officials on the Rwanda massacres. In the reports, diplomats, military and UN officials, aid workers, and intelligence operatives on the scene gave first hand accounts of the holocaust, and told of boasts that Hutu leaders made to wipe all Tutsis out.
Well ok. can we be real here for a minute. Was Bill Clinton actually in Rwanda? No.
Did Bill Clinton have a Machete, Machine Gun or any other weapon while in Rwanda? No.
Did Bill Clinton sit at the microphones of various radio stations and incite the killings? No.
Who did these things? Rwandans themselves. Lets put the blame where it belongs. Since our contact with Europeans we, Africans have been buying guns and other outdated military arms from whites and using them to kill, rape and enslave our brothers and sisters. Who's fault is that? Really. So Bill Clinton knew it was happening. So what? The killers themselves knew what was happening and did not care. Instead of seeking means to improve Rwandan society spiritually and materially, they decided that it was better to commit mass murder of some created "other." And exactly what did it get them? Is Rwanda a better place now? Do more people have jobs and wealth? Are life expectancies increased? Is there better healthcare? Is the governement more responsive to the people?
Sure we could sit and discuss how the French did such and such, and how colonialism did such and such. Most of us know this stuff already. If we, Africans are going to continue to act like we don't care about our own welfare then we should not expect or get upset when other people don't lift a finger to help us out.
Let's stop this Bill Clinton shoulda or the US shoulda and start with the what we should would and could have done OURSELVES.
Links:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20872/
Friday, December 31, 2004
Kuumba
Today we ponder "creativity." To this end I offer a quote from Robert Faris Thompson's "Flash of the Spirit":
Kongo Presence unexpectedly emerges in the Americas in many places and in many ways. Take for example, vernacular English and singing. In the South of the United States, important Ki-Kongo words and concepts influenced black English, especially the lexicons of jazz and the blues, as well as of lovemaking and herbalism. Many a Ki-Kongo derived word has been described by etymologists as "origin unknown." The word "jazz" is probably creolized Ki-Kongo. It is similar in sound and original meaning to "jizz," the American vernacular for semen. And "jizz," suggestive of vitality, appears to derive from the Ki-Kongo verb dinza, "to discharge ones semen, to come." Dinza was creolized in New Orleans and elsewhere in black United States into "jizz" and "jism."
The slang term "funky" in black communities originally referred to strong body odor, and not to "funk" meaning fear of panic. The black nuance seems to derive from the Ki-Kongo lu-fuki, "bad body odor," and is perhaps reinforced by contact with fumet, "aroma of food or wine," in French Louisiana. But Ki-Kkongo word is closer to the jazz word "funky" in form and meaning, as both jazzmen and Bakongo use "funky" and "lu-fuki" to praise persons for the integrity of their arts, for having "worked out" to achieve their aims. In Kongo today it is possible to hear an elder lauded in the way: "like there is a real funky person!--my soul advances toward him to recieve his blessing" (yati, nkwa lu-fuki Ve miela miami ikwenda baki). Fu Kiau Bunseki, a leading native authority on Kongo culture, explains: "someone who is very old, I goto sit with hiim , in order to feel his lu-fuki. meaning I would like to be blessed by him." For in Kongo the smell of a hard working elder carries luck. This Kongo sign of exertion is identified with the positive energy of a person. Hence "funk" in black American jazz parlance can mean earthiness, a return to fundamentals.
Robert Faris Thompson
Today we ponder "creativity." To this end I offer a quote from Robert Faris Thompson's "Flash of the Spirit":
Kongo Presence unexpectedly emerges in the Americas in many places and in many ways. Take for example, vernacular English and singing. In the South of the United States, important Ki-Kongo words and concepts influenced black English, especially the lexicons of jazz and the blues, as well as of lovemaking and herbalism. Many a Ki-Kongo derived word has been described by etymologists as "origin unknown." The word "jazz" is probably creolized Ki-Kongo. It is similar in sound and original meaning to "jizz," the American vernacular for semen. And "jizz," suggestive of vitality, appears to derive from the Ki-Kongo verb dinza, "to discharge ones semen, to come." Dinza was creolized in New Orleans and elsewhere in black United States into "jizz" and "jism."
The slang term "funky" in black communities originally referred to strong body odor, and not to "funk" meaning fear of panic. The black nuance seems to derive from the Ki-Kongo lu-fuki, "bad body odor," and is perhaps reinforced by contact with fumet, "aroma of food or wine," in French Louisiana. But Ki-Kkongo word is closer to the jazz word "funky" in form and meaning, as both jazzmen and Bakongo use "funky" and "lu-fuki" to praise persons for the integrity of their arts, for having "worked out" to achieve their aims. In Kongo today it is possible to hear an elder lauded in the way: "like there is a real funky person!--my soul advances toward him to recieve his blessing" (yati, nkwa lu-fuki Ve miela miami ikwenda baki). Fu Kiau Bunseki, a leading native authority on Kongo culture, explains: "someone who is very old, I goto sit with hiim , in order to feel his lu-fuki. meaning I would like to be blessed by him." For in Kongo the smell of a hard working elder carries luck. This Kongo sign of exertion is identified with the positive energy of a person. Hence "funk" in black American jazz parlance can mean earthiness, a return to fundamentals.
Robert Faris Thompson
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Nia
Today we study "Purpose." To this end I offer the words of Franz Fanon:
Since the Middle Class has neither sufficient material nor intellectual resources (by intellectual resources we mean engineers and technicians), it limits its claims to the taking over of business offices and commercial houses formerly occupied by the settlers. The national bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement: doctors, barristers, traders, commercial travelers, general agents, and transport agents. It considers that the dignity of the country and it's own welfare require that it should occupy these posts. From now on it will insist that al the big foreign companies should pass through it's hands, whether these companies wish to keep their connections with the country, or to open it up. The national middle class discovers it's historic mission: that of intermediary.
Seen through its eyes, its mission has nothing to do with trasforming the nation; it consists , prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the mask of neo-colonialism. The national bourgeoisie will be quiite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie's business agent, and it will play it's part without any complexes in a most dignified manner. But this same lucrative role, this cheap-Jack's function, this meanness of outlook and this absence of all ambition symbolize the incapability of the national middle class to fullfil its historic role of bourgeoisie. Here, the dynamic, pioneer aspect, the characteristics if the inventor and of the discoverer of new worlds which are found in all national bourgeoisie; are lamentably absent. In the colonial countries, the spirit of indulgence is dominant at the core of the bourgeoisie; and this is because the national bourgeoisie identifies itself with the Western bourgeoisie, from which it has learned its lessons.
Franz Fanon
The Pitfalls of National Consciousness
Today we study "Purpose." To this end I offer the words of Franz Fanon:
Since the Middle Class has neither sufficient material nor intellectual resources (by intellectual resources we mean engineers and technicians), it limits its claims to the taking over of business offices and commercial houses formerly occupied by the settlers. The national bourgeoisie steps into the shoes of the former European settlement: doctors, barristers, traders, commercial travelers, general agents, and transport agents. It considers that the dignity of the country and it's own welfare require that it should occupy these posts. From now on it will insist that al the big foreign companies should pass through it's hands, whether these companies wish to keep their connections with the country, or to open it up. The national middle class discovers it's historic mission: that of intermediary.
Seen through its eyes, its mission has nothing to do with trasforming the nation; it consists , prosaically, of being the transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the mask of neo-colonialism. The national bourgeoisie will be quiite content with the role of the Western bourgeoisie's business agent, and it will play it's part without any complexes in a most dignified manner. But this same lucrative role, this cheap-Jack's function, this meanness of outlook and this absence of all ambition symbolize the incapability of the national middle class to fullfil its historic role of bourgeoisie. Here, the dynamic, pioneer aspect, the characteristics if the inventor and of the discoverer of new worlds which are found in all national bourgeoisie; are lamentably absent. In the colonial countries, the spirit of indulgence is dominant at the core of the bourgeoisie; and this is because the national bourgeoisie identifies itself with the Western bourgeoisie, from which it has learned its lessons.
Franz Fanon
The Pitfalls of National Consciousness
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Not My Tribe?
I spotted this piece while perusing Blackelectorate.com. The article, entitled: "Real African-American Culture Is Superior to Psuedo-African Culture" was too much for me to pass up on. As is the usual for critics of Kwanzaa Mr. Mudede incorrectly describes kwanzaa:
quote:
No, the reason I don't celebrate or recognize Kwanzaa is because the language and practices of that occasion are drawn from an African tribe that is not mine.
really? Last I checked Kwanzaa was not based on any specific "tribal" practices but rather a distilliation of common themes thruout Africa. So what specifically is Mr. Mudede's problem?
I'm Manica, which is a tribe settled in the eastern, mountainous region of Zimbabwe. I recognize my tribe first, and then to a much, much lesser extent my country, whose borders were invented by the British. As for Kwanzaa, I don't know the tribe that does and says such things as "Umoja" and "Ujima"; and if I did know them I still wouldn't celebrate their holiday because it is not a Manica holiday. I don't celebrate Zulu holidays, nor do I celebrate the holidays of the Masai people, and so why should I celebrate the holiday of the tribe that says things like "Umoja" and "Ujima"?
I want to comment on this statement because it reveals much of what is wrong with much of the African intelligencia on both sides of the Atlantic. Notice that as "intelligent" as the writer is he still decides that he is more about his "tribe" than his nation. In fact he later goes as far as to state that such tribalism is at the "soul" of the Black African. Furthermore; unless he is speaking in a general sense, Why is it that he prefers to celebrate English, French or who knows what other races holidays but not one of the 'tribe next door." It seems that It's not so m uch Kwanzaa that Mr. Mudede has a problem with, it is with black people in general. But let me continue.
Mr. Mudede then extols the virtues of African-American "non-tribalness"
While African Americans enjoy their invented tribal holiday, real Africans look to America as an escape from tribalism. Indeed, the best possible gifts that black Americans could give black Africa are their tribal-less music, customs, books, hairstyles, and dances. A holiday that celebrated the traditions and practices of a tribal-less black America would probably be more useful to black Africans as a whole than one that got at all involved in the messy and usually bloody business of tribalism.
Let's all be pretty honest here and state that much of African-American culture is either grafted european customs or latent African customs. But look at his last sentance. Kwanzaa is a tribaless "holiday." It is Mudede that is injecting "tribalism" into the holiday by tripping over the use of Swahili. Furthermore, nowhere does he even discuss the meanings of the Swahhili words and thier role in Kwanzaa. No, all he does is moan about how Swahilli is spoken by some tribe somewhere and since it isn't his, he isn't interested. SHeeeeeet if that's his only problem then why not translate the Swahili words into Manica and get on with it.
Mr. Mudede then offers up something that is of real value:
Similarly, the fact that black Americans are not attached to a tribe (or tribes) means that they have created a unified African-American culture, one that offers Africans a better example for unification than anything you would find in Africa itself.
This is very true and is the great untapped gift of the Diaspora. It proves that we can be a whole unit even with our regional differences. What is lacking is what Fanon spoke about, the creation of a National Consciousness. This can be achieved in a single generation if the leadership was up to it and "intellectuals" such as Charles Mudede wasn't to busy running away from his neighbors.
Links:
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature2.html
I spotted this piece while perusing Blackelectorate.com. The article, entitled: "Real African-American Culture Is Superior to Psuedo-African Culture" was too much for me to pass up on. As is the usual for critics of Kwanzaa Mr. Mudede incorrectly describes kwanzaa:
quote:
No, the reason I don't celebrate or recognize Kwanzaa is because the language and practices of that occasion are drawn from an African tribe that is not mine.
really? Last I checked Kwanzaa was not based on any specific "tribal" practices but rather a distilliation of common themes thruout Africa. So what specifically is Mr. Mudede's problem?
I'm Manica, which is a tribe settled in the eastern, mountainous region of Zimbabwe. I recognize my tribe first, and then to a much, much lesser extent my country, whose borders were invented by the British. As for Kwanzaa, I don't know the tribe that does and says such things as "Umoja" and "Ujima"; and if I did know them I still wouldn't celebrate their holiday because it is not a Manica holiday. I don't celebrate Zulu holidays, nor do I celebrate the holidays of the Masai people, and so why should I celebrate the holiday of the tribe that says things like "Umoja" and "Ujima"?
I want to comment on this statement because it reveals much of what is wrong with much of the African intelligencia on both sides of the Atlantic. Notice that as "intelligent" as the writer is he still decides that he is more about his "tribe" than his nation. In fact he later goes as far as to state that such tribalism is at the "soul" of the Black African. Furthermore; unless he is speaking in a general sense, Why is it that he prefers to celebrate English, French or who knows what other races holidays but not one of the 'tribe next door." It seems that It's not so m uch Kwanzaa that Mr. Mudede has a problem with, it is with black people in general. But let me continue.
Mr. Mudede then extols the virtues of African-American "non-tribalness"
While African Americans enjoy their invented tribal holiday, real Africans look to America as an escape from tribalism. Indeed, the best possible gifts that black Americans could give black Africa are their tribal-less music, customs, books, hairstyles, and dances. A holiday that celebrated the traditions and practices of a tribal-less black America would probably be more useful to black Africans as a whole than one that got at all involved in the messy and usually bloody business of tribalism.
Let's all be pretty honest here and state that much of African-American culture is either grafted european customs or latent African customs. But look at his last sentance. Kwanzaa is a tribaless "holiday." It is Mudede that is injecting "tribalism" into the holiday by tripping over the use of Swahili. Furthermore, nowhere does he even discuss the meanings of the Swahhili words and thier role in Kwanzaa. No, all he does is moan about how Swahilli is spoken by some tribe somewhere and since it isn't his, he isn't interested. SHeeeeeet if that's his only problem then why not translate the Swahili words into Manica and get on with it.
Mr. Mudede then offers up something that is of real value:
Similarly, the fact that black Americans are not attached to a tribe (or tribes) means that they have created a unified African-American culture, one that offers Africans a better example for unification than anything you would find in Africa itself.
This is very true and is the great untapped gift of the Diaspora. It proves that we can be a whole unit even with our regional differences. What is lacking is what Fanon spoke about, the creation of a National Consciousness. This can be achieved in a single generation if the leadership was up to it and "intellectuals" such as Charles Mudede wasn't to busy running away from his neighbors.
Links:
http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature2.html
Ujamaa
Today is Ujamaa or Cooperative Economics.
Let us as Negroes, prepare ourselves throughout the world for the conflict that is bound to ensue between the rivaling forced for the ultimate domination of out country-Africa. For we are not going to give up easily, and allow these European intruders to rob, exploit and dominate the land of our fathers.
If the oil of Africa is good for Rockefeller's interest; if Iron ore is good for Carnegie Trust; then surely these minerals are good for us. Why should we allow Wall Street and the capitalist group of America and other countries to exploit ourt country when they refuse to give us a fair chance in the country of our adoption? Why should not Africa give to the world its Black Rockefeller, Rothschild and Henry Ford? Now is the opportunity. Now is the chance for every Negro to make every effort towards a commercial, industrial standard that will make us comparable with the successful business men of other races.
Africa invites capital to develop it's resources. Let not that capital, whether it be financial or man-power, be supplied by white men, bnut let us Negroes make our contribuition. All that Africa needs is proper education. The Western Negro has much of that, and it is our duty to so prepare our brothers as to place them on guard against the tricky exploiters of Europe who have been decieving and robbing them of their possessions.
-Marcus Garvey April 18, 1923
Today is Ujamaa or Cooperative Economics.
Let us as Negroes, prepare ourselves throughout the world for the conflict that is bound to ensue between the rivaling forced for the ultimate domination of out country-Africa. For we are not going to give up easily, and allow these European intruders to rob, exploit and dominate the land of our fathers.
If the oil of Africa is good for Rockefeller's interest; if Iron ore is good for Carnegie Trust; then surely these minerals are good for us. Why should we allow Wall Street and the capitalist group of America and other countries to exploit ourt country when they refuse to give us a fair chance in the country of our adoption? Why should not Africa give to the world its Black Rockefeller, Rothschild and Henry Ford? Now is the opportunity. Now is the chance for every Negro to make every effort towards a commercial, industrial standard that will make us comparable with the successful business men of other races.
Africa invites capital to develop it's resources. Let not that capital, whether it be financial or man-power, be supplied by white men, bnut let us Negroes make our contribuition. All that Africa needs is proper education. The Western Negro has much of that, and it is our duty to so prepare our brothers as to place them on guard against the tricky exploiters of Europe who have been decieving and robbing them of their possessions.
-Marcus Garvey April 18, 1923
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Ujimaa
Today is "Collective Work and Responsibility." I couldn't find something to quote for today so I decided to just comment on the situation in South-East Asia. The US has pledged 35 million to aid the countries involved in the catastrophy. To the average person this may seem like alot but we should note that the War in Iraq has already cost over $100 Billion and it has cost many many lives. It should be unnacceptible that a nation so committed to "Christian Values" would spend such a l arge sum of money on killing, which went largely on the basis of false information, yet spends not even a 10th of that amount to help multiple countries recover from a natural disaster.
Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powel made teh rounds this morning claiming that the US is the largest doner to AID organizations in the world. Well the US should be and that does not excuse the fact that early on the US government only wanted to give 15 million. Clearly now, as when the first Atom bomb was dropped on Japan, Asian lives and well being are not a great concern to those white men and women (and a couple of house negroes) in power in the US.
GG
Today is "Collective Work and Responsibility." I couldn't find something to quote for today so I decided to just comment on the situation in South-East Asia. The US has pledged 35 million to aid the countries involved in the catastrophy. To the average person this may seem like alot but we should note that the War in Iraq has already cost over $100 Billion and it has cost many many lives. It should be unnacceptible that a nation so committed to "Christian Values" would spend such a l arge sum of money on killing, which went largely on the basis of false information, yet spends not even a 10th of that amount to help multiple countries recover from a natural disaster.
Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powel made teh rounds this morning claiming that the US is the largest doner to AID organizations in the world. Well the US should be and that does not excuse the fact that early on the US government only wanted to give 15 million. Clearly now, as when the first Atom bomb was dropped on Japan, Asian lives and well being are not a great concern to those white men and women (and a couple of house negroes) in power in the US.
GG
Monday, December 27, 2004
Kujichagulia
Today marks Kujichagulia, or "Self-Determination." Today I'll post a piece from Amilcar Cabral: National Liberation and Culture (Return to the Source):
History Teaches us that , in certain circumstances, it is very easy for the foreigner to impose his domination on a people. But it also teaches us that, whatever may be the material aspects of this domination, it can be maintained only by the permanent organized repression of the cultural life of the people concerned. Implantation of foreign domination can be assured difinitively only by physical liquidation of a significant part of the dominated population.
In fact, to take up arms to dominate people is, above all, to take up arms to destroy, or at least to neutralize, to paralyze, it's cultural life. For with a strong indeginous cultural life, foreign domination cannot be sure of it's perpetuation...
In fact, culture is always in the life of a society (open or closed), the more or less conscious result of the economic and political activities of that society, the more or less dynamic expression of the kinds of relationships which prevail in that society, on the one hand between man (considered individually or collectively) and nature, and, on the other hand, among individuals, groups of individuals, social strata or classes...
The study of the history of national liberation struggles are preceeded by an increase expression of culture, consolidated progressively into a successful or unsuccessful attempt to affirm the cultural personality of the dominated people, as a means of negating the oppressor culture...Therefore, national liberation takes place when, and only when, national productive forces are completely free of all kinds of foreign domination...National liberation is necessarily an act of culture.
The experience of colonial domination shows that, in the effort to perpetuate exploitation, the colonizer not only creates a system to represss the cultural life of colonized people; he also provokes and develops the cultural alienation of a part of the population, either by so-called assimilation of indigenous people, or bty creating a social gap between the indigenous elites and the popular masses...The urban or peasant petite bourgeoisie, assimilates the colonizer's mentality, considers itself culturally superior to its own people and ignores ot looks down upon their cultural values. This situation, characteristic of the majority of the colonized intellectuals, is consolidated by increases in the social priviledges of the assimilated or alienated group with direct implications for the behavior of individuals in this group in relation to the liberation movement.
But in the face of the vital need for progress, the following attitudes or behaviors will be no less harmful to Africa: indiscriminate compliments; systematic exaltation of virtues without condemning faults; blind acceptance of the values of the culture, without considering what presently or potentially regressive elements it contains; confusion between what is the expression of an objective and material historical reality and what appears to be the creation of the mind or the product of a particular temperament; absurd linking of artistic creations, whether good or not, with supposed racial characteristics; and finally, the non-specific or a scientific critical appreciation of the cultural phenomenon.
As we know, the armed liberation struggle requires the mobilization and organization of a significant majority of the population, the political and moral unity of the various social classes, the efficient use of modern arms and of otehr means of war, the progressive liquidation of the remnants of tribal mentality, and the rejection of social and religious rules and taboos whicihi inhibit development of the struggle (gerontocracies, nepotism, social inferiority of women, rites and practices which are incompatible with the rational and national character of the struggle, etc.)
Amilcar Cabral 1970
Today marks Kujichagulia, or "Self-Determination." Today I'll post a piece from Amilcar Cabral: National Liberation and Culture (Return to the Source):
History Teaches us that , in certain circumstances, it is very easy for the foreigner to impose his domination on a people. But it also teaches us that, whatever may be the material aspects of this domination, it can be maintained only by the permanent organized repression of the cultural life of the people concerned. Implantation of foreign domination can be assured difinitively only by physical liquidation of a significant part of the dominated population.
In fact, to take up arms to dominate people is, above all, to take up arms to destroy, or at least to neutralize, to paralyze, it's cultural life. For with a strong indeginous cultural life, foreign domination cannot be sure of it's perpetuation...
In fact, culture is always in the life of a society (open or closed), the more or less conscious result of the economic and political activities of that society, the more or less dynamic expression of the kinds of relationships which prevail in that society, on the one hand between man (considered individually or collectively) and nature, and, on the other hand, among individuals, groups of individuals, social strata or classes...
The study of the history of national liberation struggles are preceeded by an increase expression of culture, consolidated progressively into a successful or unsuccessful attempt to affirm the cultural personality of the dominated people, as a means of negating the oppressor culture...Therefore, national liberation takes place when, and only when, national productive forces are completely free of all kinds of foreign domination...National liberation is necessarily an act of culture.
The experience of colonial domination shows that, in the effort to perpetuate exploitation, the colonizer not only creates a system to represss the cultural life of colonized people; he also provokes and develops the cultural alienation of a part of the population, either by so-called assimilation of indigenous people, or bty creating a social gap between the indigenous elites and the popular masses...The urban or peasant petite bourgeoisie, assimilates the colonizer's mentality, considers itself culturally superior to its own people and ignores ot looks down upon their cultural values. This situation, characteristic of the majority of the colonized intellectuals, is consolidated by increases in the social priviledges of the assimilated or alienated group with direct implications for the behavior of individuals in this group in relation to the liberation movement.
But in the face of the vital need for progress, the following attitudes or behaviors will be no less harmful to Africa: indiscriminate compliments; systematic exaltation of virtues without condemning faults; blind acceptance of the values of the culture, without considering what presently or potentially regressive elements it contains; confusion between what is the expression of an objective and material historical reality and what appears to be the creation of the mind or the product of a particular temperament; absurd linking of artistic creations, whether good or not, with supposed racial characteristics; and finally, the non-specific or a scientific critical appreciation of the cultural phenomenon.
As we know, the armed liberation struggle requires the mobilization and organization of a significant majority of the population, the political and moral unity of the various social classes, the efficient use of modern arms and of otehr means of war, the progressive liquidation of the remnants of tribal mentality, and the rejection of social and religious rules and taboos whicihi inhibit development of the struggle (gerontocracies, nepotism, social inferiority of women, rites and practices which are incompatible with the rational and national character of the struggle, etc.)
Amilcar Cabral 1970
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Kwanzaa 2004: Umoja
Today marks the first day of Kwanzaa 2004. Today is Umoja, Unity. Instead of commenting directly on the subject I will post the words of Marcus Garvey c 1922:
As far as Negroes are concerned, in America we have the problem of lynching, peonage and dis-franchisement.
In the West Indies, South and Central America we have the problem on peonage, serfdom, industrial and political government inequality.
In Africa, we have, not only peonage and serfdom, but out-right slavery, racial exploitation and alien political monopoly.
We cannot allow a continuation of these crimes agins our race. As four hundred million men, women and children, worthy of existance given us by the Divine Creator, we are determined to solve our own problem, by redeeming out Motherland Africa from the hands of alien exploiters and found there a government, a nation of our own, strong enough to lend protection to the members of our race scattered all over the world, and to compel the respect of the nations and races of the earth.
Do they lynch Englishmen, Frenchmen , Germans or Japanese? No. And Why? Because these people are represented by great governments, mighty nations and empires, strongly organized. Yes, and ever ready to shed the last drop of blood and spend the last penny in the national treasury to protect the honor and integrity of a citizen outraged anywhere.
Until the Negro reaches this point of national independence, all he does as a racde will count for naught, because the prejudice that will stand out against him even with his ballot in his hand, with his industrial progress to show, will be of such an overwhelming nature as to perpetuate mob violence and mob rule, from which he will suffer, and which he will not be able to stop with his industrial wealth and with his ballot.
You may argue that he can use his industrial wealth and his ballot to force the government to recognize him, but he must understand that the government is the people. That the majority of the people dictate the policy of the governments, and if the majority are against a measure, a thing, or a race, then the government is impotent to protect that measure, thing or race.
If the Negroes were to live in the Western Hemisphere for another five hundred years he would still be outnumbered by other races who are prejudiced against him. He cannot resort to the government for protection for government will be in the hands of the majority of the people who are prejudiced against him, hence for the Negro to depend onh the ballot and his industrial pregress alone, will be hopeless as it does not help him when he is lynched, burned, jim-crowed and segregated. The future of the Negro therefore , outside of Africa, spells ruin and disaster.
Marcus Garvey
While some of the comments, specifically regarding lynching, may not be applicable today, the general sentiment of being outnumdered in the US and the affects on black monetary and political power is something we saw in the last presidential election where blacks regardless of tunrout were still unable to make THE difference in the election. Also the general commentary on slavery existing in Africa and the serfdom peonage and expoloitation rings true from Darfur to Cote D'Ivoir. It seems so odd that the statements made in 1922, some 82 years ago, still ring true today.
Today marks the first day of Kwanzaa 2004. Today is Umoja, Unity. Instead of commenting directly on the subject I will post the words of Marcus Garvey c 1922:
As far as Negroes are concerned, in America we have the problem of lynching, peonage and dis-franchisement.
In the West Indies, South and Central America we have the problem on peonage, serfdom, industrial and political government inequality.
In Africa, we have, not only peonage and serfdom, but out-right slavery, racial exploitation and alien political monopoly.
We cannot allow a continuation of these crimes agins our race. As four hundred million men, women and children, worthy of existance given us by the Divine Creator, we are determined to solve our own problem, by redeeming out Motherland Africa from the hands of alien exploiters and found there a government, a nation of our own, strong enough to lend protection to the members of our race scattered all over the world, and to compel the respect of the nations and races of the earth.
Do they lynch Englishmen, Frenchmen , Germans or Japanese? No. And Why? Because these people are represented by great governments, mighty nations and empires, strongly organized. Yes, and ever ready to shed the last drop of blood and spend the last penny in the national treasury to protect the honor and integrity of a citizen outraged anywhere.
Until the Negro reaches this point of national independence, all he does as a racde will count for naught, because the prejudice that will stand out against him even with his ballot in his hand, with his industrial progress to show, will be of such an overwhelming nature as to perpetuate mob violence and mob rule, from which he will suffer, and which he will not be able to stop with his industrial wealth and with his ballot.
You may argue that he can use his industrial wealth and his ballot to force the government to recognize him, but he must understand that the government is the people. That the majority of the people dictate the policy of the governments, and if the majority are against a measure, a thing, or a race, then the government is impotent to protect that measure, thing or race.
If the Negroes were to live in the Western Hemisphere for another five hundred years he would still be outnumbered by other races who are prejudiced against him. He cannot resort to the government for protection for government will be in the hands of the majority of the people who are prejudiced against him, hence for the Negro to depend onh the ballot and his industrial pregress alone, will be hopeless as it does not help him when he is lynched, burned, jim-crowed and segregated. The future of the Negro therefore , outside of Africa, spells ruin and disaster.
Marcus Garvey
While some of the comments, specifically regarding lynching, may not be applicable today, the general sentiment of being outnumdered in the US and the affects on black monetary and political power is something we saw in the last presidential election where blacks regardless of tunrout were still unable to make THE difference in the election. Also the general commentary on slavery existing in Africa and the serfdom peonage and expoloitation rings true from Darfur to Cote D'Ivoir. It seems so odd that the statements made in 1922, some 82 years ago, still ring true today.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
The GOP for Quotas
During the first Bush administration, Bush put his half cent in on the Affirmative Action policy of the University of Michigan. He and most "conservatives" are against "quotas." That is they claim that it is discriminatory and wrong to set aside jobs and the like to "certian groups." They say that groups should compete and the market should rule. So it seems odd that the NY Times is reporting that the Bush administration is supporting an idea that Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have some ministries and other governmental positions for them as they are expected to make a poor showing in the upcoming Jan elections.
quote:
An even more radical step, one that a Western diplomat said was raised already with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, is the possibility of adding some of the top vote-getters among the Sunni candidates to the 275-member legislature, even if they lose to non-Sunni candidates.
The diplomat said even some Shiite politicians who were followers of Ayatollah Sistani were concerned that a Pyrrhic victory by Shiites, effectively shutting Sunni Arabs out of power, could alienate Sunnis and lead to more internal strife. Shiites make up about 60 percent of Iraqis and were generally denied power under Saddam Hussein.
No matter what the reasoning, this is clearly Affirmative Action and/or a quota system. One has to wonder why AA and quotas are ok in Iraq but not ok in the US as it concerns Black people. Blacks in the US make up proportionally less of the US population than Sunnis do in Iraq, yet there has never been a suggestion that Blacks, historically denied power in the US, should recieve representation in key areas of government in proportion to their population. In fact in various states, districts have been redrawn specifically to reduce black representation (by cutting up democratic districts).
Of course we will probably never hear a peep by black conservatives who prop the party line about quotas 'cause just like their white counterparts they know that quotas are only a problem as it pertains to black folks.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/international/middleeast/26diplo.html?hp&ex=1104037200&en=dc34a08c61975e6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
During the first Bush administration, Bush put his half cent in on the Affirmative Action policy of the University of Michigan. He and most "conservatives" are against "quotas." That is they claim that it is discriminatory and wrong to set aside jobs and the like to "certian groups." They say that groups should compete and the market should rule. So it seems odd that the NY Times is reporting that the Bush administration is supporting an idea that Sunni Muslims in Iraq should have some ministries and other governmental positions for them as they are expected to make a poor showing in the upcoming Jan elections.
quote:
An even more radical step, one that a Western diplomat said was raised already with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, is the possibility of adding some of the top vote-getters among the Sunni candidates to the 275-member legislature, even if they lose to non-Sunni candidates.
The diplomat said even some Shiite politicians who were followers of Ayatollah Sistani were concerned that a Pyrrhic victory by Shiites, effectively shutting Sunni Arabs out of power, could alienate Sunnis and lead to more internal strife. Shiites make up about 60 percent of Iraqis and were generally denied power under Saddam Hussein.
No matter what the reasoning, this is clearly Affirmative Action and/or a quota system. One has to wonder why AA and quotas are ok in Iraq but not ok in the US as it concerns Black people. Blacks in the US make up proportionally less of the US population than Sunnis do in Iraq, yet there has never been a suggestion that Blacks, historically denied power in the US, should recieve representation in key areas of government in proportion to their population. In fact in various states, districts have been redrawn specifically to reduce black representation (by cutting up democratic districts).
Of course we will probably never hear a peep by black conservatives who prop the party line about quotas 'cause just like their white counterparts they know that quotas are only a problem as it pertains to black folks.
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/international/middleeast/26diplo.html?hp&ex=1104037200&en=dc34a08c61975e6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)