November 06, 2009

It's been a long time....

It has been so long since we have given the world something to eat of substance from Black Introspection. So many things have happened, the world has changed quite a bit and our people still suffer in spite of there being a Black President. As I read over what is on this Blog, much of it is three or more years old, the relevance of it today is still profound.

Stay Tuned.......

January 15, 2008


I am not going to say that I told you so, but at least 2 years ago I started warning people about a severe decline or crash in the economy, as well as, the concept of “Peak Oil” and how gas prices would rise. People who are familiar with my opinion pieces knows that I have been sounding the alarm for sometime only to be ignored as some anti-capitalist anti-American doomsayers who actually wants to see the fall of capitalism and America. They dismissed me as a socialist/communist and retorted with historical examples of the failures of those systems and how our system was so much more superior and impervious to a similar fate. Well, our system is now on the edges of something tragic and could fall over from a certain combination of events or proceed in more orderly decline.

I am not going to get into the “why”, as I have been there and done that before. Suffice it to say however, it is not the result of the sub prime crisis, which is simply a symptom. Let’s just say that rise and fall is the natural order of life cycles and the life of our system cannot regenerate new cells, to replace the dying ones, at the rate we did when we were younger and vibrant. Moreover, the competition for the resources that we must consume for substance and growth has gotten so fierce that it will only compound our decline. China, India, Brazil and a hose of developing nations are the next generation, while the US and Western Europe is entering economic old age under globalization and the free market, which will continue to produce diminishing returns for the West until a price point wage equilibrium is reached globally between the West and the developing world.

Currently the mindset of the consumer is what is keeping the economy out of recession and depression. The economy is dependent upon consumers going into deeper and deeper debt in order to keep the economy out of recession. The reason that many were willing to do this is because of two assets, their home and their investment portfolio (stocks). Working age people over 30 looked at their home and their stocks, 401Ks, mutual funds and other investments as funding their retirement, due to strong growth in home appreciation and stock prices. Well the bottom has fallen out of the former and when it falls out of the later, the over 30 consumers will radically reduce consumption in order to save more for retirement and to be more responsible during declining economic times. This will create the collapse, deep recession and or depression.

This psychological threshold will be breached when the DOW falls below the psychological 10,000 mark. There will not be a stock market crash, like during the last Depression, however. There have been safe guards built into the system of trading to prevent that. What will happen though, however, is a long term cycle of ups and downs with the downs being much stronger than the ups, thus overtime will produce the same loss of wealth as a stock market one week crash. In the mean time, the monetary policy of lowering the cost of money (borrowing) is the strategy to keep consumers spending and providing stimulus for Wall Street, which has the effect of creating such a large amount of personal debt, which citizens will essentially become indentured servants to their debts. Not only that, such monetary policy will result in the collapsing of our currency and a hyperinflationary period that will send millions into abject poverty, government rationing and a radical change of America as we now know it.

There is nothing that can be done at this point but attempt to control our fall. Standing tall is no longer a viable option. The reason being is that the fiscal and monetary policy that is used to control the economy will make matters worse. Generally cutting taxes and lowering interest rates and the fiscal and monetary policy set up by the system to accelerate or decelerate economic activity. The problem is that we almost have the pedal to the metal, in regards to these policies, and the economy is decelerating. If we press harder on the accelerator the engine might blow. Cutting taxes in with during war time and record levels of government debt will debase the currency. Lowering interest rates will also debase the currency. The debasing of the currency will lead to rampant inflation that destroys the purchasing power of income that because it does not keep pace with the rise in prices. Millions of people then become the working poor as their income which once afforded middle class comfort can only provide basic substance.

Meanwhile, the basic loss of comparative advantage under globalization and the free market continues to send American jobs and production oversees. The catch-22 for America and Americans is that we want to have their cake and eat it too, which is impossibility. More precisely, we covet cheap prices. However, cheap prices come by virtue of cheap wages, as a general rule. A nation cannot sustain high wages and low prices as an economic model, due to how heavily wages and benefits weigh in on price. That said, a high wage nation in transition to a low wage nation will manifest both high wages and low prices until the transition is complete to being a lower or median wage nation, whatever the global price point of labor will produce. That is what is happening in America today as manufacturing, engineering, software design; call centers and a hose of other employment sectors are being off shored, while we are importing cheap labor from Mexico to drive down wages domestically as well.

If all that is not enough, I have yet to even integrate the effects of peak-oil (declining oil reserves growth/supplies married with increasing demand), the retirement of the baby boomers, war and the like. These things, even during good economic times, would hurt our economy, but that are manifesting at the same time as a host of other negative factors are hurting us. There are things that you can do to prepare yourself; however, very few can escape this. Traditionally, it is under such times that governments embark on wars to relive the population of angry males who could or would turn their wrath against the system and its elite. That way they can be sent off to war and die on the battlefields instead of filling the unemployment lines, jails or becoming radical militants attempting to overthrow the government, like the many anti-government militia groups that exist throughout America. War will help to create patriotism and get disenfranchised people feeling patriotic against an external enemy. Its not hard to guess what nation that will be, if it happens.

January 10, 2008

5 Reasons for blacks Not so support Obama

1. His candidacy is being used to claim that racism in America is essentially dead, killing the need for programs such as Affirmative Action and along with it civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. If you Google Obama and Race or if you listen to analyst on News programs, it’s obvious that Obama's strong showing is being used to slam the door on the issue of race in America. Some entities want you to believe a fallacy of composition by suggesting to you that because some whites vote or support Obama that such serves as vouchers for the remainder of whites. Thus, if 20% of voting age white America is willing to vote for Obama, how does that logically imply that the remaining 80% who don’t are not potentially or in fact racist? How does a white person voting for Obama mean that I will not be racially profiled and pulled over by a white cop? How does that mean that I will not get denied a job by the hiring manager of a company, due to the fact that I am black? How does that mean I will not be charged a higher interest rate for a loan than an equally qualified white? How does that mean I will not be followed around and watched at an upscale store? How does that mean that I will not have a noose hung at my office? To suggest that because some whites are not racist it demonstrates that all whites are not racist is as absurd as suggesting that because some whites are racist that all are.

2. There is a high possibility that America will sink into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression in the next 5 years. If there is a black President in office, it will be seen subconsciously or consciously as the fault of the President. There are so many ominous economic signs such as a falling dollar, rising consumer and government debt, trade deficits, the loss of comparative advantage, outsourcing, high oil prices; inflation….the list goes on and on. There is no monetary of fiscal policy which will solve these problems. Our nation simply consumes more than it produces via our borrowing growth far exceeding our income growth. The American economy or GDP needs a downward correction so that consumption falls in line with production and our spending is based upon what we have earned and not what we borrow. Attempting to hold this off via monetary and fiscal policy, especially the former, makes the correction that much worse when it is forced upon us in the form of a deep recession or depression. As a Michigander, I witnessed the Decline of Detroit proper nearly totally blamed on Black leadership, and not the declining fortunes of the Auto Industry that gave it life.

3. His platform of “change” has little substance. Obama is popular because he gives great speeches about a vision for a different America. Yet, he has not explained how he has the power to essentially change the “System”. The only thing that he really has the power to change is the perception that a black people are hindered by race in America and or its corollary that whites in America are racist. Obama has not been asked many tough questions, especially questions with racial overtones. Such questions and his response to those questions will have a seesaw effect. His response will increase his support among blacks, but lower it among whites or increase it among whites but lower it among blacks. The only answer that will have a neutral effect is to avoid answering the question and simply use a slogan such as “Change” or “Working together” or “Getting along”. That way each side can interpret it as getting the other side to see things their way. In reality, however, in a representative republic such as our, the interest or side that will be favored is the majority rule, which is the side of whites.

4. John Edwards is the best choice for the Democrats based upon empirical evidence. Southern white males have been the formula for defeating the “Southern Strength” of the Republican Party. Johnson, Carter and Clinton were the only democrats to win office since Kennedy. Politics changed drastically after the Civil Rights laws were passed in the 60’s and many Southern whites left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party as a result of democratic support for desegregation. Every since then, it has taken a Southern white male Democrat to win the presidency. Also, the best candidate for Democrats should be in sync with the Democratic candidate that Republicans despise the most, which is Clinton. I cannot help but use the analogy of how much Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were hated by whites in their time. The blacks that whites hated and feared the most were the blacks that were the best for our struggle. It may be true, following the same reasoning, that the Democrat most hated by Republicans is the Democrat best for liberals.

5. It’s easier for a white person in power to do the right thing towards blacks than it will be for a black person to do so. Unfortunately, it is often the case that when a black person is elevated to a position of power from a predominantly white source, they become harder on blacks. It maybe the case that they do not want to appear that they are showing favoritism towards blacks when their position of power is by virtue of whites. They may subconsciously feel that they must not only represent the white way of thinking, but must over compensate to demonstrate that way of thinking. They don’t want to risk alienating or angering the hand that is feeding their political viability. Consequently, a black person put in power by the white majority can often be the least likely to fight for policies that help the black masses. It’s tempting to fantasize that a black candidate can sneak into office by telling whites what they want to hear and then get into office and become a zealous advocate of black causes. However, there are to many checks and balances for that and power is so addictive that the office holder will not want to risk it, lest they or their party not be reelected.

January 04, 2008

Obama, Iowa, Politics and Race

Every now and then I am inspired to write as a catharsis for frustration and disappointment emanating from someone with power and influence presenting disinformation to the masses. This time it was columnist George Will commenting on what the Obama victory in the Iowa Caucuses said about race relations in general and in particular how it meant the demise of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the question of race and racism in America. Obama is now being used as exhibit A for the defense of America against charges of white racism inhibiting black progress.

Obviously some white folks are atempting to project their wishes and or subterfuge as factual reality. Some whites, like George Will and countless others, maybe, subconsciously or consciously, trying to cloak their racism by highligthing the actions of whites who, for example, will vote for a black canidate. Would George Will vote for Barak Obama? If whites who vote for Obama means that these whites are not racist, does it then imply that whites who do not vote for him are? I will exame this later. Things are not always as they nominally appear.

I think that it is prudent that I first set the current context of America in regards to race. The current context that this issue of politics exists is one of racial agendas, conscious and subconscious. White people have an agenda and black people have an agenda in regards to race. Niether race is agenda free, or unbiased, as a general rule, in regards to the issue of race. White people’s agenda is to have the black condition of America today seen soley as a condition created by blacks and not the legacy of past and or present white racism, lest they feel guilt and responsiblity. Black people’s agenda is the opposite as blacks seek to have their condition seen as the legacy or result of past and present white racism and policy, lest they be seen as culturaly and or genetically inferior.

White racism is now seen by whites as something to be ashamed of and hence hidden. It’s seen as something that makes one who wears the scarlet letter seem dirty,evil and someone who should be spat upon by society. Moreover, its admission and or exposer is seen as giving credibity to the need for offsetting policies like Affirmative action, as well as, people like Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton. Consequently, no white wants to see him or herslef as racist or to have others see them as such. To expose white racism is to ligitimize an external cause to many deeply ingrained black socioeconomic problems and the need for government intervention.

It is painfully obvious for anyone to see these days that whites have now coined a different, self serving, working definition of racism; one in which they are the abritrators. This definition is predicated upon the presence of "hate" as one must harbor "hate" to be a white racist, while ingoring "rational" racism, which is simply the belief in black inferiority and or white supremacy, born from statistical analysis. They also have the power to propagate this working definition via mainstream media and in turn the national media intergrates this "New" definition into mainstream culture via the power of suggestion and repetition.

Another point of note is that most whites in America are very insecure about the issue of race. I have heard many whites comment that they fear talking to blacks concerning the issue of race due to the fact that they may say something that offends blacks or say something that will bring accusations from blacks that they are racist. What? I am 100% heterosexual. I don’t have a fear of being seen as a homosexual or bi-sexual because I don’t have the tendency or fit any pattern of gay people, as far as I know. Therefore, If I wanted to say things like a certain guy has a nice butt or nice lips, but feel constrained due to fearing that someone will label me as gay, maybe I am really gay but just in an advanced state of denial about it.

I cannot understand what it is that so many white folks want to say, but do not say out of fear they will be misinterpreted as racist, if they are not indeed racist. I don’t get it. It seems to me that the true fear is one of being exposed and not necessarily one of being labeled incorrectly. As a heterosexual I do not walk around in fear that I say or do will be seen as fitting the pattern of homosexual behavior, unless I am insecure about my own sexuality, which I am certainly not. If you are a guy and think that another guy has a nice butt, your probably gay. If your white and think that black higher rates of poverty are due to blacks being lazier and more irresponsible, then your probably a racist. In the 60's gays were insecure and in the closet and racist were overt and proud of it. Today, racist are now in the closet and gays are out in the open.

Given this current context as the background, how do whites handle a highly educated and qualified black candidate for office and what does it mean when whites choose one? Of course I cannot read minds, but I do understand human nature, denial and deception. What I can say, therefore, is that given the current reality and agenda of whites it is reasonable to assume that some percentage of them are voting for Obama in an attempt to demonstrate the absence of racism. It seems obvious to me that if a highly qualified and educated black man fails to get the white vote that such would be seen, by some whites, as evidence of the claim that whites are not ready to elect a black candidate because of racism. This leads some to subconsciously question themselves as to why they were not picking the black canidate. Was it due to racism? This is what I mean by racial insecurity.

Sometimes humans demonstrate the propensity of looking in the opposite direction than where they want to look, when they want to create the impression that they are not interested in something in the opposite direction. Thus, some people will vote for Obama because to vote for him is seen as the opposit behavior of one who is racist, which whites don't want to be seen as. These are people who are trying to demonstrate that they or America are not racist and feel that they have nothing to lose is the canidates essentiall have the same platform. When all else is equal, a vote for the black canidate, because he is black, serves a purpose. I can already hear their vote being used as defense against accusations of racism. “Hey…I voted for Obama Pal. Don’t brings me that racism crap”. It might replace the “Some of my best friends are black” defense for racist accusations. Pundits are already using the Obama candidacy for this purpose.

Let me break this racism phenomenon in America down a bit further, via analogy, as Some whites operate from their own working definition of racism. Far too many whites see racism as an absolute, no exceptions granted, all or nothing phenomenon motivated by hate in order to have a negative impact upon black America. I have literally had thousands of debates with whites on forums and blogs via the internet, over the years. The consensus rebuttal to claims and accusations of a racist America and its negative impact upon black America was for them to try and get me to see that not all whites are racist and in particular, that they were not racist.

The vast majority of whites I debated seemed to erroneously believe that for my claims to be true, then all whites had to be racist. Thus,by demonstrating, or attempting to, that they were not racist their rebutal invalidateted my claims of the existence and impact of white racism historically and contemporarily upon the present black condition. Huh? They operated from the train of thought that if some whites can be proven to be non racist, then racism does not exist, or it exists without impact upon blacks. Huh?

George Will's comments fits and follows that pattern gleaned from countless debates with whites concerning race. Thus, Obama getting over 30% of the white Democrats vote in Iowa is now being used to demonstrate that race and racism is no longer an issue in America. Huh? Fact: The problem is that the majority of whites are republican and thus getting over 30% of the white liberal vote in Iowa likely represents no more than 20% of the aggregate white population in Iowa. So how does 20% voting for Obama exonerate the remaing 80% from potentially or in fact being racist? Huh? Arguing or demonstrating that some whites are not racist does not negate the potential existance of racism in other whites. That is a glaring fallacy widely argued in their defense.

Lets look at the hypocricy, if not absurdity, of this reasoning a little more from another angle in which whites probably can better relate....Crime. We know how white folks are scared to death of crime and particular crime from the black community. How much is crime a problem in America? How much is violent crime in the black community seen as a real problem in America? Now ask yourself what percentage of blacks in America commits acts of violent crime (murder, rape robbery)? I don't know the exact percentages but the answer is that a very, very small percentage of blacks actually commit violent crime; let’s say 5%, which is probably too high, as most is by repeat offenders.

People say that crime in the black community is out of control and whites live in fear and feel threatened by this crime. How can black violent crime be seen as such a big problem and threat, in the eyes of whites, when less that 5% of blacks commmit violent crimes and the vast majority of those are against other blacks? Yet, white racism is not seen as out of control and a threat to blacks when likely a much, much larger percentage of whites are racist? In other words, why do whites see such a small percentage of blacks as problematic for America and their safety, while alluding that all or most whites have to be racist for it to be problematic for black America? If that is not absurd enough, they allude, indirectly, that laws against racial discrimination elimiated the problem. Huh? Yeah right....just like laws eliminated murder, rape and robbery.

If only 16% of whites are racist, that is one white racist for every black man, women and child in America. Most blacks have to traverse the white world because whites run and control most things and there is no telling where that racist 16% are lurking. For sure a racist act is not usually the same intensity as a violent crime, but it results in denied housing, denied jobs, sub prime loans, loan rejection, higher sentencing, black youth being labeled behavior problems in school and more. All these things stunts black growth. It’s a fallacy to believe that racism has to stop ones growth in order to be seen a problem. Racism also stunts growth. For example, a person with a net worth of a half million dollars could have possibly had a net worth of 1 million dollars if not for racism encountered in their life that stunted them.

Obama’s victory in Iowa proved what in regards to race then? Even with all that said racism is not how one feels about a member of a race, but rather how one feels about the group. The vast majority of people believe that there are exceptions to general rules and hence are willing to grant exception to members of a race as not being “like” the stereotypical member of that group. Moreover, politics is not about whose color a politician represents, but rather, whose interest and values a politician will represent. Consequently and theoretically, a situation can manifest where a black candidate is representing mainstream white interest with the support of the majority of whites, while not having the support of the majority of blacks. A white candidate can be seen as representing mainstream black interest and have the support of the black majority while not having the support of the majority of whites.

The issue of race and racism in America is not exposed by the color of the individual candidates, but rather, the color of the mainstream interest group candidates represent. As I noted earlier, most whites vote republican while the vast majority of blacks vote democratic. Thus it is obvious that black mainstream issues differ from white mainstream issue. White racism manifest politically via a resistance to black mainstream issues and beliefs, not a resistance to a black candidate, who may very well support white mainstream issues and beliefs.

The legacy of racism in this nation has created competing issues and beliefs between blacks and whites in America. The color of the candidate only matters if one assumes or fears that the color of the candidate will always map to the mainstream interest of their race. Obama has not embraced the black mainstream and has not been widely embraced by blacks. This likely gives many whites comfort that Obama will not lean towards black interest because most whites see those interests as a threat to their own. Moreover, many blacks today are "used" in a strategy by whites against other blacks. They will prop up one black and use them to attempt a diminishing of other groups of blacks. If people like George Will is suggesting that Obamas victory is discrediting Civil Rights type blacks, then it is obvious to me that some peoples motive is to vote for Obama for this purpose, given that there is not that much difference between the democratic canidates.

In closing, America has obviously come a long way in regards to race. That is crystal clear and I would never argue that such is not true. The country today is much, much better than it was in 1760, 1860 and 1960 in regards to race in black and white. We have come a long ways, but having coming a long ways is not the same as arriving at ones destination or not having a long ways to go. Many whites are now behaving like kids on a long road trip. They are always lamenting in a whine “are we there yet?”. “when are we going to be there”. Their tired, anxious and figety. They are tired of this trip. The difference is, however, that unlike our kids who have no power or control over the matter and who sit in the back seats, the opposite is true for white America. Its blacks who are riding in the back seats while whites collectively exercise control from the front seat. Consquently, on this long racial road trip, whites have decided to pull of the path and claim that we have arrived, because they are sick and tired of this trip. Meanwhile, blacks are sitting in the back with the obvious realization that this place does not look like the destination.

September 17, 2007

Wearing baggy Pants below the waste, Criminal or not?

It has been said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. Our intent can sometime account for something but often it accounts for nothing more than seeking to lesson the impact of our actions. I think back to the crack epidemic that destroyed our communities all across this country from the early to mid 1980’s through the 1990’s. In an effort to stop drug dealers from practicing their genocidal hustle of selling crack cocaine in our communities we sought out police and judicial support in helping ensure that those who were caught selling this poison spent sometime in jail versus being arrested and right back on the streets a few days later selling crack again. So through protest and tirades this government was more than happy to come up with mandatory sentencing which sounded good and from the perspective of many of those who seen drug dealing as the root of many problems in our community, it was the answer to their prayers. To the credit of many of our conscious brothers and sisters they were opposed to these sentencing guidelines from the start, however their objections fell on deaf ears and in 1986 the evil one Ronald Regan signed into law one of the most egregious and racist laws enacted in the last 25 years. All of us are familiar with or should be familiar with “The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986” that made being caught with 5 grams of crack (the drug of choice for black folk) a guaranteed five year sentence while it took 500 grams of powder cocaine (the drug of choice for white folk) to get the same sentence. Mind you, 500 grams of powder cocaine when cooked and turned into crack can make well over 80 packages of 5 grams of crack cocaine.

To understand why this law was enacted you have to understand what was happening across America during this time. Len Bias had recently died from drug use and the Democrats who controlled congress was being accused of being soft on crime thus they moved to prove they were not soft on crime at all by passing this legislation and of course we can not forget that Tip O’Neil the speaker of the house at the time was from Boston where Len Bias had recently been drafted to play. So in the mist of all of this and complaints from the Black community about rising murder and crime The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was passed without debate, without any experts being called in to testify, without the consultation of judges or the bureau of Prisons. The sentencing guidelines enacted by this law were sold as a way of going after the big drug traffickers but it was known that traffickers do not deal in such small amounts of drugs, further more traffickers did not traffic crack; they trafficked powder cocaine. Due mostly to these laws and other drug laws the incarcerations of Black folk in America increased from 288,800 in 1984 to 635,000 in 1994.

So today we are bombarded with reports and statistics that tells us one in three black males are some how involved in the justice system, be it in jail, on parole or simply Black in America. The lessons are clear and one would think we would be too smart and too sophisticated to make similar mistakes today by supporting laws, legislation and ideas that only seeks to inject more of our youth into the Criminals’ Criminal Justice System. Unfortunately I come today with bad news, we are not that smart, and we are not that sophisticated because we are buying into the lie that somehow baggy pants worn below the waste is criminal

The similarity in the hysteria surrounding the wearing of baggy pants below the waste is ominously similar to the hysteria surrounding drug use and selling in the 1980’s. The difference of course being that wearing baggy pants below the waste is not a violent act, but when you link it to rap music that degrades women, celebrate criminality, refer to black folk as niggers, promote no snitching and have very little redeeming qualities about it, you have the makings of hysteria that can convince the smartest amongst us that wearing of baggy pants below the waste is criminal and somehow speaks to the intelligence of our youth and by proxy links them to crime. Simply put, if your pants are hanging below your waste, you are more than likely to degrade women, call black folk niggers, celebrate criminality and promote no snitching which makes you a criminal worthy of being locked up; does that make sense to you? Me neither! However, it is believed apparently in some circles that the solution to the aforementioned pathologies is of course to have young men to pull their pants up and since they are unwilling to do it when asked, laws must be passed to protect the men and women in this great and decent society from these young men with saggy pants that on occasion shows their underwear.

We can not drop the ball on this issue nor can we sit passively by as laws are passed that seeks to inject more of our youth into the criminal justice system by criminalizing their style of dress. When the wearing of baggy pants below the waste can be reason enough to lock a young man up for 60 days and fine him five hundred dollars, I can say without question or contradiction, reason has been abandoned. If we fail to see that these laws are racist and that they will only lead to that stat about one and three to jump to two in three, then when the smoke clears blame will be placed and rightfully so, at our feet because we know better today and should be immune to white folk trickery and money making schemes to lock more of our youth up to support their stock marketed prison industrial complex.

January 15, 2007

Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr., like a painter whose work increased in value only after his demise, is now a respected historical figure. While he was alive, however, he was hated and vilified by many, if not most, of the white population of this nation. If he was not hated and vilified he was certainly seen as a “divisive” rabble-rouser figure that was instigating discontent in the nation.

Today, in his death, MLK Jr. is of greater value to the white community than he ever would have been alive. One of the many benefits of power is the ability to filter and define truths to ones benefit. Hence, whites demographic majority rule and their disproportionate economic and political control have allowed king to be redefined as a leader whose goal was a colorblind society, making him anti-Affirmative Action, anti-reparations and anti-color based remedies to Americas colored based oppression of blacks.

The redefining of MLK Jr. is a form of racial jujitsu that has been employed as a self-defense methodology to protect white privilege. For those who don’t know, jujitsu is a method developed in Japan of defending oneself by using the strength and weight of an adversary to disable him. White conservatives have thus taken the strength and weight of the civil rights movement, by parsing quotes, to protect the gains accrued from years of racial favoritism for whites.

Essentially, conservative whites and others have taken the mantra of the civil rights movement, the call for a colorblind society, and now use it to preserve white privilege. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. These are the most widely quoted words of MLK by white America. After uttering millions of words, Kings legacy and purpose has been encapsulated in that single quote and used by white America to promote the legacy effect of white privilege and advantage.

Of course, the idea or concept of the metaphoric “color-blind” society is noble, providing that one does not put the buggy before the horse. A society first must promote racial justice and reconciliation before one can promote a racially color-blind society. Since color consciousness has been used to create and accrue white privilege for centuries, going color-blinded, before racial reconciliation, is, I am afraid, simply a strategy to protect the benefits accrued to whites from years of white preferential treatment.

The quest for a color-blind society is rather akin to a request for a “cheating-free” society, by the historical beneficiaries of cheating. In order to maintain the proceeds from cheating, the historical beneficiary of cheating need only object to cheating henceforth by all parties. Thus, those historically cheated will not be allowed to cheat and eat away at the benefits accrued to the historical beneficiaries of cheating. Moreover, with no compensatory redistribution of cheated wealth, the cheated are left at a competitive disadvantage in a system predicated upon competition.

It is argued that two wrongs do not make a right. That maybe true in some respects but it’s not the rule of America. When we attacked Afghanistan after our nation was attacked on 911, did most white Americans see that as an example of two wrongs making a right? Yes! If violence is a wrong then the use of violence in response to violence is also wrong. What about the wrong of kidnapping people and holding them against their will? We can agree that such is a wrong, but when people commit crimes society captures them and holds them against their will and calls it “justice”. Yet, when the issue is race, two wrongs do not make right or justice in the eyes of whites.

The reason that there can be no real racial justice in America is simple. White America serves as the defendant, lawyer, judge, arbitrator and jury for claims against America by virtue of their power and control over America. Whites will hence not self incriminate or convict America of any crimes because its essentially a sentence that whites will have to serve. They will not hold America responsible or accountable for any of its wrongs because it’s a price that they would have to pay, which is only fair because they were the primary beneficiaries of America’s wrongs. This has been a nation of the white people, for the white people run by white peoples and hence the nation cannot be convicted without convicting whites.

If MLK were alive today he would not be as popular and accepted as in his death. Of course this is arguable, but the best indication of how he would be treated today is from how his contemporaries in the civil rights struggle are viewed today. There is not likely one black civil rights leader from his era who has not been gunned down or disrespected by white America today. Therefore, most intelligent people know that in all probability MLK would be just as despised today as Jesse Jackson is by most white Americans.

In conclusion, I would like to leave the reader with some quotes from MLK that get ignored in the white conservatives zeal to promote King as being anti Affirmative Action.

"It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society."

"The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt."

“Whenever this issue is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up”.

“For two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages: potential accrued wealth, which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation”.

January 10, 2007

Cultural Inferiority

What is culture? The anthropological definition is as follows: Culture, as a body of learned behaviors common to a given human society, acts rather like a template (ie. it has predictable form and content), shaping behavior and consciousness within a human society from generation to generation. So culture resides in all learned behavior and in some shaping template or consciousness prior to behavior as well (that is, a "cultural template" can be in place prior to the birth of an individual person)

There used to be a time in the not so distant past that Negro people were believed to be genetically inferior. This was not simply the opining of uneducated Western masses, but the work and findings of white scholars, whose methodologies have sense been debunked. Notwithstanding, the belief in the inferiority of the Negro has persisted through the years. However, in this era in which whites fear the label or accusation of being a “racist”, the term “culture” has thus manifested to replace “Race” to qualify that which whites use to explain inferiority amongst the Negro population.

Biological and or Genetic explanations to black pathologies are obvious signs of a racist, but "culture" is a stealth euphamism that essentialy targets the same group. In short, the term protects whites from being called a white supremacist....when really that is what they are propogating. Note that the belief in inferiority of blacks has not changed, just the qualifying reason for "black culture"...a culture emanating from and endemic to people of black biology. If one is not talking about race...per se...then they cannot be accused of being racist, in their own minds or the thinking of others.

Given that culture is essentially learned behavior, how is it that blacks and whites are perceived to have different cultures while existing in the same environment of America for the last 300 years? Is not environment the teacher of culture and have we both not been exposed to the same environment of America? How could America have taught whites one thing while having taught black another, if two separate culture indeed exists? What phenomenon was the cause of the schism? Whose behavior created the isolation and segregation that would be a necessity for different cultures to incubate and grow while in the same nation?

It’s an interesting concept of which I find fascinating. Given that culture is learned and passed generationaly, what did black people learn from the peoples who were oppressing them? When one thinks back, did not slave owners father illegitimate children from some of their black slaves, yet they remained slaves? Did that teach black males to be illegitimate fathers too? Did the slave masters and overseers use of violence to control and intimidate their slaves teach blacks to be just as violent? Did the fact that the slaves did all the hard work while the slave master virtually did nothing in comparison teach blacks that to be successful is to be lazy? Did the general degradation and disrespect for black humanity and worth by slave masters and whites teach blacks to look at each other in the same way? Ect…ect.

If culture is a learned behavior then what is the resultant of a culture of racial oppression upon a people? What did they learn from it and how does it affect the behavior of the oppressed group? Hence, can a people develop an inferior culture by virtue of its people being treated as inferior for centuries in the same nation? If a culture is inferior due to a nation allowing and facilitating the oppression of a people is it not the responsibility of the nation to attempt to fix what it broke and can that fix be implemented without recognizing and targeting the group that it broke in the effort? Culture is essentially socialization via emulation.

I think a good test for the belief in racial superior and inferiority is to ask a white person if they believe this to be true: If white people had been taken to a black nation as slaves, and had essentially the same situation as blacks have had in the West, but in reverse, would they be in a better or worse situation than blacks are in America today? Would they have risen faster? Would they complain less? Would they seek Affirmative Action?

Of course, for them to assume that they would be better off clearly points to the belief that white humanity is superior to black humanity and can hence overcome odds in a superior fashion. To suggest that the situation would be the same is to suggest that the black condition of today is predictable given what they were exposed.

Whites will not answer this question. Why? Because it threatens to expose them as something they deny to themselves and others. Of course, some will dismiss this hypothetical as absurd due to the premise of the hypothesis implying that blacks could actually ever have the capacity to dominate whites…..which is absurd on its face when one essentially believes in white supremacy and its corollary of black inferiority.

Black Sites and Forums