numbers and logic

Are numbers and mathematics the language of truth? Can all of nature and existence, and its entire phenomenon's, be broken down to numbers? I believe that the answer to this question is yes; however, humans have not evolved and may never evolve to the point where we can decipher these truths. Only God knows the precise formulas, laws and calculations that create nature and existence as we know it. The reason why everything can be broken into numbers is that, based upon the current context of knowledge, the universe is broken into matter and energy. Matter and Energy was God building blocks and fuel source for the universe.

The failure of the ability to break phenomenon into numbers is not born from the phenomenon being an exception to natures rule, but rather, a failure of human knowledge and understanding. The absence of evidence of truth is not evidence of absence of truth. Before human knowledge base included the understanding of DNA and its sequences that are the templates of life, that absence of understanding did not mean the absence of DNA. Life and existence does not happen by magic, it is the resultant of the interactions of trillions of variables, predictably. However, if you do not know of or understand the variables, you cannot predict.

The reason something may sound logical is born from it reconciling in numbers behind the scene. That does not mean that we need to be able to consciously map the phenomenon to numbers, however. For example My father used to tell us a riddle than went like this: “A man left town on a horse to visit relatives far off. His travels took six days, leaving on Monday and returning on Monday”. Now, this riddle seems illogical because the numbers do not add up, because Monday to Monday is 7 days and he was apparently gone only six days. It sounds illogical on the surface. Other phenomenon sound illogical because of our intuitive understanding of physics, even though we cannot consciously calculate the variables.

In light of this, numbers and logic are the test of natures truths. Often times in human debate and opinion, there seems to be little means of discerning an objective truth. Thus, there is never any closer or acquiescing towards the truth, because individuals emotionally attached and invested in the truths antithesis will not accept it. Debate and argument is not generally done with the purpose of seeking knowledge and truth, but rather, for the joy and sport of debate. It is akin to hunting in America, given that people don’t usually hunt for survival and food, but rather because they enjoy the act.

When we hear debates regarding politics, there is never closure or acquiescence toward truth, because evaluating human nature on a collective scale is not an exact science. What I mean by that is that what maybe true for one person cannot be assumed to be true for another, because humans are not exact clones. Thus, when adopt a political ideology and social strategy, they are essential attempting to impose a solution that assumes that humans are clones, which is false, because it does not jive with the reality of the human numbers. American politics offers only two viable options, when many of the problems that exist are cured or treated from a large array of different strategies. Hence, when problems are never solved, the two competing ideologies blame the other, when the true problem is the stunted options the system provides.

The argument that is most illogical in America is the argument that arises from whites when dealing with the issue of race. The white argument is not supported at all by numbers and logic, hence, it has no anchor or foundation in truth. If one simply breaks down what has transpired over the last 300 years in America, in numbers and mathematics, the explanation of why blacks continue to lag social and economically in this nation stands clear. However, for those people who are the enemy of truth in regards to race, their emotional investment prevents them from accepting the logical. Instead, they choose to base their arguments on conjecture and fallacies.

If one understand some simple algebraic number laws regarding equality, the logical solution to black inequality would be clear. The algebraic number law of equality says that in order to maintain an equality, whatever is done on one side of the comparison must be done to the other side or inequality will be the resultant. Thus, if one starts with the assumptions that blacks are equal in capacities with whites, but there exist a current inequality of outcome for blacks, there can logically be only two reasons for this inequality. One, the assumption of blacks being equal in capacities of whites is false. Two, the treatment of blacks and whites in this nation has been unequal.

Most white folks today would lose total credibility if they denied the history on unequal treatment of blacks in this nation. Thus, they reluctantly acknowledge that history. However, the do not take the next logical step, which is to explain the cause of the current inequality to be this unequal historical treatment. Hence, by default, when one eliminates one option from a binary option, by default the other option picked. Therefore, when whites (or black conservatives) eliminate the history of racism from explaining the current inequalities, they are alluding that blacks are not equal in capacities to whites. In other words, they are alluding that blacks are inferior. Of course, in the current climate people do not come out and say this overtly, because the cloak will then be uncovered and their racism that they deny will be revealed. However, logically, they are clearing implying black inferiority.

In light of these logical truths, some may acquiesce and accept it as truth, but then say let us move past that cause and toward the solution. The fallacy with that line of thought is that they do not seek the logical solution, but rather the solution that will be most palatable to the white masses. The only solutions that most whites are willing to entertain are the solutions that cost whites the least. However, this restriction and constraint prevents the logical and most efficacious solution from manifesting. The logical solution, mathematically, flows from the algebraic law. If an inequality has be created from one side of the comparison being treated differently, the inequality can only be restored by going forward with inequality, but this time to the benefit of the other side.

Mathematically, an inequality can never be restored by treating each side equally. That will simply preserve the inequality infinitely. That is why the white conservative argument that you cannot fight discrimination with discrimination is illogical. Two wrongs does make a right when it produces equality as the resultant. To acknowledge that blacks have been discriminated against in the past is not enough. There needs to be an offset to the effects of this discrimination so that the inequality that resulted can be undone.

The Neo Racism of today is different from the racism of the past in that the focus is not on creating the inequality, but rather, on preserving the inequality created from the past. Thus, the strategy is to deny the logical solution to black inequality. Hence, thus the politics of denial of any government program or policy that disproportionately are seen to go to the benefit of blacks. That strategy and goal is cloaked today via the Trojan horse called “conservatism”. The truth is in the numbers.

By the way, in my fathers riddle, the HORSE was named MONDAY.

What explains black class stratification?

Many people, when discussing the rise of the black middle class, tend to assume a monolithic black experience in degree and kind for each and every black American. Hence, these people then take that assumption and build the conclusion that blacks who have risen to middle class, as the general rule, demonstrated a superior effort, intellect, choices, responsibility or other and hence this explain why some blacks have risen to the middle and upper class while so many others are left behind.

Is this fair? Is being black in America akin to each black person having to go through life with an equal 50lb weight upon our backs that represents the weight of past and present racism? Does each black person inherit the same coefficient of friction against progress born from the weight of the past and present? The answer to these hypothetical analogies is no. Black people have never had a monolithic experience in degree, if not in kind of experiences. Thus, if we all do not and have not had equal resistance to our forward progress, does it not stand to reason that given an assumed equal effort, by each and every black, that class stratification is inevitable to occur because those with less resistance will move farther ahead than those with more? Of course it does...to the intellectually honest.

The truth is that the pounds black people carry varies from person to person. Even during times of slavery, field Negroes faced more resistance than house Negroes. There was also the free black man and women who had it better than the slaves. Hence, after emancipation, we were not all coming out of the gates even. Some blacks came from more brutal plantations than others, that separated families, whipped them more often, sexual abuse and the like, which scared them psychologically, putting them at a disadvantage in the competition of life and opportunities. They subsequently passed their economic condition, behavior and disadvantage to their children via socialization through emulation. It is not hard to see how economic disadvantage is easily passed on to the next generation.

There has also always been the light skin/dark skin phenomenon that manifested in light skin blacks facing less friction from whites than the pure looking Negro. When I say pure looking I mean dark with Negroid features. Also, there was the difference in Region, most profoundly, the North offered more opportunities than the South. In conjunction with all these varying environments and experiences is the fact that every human life is different in experience. No humans have the exact same experiences, in degree, kind, time and space, that one individual can say that they have walked in the same shoes of life as another. A life can be thrown off course or guided to prosperity from the butterfly effect of a single initial event or condition, which manifests a chain reaction of actions and reactions over time. Thus, two people with very similar backgrounds can have radically different life outcomes from a sigle event.

In light of these truths and probabilities, it stands to reason that an intelligent person would not and should not beleive that class stratification of blacks is due to the upperworldly mobil blacks demonstrating a superiority in effort, work ethics, choices and personal responsibility. It is just as plausible and probable that this can be explained by the different degrees of social and environmental impediments in the lives of black individuals and families. This is not to suggest that some blacks do achieve more than others by virtue of working harder, working smarter and being personally responsible, because many do separate themselves based upon that. However, one cannot assume this to be the general rule that explains the class separation in black America.

Those black people who come to adopt and promote this finger pointing at the black lower class are guilty of being “white like”. I say this because the fundamental reasoning of whites to explain social and class stratification is individual superiority or inferiority and not environment. White people, as a general rule, give little respect to environment in explaining social and behavioral condition. This is mainly because they want to see themselves as superior in human competition. Hence, one can have their ego enhanced by being of a higher social rank in the human competition that we all engage in. People do not want to have their rank and status tainted by the thought of an unfair advantage over others. Thus, they dismiss that the environment caused the separation of outcome, which indicts the individual or race whose behind of being genetically and or culturally inferior.

Fortunately, the masses of black people have not fell victims to this mindset, which is outstanding considering the fact that we are immersed in a white supremacy nation and mindset. That having been said, there are those few black people, mostly black conservatives types, who like to look down upon the black poor and underclass as lazy and irresponsible people who have no one to blame for their condition but themselves. In truth, what they are doing is EXALTING them selves in the juxtaposition. Each time they lament about the failures of poor blacks, they are highlighting their own successes. They do not come right out and say it, but that is what they are doing. I have been responsible, I have worked hard, I have made the right choices….look at me….I am somebody that white folks respect! Negro please! You likely just carried a lighter load than other black folks and or caught a lucky break.

Micro liberalism and conservatism

On introspection, I have found the need to practice what some might see as a “Conservative” approach to dealing with my son. You see, my son is likely one of the laziest and selfish youths in all my extended family. He will be 19 in February and has been out of school approaching two years now. In dealing with his attitude and behavior, I find myself exemplifying a “micro conservatism” in dealing with him.

Having not been a part of his life, most of his life, upon marrying my wife I inherited a son who had not been conditioned into understanding that to get something means.... that something must be given up on the part of the receiver, in turn. He was also not properly conditioned to the concept that he could do what he wants, as long as he is willing to accept and bare the burden of the consequence of his actions, set forth by those who make the rules, justly. His mom, a single mom at 18, was simply not consistent in dishing out rewards and punishments to develop him along that path. His biological father was simply a terrible example and role model, but he was/is active in his life.

Now, I have a son, whom I love, who has been out of school going on two years who wakes up around 11:00 am, forages for food in the kitchen, watches TV, listens to blaring rap music, then spends the rest of the day at his girl friend folks home or at the gym. He has a job in sales at a local shoe store, but my wife and I recently learned that he only works about 13 hours in a two week period. We always wondered why he was so broke all the time, not being able to put anything on the car insurance we pay for him each month, or to pay his cell phone bill, which was recently cut off. The bottom line here is that he simply does not want more hours and had the job only because my wife had threatened to kick him out unless he enrolled into college or found a job.

So, my wife and I, plus our new little daughter, decided that we would take a vacation somewhere warm this winter, So we made our plans with my wife siblings and their family. Our son was not in the travel plans,though, to his dismay. He is begging and pleading with his mom so that he can go, but of course, he has no money to contribute to his expenses. Had he demonstrated the willingness to work hard, the ability to show gratefulness and appreciation and the ability to be humble, I would be willing to pay his way…without payback and without a second thought, if he lacked the funds. However, the one thing that I refuse to do is to subsidize his laziness and bad attitude.

There it is folks.....the exemplification and practice of a conservative philosophy, but at the micro level. In truth, one of the things that irk me the most is lazy people. They are second only to lazy people who want something from me, without giving something in return. Thus, one might properly then ask why I am not a conservative, because this is part of the conservative philosophy. Well, the reason is quite simple, which is that I only invoke this response when I can personally bare witness to the truth that an individual is lazy. I cannot make that assumption on the macro level, about millions of people whose lives and personal situation I cannot bare witness to say that a conservative approach is what is needed. For that matter, I cannot bare witness to when a liberal approach is what is needed either.

In light of this inability to be specific and precise, this is why I am not a conservative or liberal and I do not consider myself an independent either...hell...I don't even vote. The problem with the system is the options it provides. Each ideology only offers a cookie cutter, mutually exclusive, white perspective and approach to dealing with social and behavioral issues, when one size does not fit all. Also, what is offered always has to be different or opposite than the opposition, so that people will not vote to for the different idea and thus the different party.

Thus, the system must oscillate between the two approaches. As each produces certain problems over time, this creates opportunity for change and opposition canidates. Given that that the choices in a two party system are binary, we just keep going back and forth, rarely curing or solving what ills us socially. However, this oscillation is what creates opportunity for opposition politicians, who are dependant upon things not going well so that people will vote for a change…and thus create opportunity for them. Besides, these two approaches are the options because they are the cheapest to implement. To specifically target people, based upon their unique situation, with oversight, would be extremely more expensive than the current liberal approach. But remember, you get what you pay for. Furthermore, the black situation in America is unique enough to require a targeted precise program directed at our peculiar instituational situation.

On the micro level, When I was a youth, I benefited from a liberal mother, who stuck by my side and supported me, when my micro conservative father did not. You see, I always worked hard. When I was a youth I always had a job. In the summer time, I worked two jobs, when the economy could support that. I have been working since I was 14 and before then, I use to hustle carrying ladies bags as the neargy grocery store. However, I had no vision or guidance in regards to what to do with my life and my education suffered. I actually flunked the 11th grade. I decided to enroll into college and I struggled initially due to my poor training and lack of direction. I had moved to Atlanta to go to school and escape Michigan. I enrolled in Dekalb community college; I roomed with this older lady whose son had referred me to, while I was living in a hotel on Stewart Ave.

To make a long story short, even though I was working and going to school, I needed funds to make ends meet. My dad would not help out, but my mom would send me cash when she could afford it. That little bit actually kept me from “beating” from the local stores for provisions….cause a brother was hungry and had to much pride to ask folks for help. Some times I would get a letter in the mail with a money order for $20 dollars….and tears would come to my eyes because it was like God knew when I was in the most need. Eventually, I moved back to Detroit to finish school. It took me, all in all, 61/2 years to get a 4 year Bachelor of Science degree.

Had it been left up to my dad and his micro conservatism, I would likely have never graduated from college, because my dad never gave me opportunity for failure or mistakes, which I had many. But my mom’s liberalism did. Consequently, I finished college and ultimately a good paying job. I also later found that I had a pretty high IQ. Thus, my mom’s liberalism allowed me finally progress towards my full potential, notwithstanding mistakes and bad choices on the way. I would like to think that it was because of the fact that I have always worked hard and sacrificed….when it was something I wanted. However, I know that such is often simply the loving and nurturing nature of mothers….especially towards son. Also, my fathers influence did help balance out the nurturing, which helped me to become a man.

When I think of my son, I often wonder is my macro conservatism denying him the ability to evolve and recovery from mistakes. I rationalize a difference between the two of us, at that age, based upon willingness and desire to make sacrifices for what we want or desired. Even the things he loves and desires most, he will not make the personal expenditure of energy to try to make it reality.

The History of Rwanda before April 6, 1994

.

Don Cheadle in the new movie Hotel Rwanda is playing the role of a courageous hotel manager who saved the lives of both Hutu and Tutsi refugees during the genocidal attacks by the Hutu on the Tutsi men and women. Anyone familiar with what happen during these genocidal attacks knows that close to one million people were killed. Many in the media and especially those in the West dismissed what happened in Rwanda as the continued and ongoing ethnic conflict that has been part of that region and culture since time immemorial as witnessed in Former Mayor of New York Ed Koch statements when he stated that what was happening in Rwanda was simply “tribal warfare involving those without the veneer of Western civilization."

Most folk in the West when telling the story of Rwanda and what happened there usually began with the events on April 6, 1994, when a jet carrying the President of Rwanda and Burundi Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntarymira respectively was shot down as it closed in on the airport in Kigali. It was believed that Tutsi’s shot the plane down and thus began the genocide. However, there is a history prior to April 6, 1994 that the west do not like to discuss and this history sheds light on the lie about their being ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi’s since time immemorial.

Human Rights Watch points out in its report titled “Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda” After the Berlin Conference of 1884 that Chopped Africa up into pieces and handed it out to European nations, the Germans ruled Rwanda until the end of World War One. After the war the Belgians took control of Rwanda. However, during their rule the Germans found it difficult to control the men and women in Rwanda based on their societal hierarchies. The Belgians in an effort to not have the problems the Germans had, changed the political system in Rwanda;

“They eliminated the competing hierarchies and regrouped the units of administration into “chiefdoms” and “sub-chiefdoms” of uniform size. They used force to install state officials in the autonomous enclaves, destroying the power of the heads of lineages and of local small states. They fixed and made uniform the goods and services that local officials could demand, thus—they thought—reducing the burdens on the population.”

As in all cases of colonialism and slavery, none of it could happen without the help of those from amongst the people who wanted to benefit from the exploitation of their people. The Tutsi’s were the primary beneficiaries during early colonialism in Rwanda. Hutu men and women were not allowed to hold any positions of power and were excluded from higher education. The Belgians effectively set up a Tutsi monopoly throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s.

We must be mindful that prior to the arrival of the European colonialist, the Hutu and Tutsi were not the best of friends but the distinctions that would later set them apart and set the climate for the genocidal attacks of 1994 were not factors in early Hutu and Tutsi life. Early Hutu and Tutsi distinction were class based and not based on physical distinctions. Tutsi’s controlled the wealth while the Hutu’s were without wealth. The wealth status of the individual determined what group he or she would be a part of;

“The word “Tutsi,” which apparently first described the status of an individual—a person rich in cattle—became the term that referred to the elite group as a whole and the word “Hutu”—meaning originally a subordinate or follower of a more powerful person—came to refer to the mass of the ordinary people”

Thus one could start life as a Hutu and end life as a Tutsi and though it was rare it was not uncommon for Hutu and Tutsi classed men and women to marry.

When the European changed the political system in Rwanda and systematically empowered the Tutsi’s they did so under the guise that the Tutsi’s looked more like them; they were taller, lighter skinned than the Hutu’s and the TWA thus assumed by the colonialist using their racist ideology that they were natural leaders. Keep in mind while the European colonialist thought of the Tutsi as being superior to the Hutu and TWA, he believed all of them were inferior to him.

Drunk with their new found superiority as deemed by the European because of their features being more like the European, the Tutsi did not hesitate to start a quest of rewriting the history of Rwanda and ascribing all things of good and power to themselves and the colonialist could not have been more willing to accept the lies and later print them as the first written histories of Rwanda. These lies were believed until the 1960’s when a new generation of scholars foreign and Rwandan question many of the lies in the books

In the 1959 the Tutsi’s like all people on the earth wanted to be free from Colonial rule and began to fight against Belgian rule. As a result of the Tutsi fight against colonialism the Belgians began to favor the Hutu’s and began to replace Tutsi chiefs with Hutu chiefs, again playing the Hutu against the Tutsi. In an act of desperation the Belgians allowed the Hutu’s to burn down the houses of Tutsi’s and allowed the “Hutu elite to engineer a coup” and by 1962 independence was granted to Rwanda when it became clear to the Belgians that colonial rule in Rwanda was on its last breath. Prior to independence being granted upwards of 100,000 Tutsi’s were killed and possibly 500,000 fled the country.

This op-ed only covers the effects of Colonialism and did not delve into the problems the World Bank created for Rwanda nor does it cover the evil IMF actions in Rwanda. The point is to always be mindful when the West says that a problem is one that has been around since time immemorial. The truth is European Colonialism created the atmosphere under which the 1994 genocidal attacks would eventually happen but this seems to be ignored. Most problems on the continent of African can be traced directly back to the European Colonialism. What happened in Rwanda in 1994 is indeed one of the worst things to happen on the earth in the last twenty five years, but when reading the history of what happen and telling stories of courage that took place during the genocidal attacks, the impact of Colonialism in Rwanda and in African in general should not be ignored.

The future of Black America.

What is the future of black America? This is a question that cannot be answered without first answering the question concerning the future direction of America itself. Thus, by examining the direction of America, one can glean an insight into the direction of black America, because we are joined at the hip.

To put it bluntly...Black Americas zenith has been reached. We collectively reached that pinnacle in the 1990s, in regards to economics. The primary reason for the fall being that America is now on a downward trajectory from its zenith and a lowering tide sinks all ships. This nation continues to lose comparative advantage in a relatively peaceful world, which has allowed economies such as China to develop and produce goods and services far cheaper than can we.

The current buzz phrase of causation is “globalization”. Theoretically, globalization is the free flow of capital, businesses, resources, goods and services around the globe. In other words, business and capital investors will seek the path of least resistance to profit, which most often means the cheapest sources of labor and fewer regulatory and or environmental restrictions. This puts America in general and the African American worker in particular, as the big losers in the physics of the transfer of energies and opportunities under globalization. This is because black workers are over represented in occupations, such as manufacturing, that will absorb the biggest transfer of production and jobs to cheaper labor markets.

In light the economic shift of opportunities under capitalistic imperialism, unemployment and poverty will rise for African Americans. There will be a shrinking of the black middle class as the ranks of the economic lower class makes up the difference, while the percentage of blacks in the upper class will remain stable. Compounding this will be a nation less progressive in its dealings with historical issues that were the catalyst and origin of many of the disproportionate problems faced by blacks. There will likely be a phasing out of programs like Affirmative Action fairly soon, as the fortunes of the white masses begin to diminish under globalization as well, although less profoundly than blacks.

Politically, blacks will lose leverage and clout, as we are no longer the nation’s largest minority group. The Hispanic population will eventually by pass the black population considerably, forcing politicians to shift their focus to Hispanic interest and concerns. Of course, anytime politicians give one group more attention, another group will get less attention and the primary losers will be African Americans, as white interest (and money) will still dominate the two party system. Thus, backs will have to “piggy back” or find overlap benefit from white and Hispanic interest as our pure and often unique in degree or kind issues, such as reparations, will not have a snow ball chance in hell of manifesting into fruition.

Educationally, regardless of the naysayer, blacks are better educated today than they have ever been. Black literacy rates, high school completion, college participation and graduation are at or near record levels. However, the problem is that a changing economy and world keeps increasing its education demands faster than blacks are able to increase their supply. Thus, in absolute terms, blacks continue to make tremendous strides in education, given where we started, but in relative terms, our growth has not kept pace with economic demands. Moreover, only 26% of all jobs demanded by the economy require college degrees. Therefore, although education will make people more competitive, only 26% of the labor pool, at any given point in time, will command those good paying jobs, regardless if 100% of the people are well educated. In light of this, the USA cannot educate its way out of this fix.

Socially, the loss of the sense of black unity and common goal and purpose, along with increased poverty, will make living in many of our poor black communities treacherous. I think that the availability of guns, the opportunity for money from drugs and illegal activities, increasing lack of opportunity and hope, will converge to make levels of violence unprecedented. This will lead to more draconian political responses that will increase the incarceration rates of blacks, as well as, make prisons a more brutal experience. There will be increased police brutality and human rights violation. However, many blacks who will be so tired and weary from crime will actually support these measures in the hope of increasing their safety and freedom to move about without danger.

In regards to race, racial tolerance will diminish as economic competition increases and becomes more of a domestic zero sum game. The root of slavery and Jim Crow was economic. White Americans have a history of using “seesaw” economics to elevate themselves as the opposite resultant of placing the weight of burden and exploitation upon non white peoples. It would be a naïve to trust the character demonstrated by whites in good times, will be the character they demonstrate during stressful economic times. The test of “true” character can only be gleaned under stress, which has been absence over the last 30 years economically. When it returns, one can expect a dropping off of racial tolerance in general, which will reinvigorate the level of racism among whites. Moreover, with a decreasing percentage of the whole white population, whites will come to feel threatened about their way of life, beliefs, history and so forth, which will give rationalization for bigotry.

In summary, the assumption that progress will always be forward in America will be proven fallacious. The nation as a whole will stagnate and the middle class will decline. Blacks will actually digress. However, these predications are extrapolations and some event or condition can manifest the “butterfly effect”, which can throw the predications way of its extrapolated course. However, given the probability of certain possibilities, the most probable are the ones that will only worsen the scenario. So what should black folks do? Unity is the only solution that will help us deal with the coming challenges.

UNCLE TOMS and "TOMISM"

I would like to have an open and honest exploration of the phenomenon known as the “Uncle Tom”. Is the phenomenon an outdated pejorative that has no relevance in the modern era of American life? Was there ever in history a valid and objective means of identifying and branding a black person as such? Were those called out, in the past, ever accepting of this label or did they deny and rationalize their actions as being in the best interest of black people?

The origin of the term derived from the name of the hero in Harriet B. Stowe’s novel, Uncle Toms Cabin, (1851-52). It applied to servile black men. The popular working definitions and usage can be summarized as a black man considered by other blacks to be subservient to or to curry favor with whites. Uncle Tomism is viewed as a policy of relationship between whites and blacks involving a benevolent but patronizing attitude on the part of the whites and a willingly submissive attitude on the part of the blacks. Although originally a phenomenon linked to the male, there is no reason that a female could not be or have been guilty of the same.

In light of these historical usages, there is an objective criterion for establishing if the phenomenons exist today. Certainly, one would not expect to map the exact actions of Tomism from the 1920’s to Today, because the means of society are vastly different in degree or kind, even though the motives have not changed much. Thus, although one cannot say that black Toms of today are guilty of replicating the acts of Tomism of the past, we can conclude, from the working usage, whether or not the motives are the same, notwithstanding the different means. In short, the working definition gives an objective means of creating a template or benchmark to test for the occurrence of modern Tomism.

To be fair, one has to admit that we, black people, are nearly all guilty of Tomism, with the matter of degree being the major point of differentiation. I say that because we all know that whites run and dominate this country politically, economically and numerically, with the formers being disproportionately true. Thus, if we are to survive under such domination, it involves some degree Toming. Also, the degree of Tomism that one manifest, in conjunction with other characteristics, the more upwardly mobile one can become. Hence, Tomism offers more reward and promotion from white society than does the absence there of. However, the trade off is that one becomes complicit in the exploitation or oppression of the dominant group. For example, Tomism during slavery would have simply helped to promote and maintain the system of slavery. In those days, Tomism was known by the pejorative “House Negro”.

In light of all this, who are the Uncle Toms that standout to the highest degree in the present? At the top of the list would have to be the black conservatives. The reason being is that conservatism is the dominant ideology of the white masses and the ideology is the only legal conduit to exercise racism via the politics of denial of programs and assistance that is aimed at leveling the competitive playing field. Also, conservatism is the ideology that was swollen by bitter Southern white racist who abdicated the Democratic Party because of the parties push for civil rights and the end of segregation. Thus, conservative ideology in our representative form of democracy caters to a large base of whites who are racist and platforms must reflect this racism if the politicians of the ideology want to remain viable politically.

For black folks to join ranks as zealous outspoken advocates of these platforms is Tomism. Many of the inferences and conclusions of this platform allude to an unstated premise of black inferiority. For example, the conservative ideology places much emphasis on the individual, free will and personal responsibility. Hence, they see poverty as primarily an internally caused phenomenon born from individual laziness, bad choices and irresponsible acts. Thus, the fact that black people are 3 times poorer than whites implicitly concludes that blacks are 3 times as lazy, bad choice makers and irresponsible as whites....in other words...INFERIOR. What gene in black people makes this true, if these discrepancies are not the produce of a racist society? Also, this ideology wants to cut many of the programs, like Affirmative Action, that have helped blacks progress against the obstacles of white discrimination.

Tomism is also high among those blacks who can only seem to find non black people of the opposite gender to date or marry. I can understand demographics realities restricting the pool of available mates, for example, blacks in Vermont may not be exposed to a large enough pool. However, in places were there are large pools; it is hard to believe that one cannot find a qualified black to date or marry….if they really want to. This is not as true for the black female however….but the black male has no excuse. I think that when one makes a choice in a long term mate, it represents a vote of quality, rank and value for an individual. A vote for any group is automatically a vote against the other groups in the pool. When Alpha black males with high income and high profile positions choose not to share that life and success with a black female, that choice makes black women seem inferior, which only helps to promote negative self esteem in black women, relative to white women.

This is not to say that ALL interracial relationships are as such. Sometimes two souls are a better match than color and color should not be a barrier to such love. That having been said, the vast majority of relationships are born from superficialities and not the deepness of soul. Hence, bias often restricts the pool and thus the souls are filtered from superficialities….such as color. Now, narcissism is a natural and healthy bias, in moderation. A healthy self esteem about all aspects of oneself and being should lead one to choose a mate that shares some of these traits. However, if one sees something about themselves with insecurity, such as race, then they may become attracted to those who do not have the trait and this is essentially unhealthy.

In conclusion, we are all guilty of Tomism to a degree, but some are guiltier than others.

Proud and Fortunate to be American?

Are we, as black people, proud and fortunate to be Americans? Should we or should we not be? What if I ask the question another way. Let us say that something tragic be felled upon a loved one such as your parents and because of that tragedy, you received something of worth or value. Should you then feel pride or fortune for having something that manifested only as a resultant of your parents suffering? I think most people of conscious would not, assuming that they loved their parents.

When black people lament that we are proud or fortunate to be American, we have essentially divorced ourselves from the time continuum and from the love of our ancestors, while living in a fallacious vacuum of a point in time. Such among us have essentially divorced themselves from the continuum of actions and reactions that brought them to exist in this point in time in the present, seeing America and their existence here as some sort of divine luck or fortune. They see America as an asset created with no corresponding liabilities, because the choose to only look towards the future, thus writing off the past.

Think about it. Honestly…. How can one be proud and fortunate to be black in America, as descendants of slaves, without also being proud and fortunate that 12 generations of your ancestors were oppressed to put you at this present state and time? Would we be here if not for our ancestors suffering? The answer to that is a clear cut no. If not, when we die and our spirits meet with our ancestors, how will we explain our feeling of pride and fortune to them? Would we say that we were glad that their lives and souls were tormented, just so that our lives and soul could live in the most wealthy and hedonistic society the world has known? How will those proud and fortunate black Americans reconcile joy in the spirit world as contemporaries with their ancestors?

No black person in America, who is a descendant of slaves, should be proud to be here or made to feel fortunate just to be here. There is no fortune for black people in the aggregate analysis. When one adds up the lives and years, the collective of black people in America is experiencing a net loss and a negative net worth. Black people have given far more than we have received in this land, while collectively, whites have profited and risen from the transfer of the difference to their benefit. This is not to say that whites have not worked hard, struggled and have not been exploited to one degree or another in America. Rather, it is to say that the beneficiaries of white exploitation has always benefited other white peoples, not blacks or Natives peoples. All exploitation funneled the assets and wealth into the white collective.

America continues to disrespect black people. This nation of ours has not even given a formal congressional apology for the enslavement of centuries or our ancestors. Without a formal apology, we can dismiss any thoughts that this nation will take responsibility to repair and rehabilitate what it broke . Moreover, not only should their be apology and repair, there should also be recognition given to the true value and impact that slavery has had upon the creation of the society that many now enjoy. Could it have happened without centuries of slavery to get this nation on its feet and position it into the industrial revolution? I think not. To not acknowledge this is to suggest that our ancestors sacrifices meant nothing and that they have died in vain.

I am not suggesting that black people should hate America. I think that we need to qualify our statements about our being in America to include the recognition of our ancestors. If God blessed America, did the spirit curse black and native peoples to create the blessing? I do not think that God works that way. I do not think that God would condone people lifting themselves up by virtue of putting others down. Thus, the proper perspective is not a point in time, but rather, the summation of time or history. When we exclude history from our evaluation of America and our lives as black people in it…..we kill the spirit of our ancestors. For as the African proverb states, “as long as you are remembered….you never die”. This is why in the true African tradition, homage and respect is always paid to the ancestors

Race, Family Income and Standardized Tests:

.

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (Fair Test) has released some interesting information. This information caused the College Board which owns the SAT to demand that Fair Test remove the data from its website. Fair Test has put charts on its website that breaks down SAT scores by gender, ethnicity and family income. The College Board sent Fair Test a letter asserting that “publication of the data, significantly impacts the perceptions of students, parents, and educators regarding the services we provide." Fair test responded in a letter to the College Board stating: "That is precisely our goal”.

Looking over the charts, you will see that the data is quite interesting. The charts show that the SAT and ACT both render approximately the same results. The ACT Chart starts with families that make less than $18,000 per year going up to families with incomes of $100,000 per year; the higher the family income the better the scores. Does this reflect better parenting by rich folk or better access to good schools? The income differences rises in increments of six thousand, eight thousand and ending with increments of ten thousand by the time you get to sixty thousand a year and above. The test scores rise varies, but probably average around five points as you travel up the family income bracket, thus the family with a yearly income of 18k-24k a year scores on average 18.0 on the standardized test while a family with a yearly income of 24k-30k scores on average 18.7.

It is no secret that the more money a family make and the more affluent the community they live in, the better the schools in that community will be and the more money they will receive per pupil will be. When we break down the numbers by race the results gets worse. Black men and women average 17.1 the lowest on the chart with the highest being Asians and Whites with a tied average of 21.8. How does race and income for Black men and women affect our scoring on standardized test? The arguments are many, some argue that it is a class issue; some argue that it is a race issue. I believe it is both, and the proof is in the scores of children of the Black middle class.

In his book Solution for Black America, Jawanza Kunjufu writes about integrated schools that are segregated internally because of tracking, and schools that employ racist teachers with skewed expectations of Black children versus that of white children. Bush calls this “soft bigotry” as if that makes it less offensive and damming for our children. In his book Black Students – Middle Class teachers, Kunjufu notes that two consecutive years of ineffective teachers could destroy a child for life. Imagine having more ineffective teachers than effective teachers. How many of our children are right now sitting in a classroom with an ineffective teacher? I learned long ago that most people with an aversion to math avoid it because as a child being introduced to math and not understanding it, no one actually made sure they understood and now they avoid math like it is a disease of some kind. Most people will tell you as a child growing up when learning addition and subtraction they loved math, but as the math difficulty increased their understanding of it lessen and the response they received from their lack of understanding from teachers was one that made them feel stupid thus they shut down and every since, they have avoided math or any subject they did not understand.

I believe the charts on Fair Test site affirm a few things. It affirms that comments about personal responsibility or the lack there of in the Black community is the least of our problems as it relates to education. It affirms that Race and Income play far more a greater role in how our children do in school than most people are willing to admit and It affirms that America’s structural racist system only produces that which makes the system possible and is not structurally built or maintained to produce anything that may work against it and a strong and informed Black populace is not in the best interest of the system or those that benefit from it.

Applauding the system never changes anything!

.

It is a fact that applauding the system has never changed anything about the system, and applauding the system only serves to bolster any claims by the system that nothing is wrong. Knowing this, I put the question to all those who are always quick to point to how much better things are today for Black men and women than they were twenty, thirty or even forty years ago, what do you attribute things being better to if not the voice and vigilance of those who have fought against racism and white skin privilege.

Every where we look we see Negro-Cons and their many minions out front speaking about Black men and women having a victim attitude, we see it in their books, on their web sites and in their op-eds. We read about how they believe race based programs that are meant to ensure an opportunity is afforded to qualified Black men and women is wrong and or unconstitutional. We hear their criticism of Afri-centrist and those who they say behave as if they are the holders of Blackness and determine who is Black and who is not. They will quote MLK, they will make references to Malcolm X. They will do this while espousing Euro-centric philosophy and beliefs conjured up in various white think tanks.

One thing the Negro-Con and his or her minions never stop to consider as they speak ill of Black men and women and profess that we have a victim attitude is that it is only those that have fought hard against America’s structural racist system that actually brought about change. White folk have never acquiesced or changed anything in this nation out of the goodness of their heart; change has only come by way of protest or outright revolt. We can take something as fundamentally flawed and under funded as Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, this legislation did not come by way of some Negro-Cons sitting at the foot of his white counterpart cheering him on, it came by way of Black men and women protesting the gross intestacies of the public school system and the skewed expectations of racist teachers whom Bush has called “soft bigots”. It was not someone applauding the system that pointed out to Bush and his cronies the “soft bigotry” of Low expectations, it was those Black men and women that have fought and spoke on our behalf that first brought this form of racism to his attention.

You take any legislation, any laws that have been passed to help remove barriers that prevented Black man and women from achieving our goals and you will find that these laws and legislation came by way of progressive Black men and women speaking on our behalf. Negro-Cons sit back and speak and write about how much better things are and how things will continue to get better but nothing will get better or change by them applauding the system. Change has only come by way of protest or outright revolt against those things that are wrong. Thus it is those who are accused of having a victim attitude or perpetuating a victim attitude that have brought about change and not those who repeat the platitudes of white think Tanks and applaud the system.

War between grasshoppers is to the delight of the crows

There is an East African proverb that says that a war between grasshoppers delights the crows. We all know this proverb and its “divided are easily conquered” meaning is a truism. Is this what has begun to happen in the black community, with the wedge and division taking place in the form of political ideology? I believe so.

Black people need to be clear on one thing and that is the fact that liberalism and conservatism are white defined and controlled political ideologies. There are no pure viable outlets for black liberalism or black conservatism in America. For example, reparations would most definitely be on the platform of black liberalism. However, it is not on the platform of white liberals and hence is not on the platform of “liberals”, because white plurality gets to define the agenda. In regards to black conservatism, there are black people who do not want to support lazy people, but they do not want a blanket policy to cut assistance for everyone, because some people benefit without abusing it. However, white plurality defines conservatism and it wants to cut aid on the assumption that it only breeds dependencies, ignoring those who use it as a leg up.

There have always been black people with diverging social view points. However, we did so in the context of an implicit black unity that was required for our collective interest in a racist society. We may have disagreed with each other, but few of us sided, in lock step, with the people who had kept us down for so long and for those who did, there was a term for such a person that I need not mention. We have always understood that politics was mainly an intra-white competition of class interests and that our greatest competition as black people was against white interest to keep us down in this society. Hence, the best that we could hope for was that in the white two party competitions would produce some crumbs that went to our benefit.

Today, both black conservatives and liberals, as a whole, cannot manifest their pure beliefs, but instead, must accept the package deal of each ideology, produced and packaged by majority white interest. There in lies the danger to black people. The majority of white people have never demonstrated an interest in our problems and in fact, a good percentage of them actively have worked to keep us down through various degrees of oppression and discrimination, while many others practiced consent through silence, as they benefited indirectly from our oppression. So in essence, what has transpired is that blacks have been recruited in the competition of white interest, while black interest have no viable outlet and hence go unattended to. Now, black folks are arguing with one and other over WHITE INTEREST.

The history of politics in America has always been a white phenomenon. It started with white men who owned land. Then it was extended to all white males. Then universal suffrage gave white women a say in politics. Then last and least, the voting rights ensured that blacks were able to exercise their constitutional right to vote as citizens. The game of politics has always been a game of the white people, for the white people and by the white people. As black people, the only roles we play are in helping one side or the other side win or lose. If we split evenly down the middle in choosing sides, mathematically, our influence is thus totally negated, because it would have the same mathematical effect in the equation as if we did not vote at all. The white interest that won would thus be totally the product of the non black vote.

There was a big shift in sides chosen by whites post the civil rights era and the end to legal apartheid. A large number of Southern whites abdicated the liberal ideology because it had come to the benefit of blacks, whom they were trying to keep segregated and below them. This brought about a tilt where the majority of whites are now ideological conservatives and the minority of whites is now ideological liberals. If only whites voted, the conservatives would always win going forward. Thus, the white liberal interest is now dependant upon non whites, blacks traditionally, to forward white liberal interest. They realize that most blacks know that the proactive white racists have pooled in the conservative ideology and that conservative white interest are seen as the party of white racist. Hence, they calculate that most blacks will always vote against white conservative interest, which means an automatic vote for white liberal interest, if a vote at all.

In does not take a rocket scientist to see the effect of this and what phenomenon gets a pass, which is the reality of RACE and racism in America. For over 300 years, the primary dichotomy in this society for black people has been RACE. It has been the black/white divide that unified us in struggle for equality. Today, too many of us now see the primary dichotomy in this nation to be that of conservatives vs. liberals, ignoring our historical nemesis, which has been white folks. This is not surprising, because if we are to be accepted as players in this white game of politics, we have to play by their ground rules, which is the ignoring of race and the cause and effects of 300 years of black oppression upon the present. In order to play this game, we must “write-off” or decouple the present from the past, never linking the two in an explanation of how and why blacks have so many problems today.

The effect of all of this will eventually be that black interest will disappear and we will be morphed and assimilated into the dominant white interest and politics. Class will usurp race completely in the way we look at social issues and problems. Black elites will begin to look down upon the disproportionate black poor masses like white folks used to look down upon the whole of black peoples. Even though the rates of black poverty will be consistently 3 times, or more, the rate of white poverty, well-to-do blacks will still look down upon the poor black masses as being personally responsible this, just like white folks. They will ignore the 300 year history of black oppression and assimilate into the class warfare that has characterized white politics in America.

You never miss the water until the well runs dry

Contrast is one of the phenomenon’s that gives humans the ability to appreciate things in life. The absence of contrast often lead to humans taking things for granted. There is an old saying ; “You never miss the water until the well runs dry”. Hence, the appreciation for drinking water is heightened once life is contrasted with the absence there of.

America has had a giving social assistance program for so long, following the ravages of the great depression, that people have taken its benefit and need for granted. Over time, people lost the ability to contrast what this nation was like and would be like if not for the progressive social policies implemented to help the poor and disadvantaged. People now assume that the programs were bad ideas with the cost outweighing the benefits and incubating the conditions that it seeks to eliminate, instead of being to the "net" good.

The attempt to treat the poor is akin to taking a certain medication for so long that the person begins to think that her or she is healthy enough to live without it, because he or she is tired of the side effects. Such a person might stop taking the medication, eliminating the side effects, but then eventually falling victim to the disease's return, which the medication had kept at bay. At that point in time, the reality and contrast becomes clear again, thus compelling the person to appreciate the benefits of the medication once the more serious symptoms returned.

There are those in our society who want to eliminate the medication for poverty and disadvantage, due to the nagging side effects on this society. They seem to believe that hunger, malnutrition, death and other symptoms of abject poverty have been cured and that continued social medication is only causing addiction and dependencies as side effects. There is no contrast, after years of successfully treating abject poverty in America, that allow the human nature of some to see the benefit and appreciation of the medication that created the well being that exist…so they want to get ride of it.

A key prerequisite of any Endeavour or goal is the proper management of expectations. When dealing with social issues, one should never expect one size to fit all. It is unrealistic to believe that aid to the poor will not create some dependencies. It is unrealistic to believe that cutting aid to the poor will not increase human suffering, particularly among children and women. These are the binary options for our society, only because these are the cheapest options. No approach or a cookie cutter approach are the least expensive to implement. The best and most expensive (you get what you pay for) approach is the approach of tailoring aid to the specific needs, with oversight and incentives to not create dependencies and addiction on the aid. Thus, human suffering is reduced as well as dependencies.

The best approach will never be implemented going forward due to a combination of greed, racism and the political conduit to exercise those aims. There are people who believe in small government, to no small degree, because they do not want more disposable income and they have an aversion to their tax dollars going to help poor people that they believe are lazy and do not want to help themselves. This image of the poor manifest more acutely when their image of the poor or recipients of aid are black, as theorized in a recent Harvard study that compared why Europeans are more generous to the poor than are Americans.

To properly aid and teach the poor how to fish and hence become productive and competitive in society a massive commitment of funds, much greater than what has been spent in past efforts. However, given the crisis in social security and it’s under funding, the budget deficit, the infinite war on terrorism, the trade deficit and the rise of China as an economic threat to our standard of living, increasing social spending to adequate levels to promote the general welfare will not happen.

Affirmative Action and the inability of some to contrast “before” and “after”, also have people calling for the end of this program. The fallacious assumption behind this is that the disease of white racism has been cured and that this society now offers an “even” playing field, if not for Affirmative Action, which gives a racial advantage to blacks over whites in society. Moreover, people argue that the program rewards mediocrity in blacks and helps to explain why so many blacks underperforms, due to not having to be as good as whites when AA subsidizes the difference.

The Preamble to the constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”


These are the stated goals of our union, but in a government of the people, for the people and by the people, the people must enumerate these acts before the government can carry them out. Thus, if “the people”, in plurality, decide against these goals, “the people” can usurp the principles and goals that supposedly makes this nation great and separates from others morally.

The Jingoists seeks to boycott Will Smith..

.

Our Brother Will Smith has pissed some white folk off. Will Smith has always been one to speak his mind, even when being interviewed by the big wigs in media. I remember a few years a go Will was being interviewed by Barbara Walters on 20/20, she asked Will about the belief in the Black community that AIDS is a man made disease and without hesitation Will Smith stated that he too believed it and gave the reasons why he believed it. This interview was after many of the big movies he made and before others thus Will belief had no adverse affect on his standings in Hollywood.

Now there is this group of white folk that call themselves, Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood (PBAAH). This group has dug up an interview Will Smith gave in Germany four months ago wherein he answered a question asked of him concerning America and the attacks that happen here on September 11, 2001. Will was asked had those attacks changed anything personally for him, and he responded with:

“No. Absolutely not. When you grow up black in America you have a completely different view of the world than white Americans. We blacks live with a constant feeling of unease. And whether you are wounded in an attack by a racist cop or in a terrorist attack, I’m sorry, it makes no difference.”

The folk over on PBAAH, responded with:

“It is interesting to note that, on a certain level, Smith is comparing American police officers, those charged with protecting society, with Islamic terrorists intent on destroying America and everything it stands for. Smith implies that racism is so rampant among America’s police that it is a threat equal in magnitude to black America as that of international terrorism. Instead of seeing 9/11 as a traumatic watershed event that contributed to uniting black and white America and healing racial tensions, Smith seems to believe that the terrorist attacks have had little impact on what he sees as the poor state of race relations in the USA”

Take not of the fact that they did not offer anything that refuted what Will Smith said, they simply stated what he said implied that racism amongst American cops is a threat equal in magnitude to that of international terrorism. This is one of the many problems white folk have, they are so far removed from the day to day experience that Black men and women have with the Police in America that they would state something like this as if it is given that such a belief by a Black person is absurd. PBAAH lives in a dream world in that they belive those attacks united Black folk and white folk in America. Several Black men have been killed by the police since those attacks, thousand of Black folk have been stop for nothing more than driving while Black since those attacks. I am a firm believer that the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 had little to no impact on race relations in America something PBAAH said Will Smith seems to believe.

Will Smith went on to say:

"In the '60s, blacks were continuously the victims of terrorist attacks. It was civil terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless. We are used to being attacked. That constant state of vigilance - a sort of defensive state - that hasn't changed at all. For me, nothing has changed at all."

Will Smith is correct once again. Cornell West once called the attacks the niggerization of America, in that white folk in America were forced to live like Black folk live everyday. I am not surprised that PBAAH attacks on Will Smith is not rooted in a belief that what he said was false; they dislike what Will Smith stated because they like most republicans are nothing more than a group of savage jingoists bent on spreading their ideology throughout the world. The reason why PBAAH think something like this coming from Will Smith is absurd is because they see him as one of them, I mean he is rich, he is an actor whom persona transcends race in America thus they think he should no longer identify with the struggle of Black folk in America and forget about all that he experienced and witnessed growing up Black in America after all he is rich now and should not talk about racism. The Jingoist over at PBAAH have yet to learn that not all rich Black men and women are fooled by the amount of money they make and can still see the problems that racism cause in America. Big ups to our brother Will Smith!

Collin Powell Defends his Brother Kofi...

I am not a big fan of Collin Powell or Kofi Annan. If you have been following the rage coming from the American right in the last few months you know that they have been on a roll in their attacks on Kofi Annan. Kofi Annan is at the center of a controversy concerning the UN oil for food program. Most of those on the right have already concluded that Kofi is guilty and the senator from Minnesota have called for Kofi Annan’s resignation, although no improprieties have been proven to have happen as a result of his action or inaction in regards to the oil for food program. Right now there are a lot of allegations being tossed around including ones that state Kofi is trying to derail the investigation.

Collin Powell has done like a brother should do when his brother is under attack and being called many things without any proof of those things and no hearings haven been held, Collin Powell stated that Kofi Annan is a Good UN Secretary General. I see this as Collin Powell not having the knee jerk reaction that most white conservatives are having in regards to Kofi Annan’s alleged role in the Oil for food Program. Clearly those on the right are going after the UN because of the UN’s stance on the Iraq war, Collin knows this so he did like every brother should do, and he said his brother was a Good UN Secretary General until proven otherwise in regards to this oil for food investigation.

Now I know some of you will respond or would have responded about Kofi failings in other areas especially in regards to solving conflicts throughout Africa and especially his complete and utter failure to stop the slaughter of our brothers and sisters in the Sudan. I could not agree more with anyone who criticize Kofi for his inaction in these area’s but we all know the current investigation being undertaken by the US congress does not have anything to do with the loss of Black life in Africa and have everything to do with the UN not supporting Bush war in Iraq.

Big ups to Collin Powell for coming out a day after the Senator from Minnesota called for Kofi Annan’s resignation. Collin stated unequivocally; "These investigations are not of Mr. Annan, they are of the oil-for-food program, so let's wait and see what the results of these investigations are." That devil from Minnesota can pick his chin up off the floor now. I wonder will other Negro-Cons do as Collin has done, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Social Conservatism = Social Darwinism?

Does social Conservatism and social Darwinism represent a distinction without a difference? Social Darwinism is defined as a social theory that draws an association between Darwin’s theory of Evolution by natural selection and the sociological relationships of humanity (en.wikipedia.org). Social conservatism essentially believes in the NATURAL SELECTION and promotion of humans who have advantage over those who are at disadvantage. They do not believe that those with disadvantage should be helped to compete, but rather, should simply accept losing out in the competition of economics and life.

Social conservative ideology essentially is predicated upon the belief that those at the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy are innately superior and hence rose to the top from these traits, without the benefit of external assistance. Conversely, they believe that those who are poor are in that state due to being innately inferior in the competition. They are assumed to lack drive (lazy), intelligence (make poor choices) and personal responsibility and hence any assistance to them would be in violation of the natural selection process where survival goes to the fittest. It would amount to the subsidizing of inferiority, which will, in their opinion, promote and reward mediocrity and inferiority, hence threatening socioeconomic evolutionary progress, as well as, penalizing the superior (via taxes) to support the inferior.

Social conservatism, like Darwinism, is predicated in the belief of genetic traits that makes some “fitter” for survival and competition. In the West, that primary trait is “RACE”. There are surveys that show that the majority of white Americans associate poverty with laziness, as well as, other internal traits of causation. Given this belief, then it logically follows that because black poverty in America is 3 times that of whites, that whites must also conclude that blacks, as a general rule, are innately less “fit” for this economic competition than are whites. How else would they explain the racial discrepancies, given that they nearly all dismiss the history of racial oppression as having produced this inequality? Thus, even though you will not hear such an admission, nor should expect to, being white is seen as a superior trait over black and whites have made this belief a self-fulfilling prophecy via their discriminatory practices.

The hypocritical aspect of Social Conservatism/Social Darwinism is that Social conservatives lay claim to being "superior" Christians, while Darwinism as a belief/theory which is antithetical to the teaching of the Bible, creationism and how Jesus walked and lived. I am not suggesting that social conservatives profess and preach Darwinism, but rather, they practice it socially and economically. Jesus, from my understanding, did not turn his back upon the poor and attempt to deny them aid and assistance. He dwelled among them…not among the rich and successful. Social conservatives today narrowly focus on how government assistance breeds dependencies and cost them their hard eared tax dollars in the process, over the last 40 years. You never hear them talk about how hunger among children has been reduced…all that you hear about are the “welfare queens”, having babies to get more assistance while they drive fancy cars.

There is no panacea. Assistance can and does create some dependencies as a side effect, while not assisting has the effect of increasing human suffering, especially among children. I tend to believe that the former is the more “Moral” or Christ like choice.....but hey....thats just me.

The REAL reason why most White Americans are Conservative

We at black introspection have long argued the point of white racism in this society, to the chagrin of black conservatives and the denials from whites that they are indeed racist. In modern America, white racism has become a taboo and few whites have the courage to admit to others and even themselves, that they are indeed racist. Thus, one has to read between the lines of their rhetoric, which use code words and or makes inference and conclusions which implie an unstated racist premise of black inferiority.

I have stumbled upon some research by Harvard Scholars who were examining why Europe is more generous in its allocation and funding for the poor, than is America. In America, the attack on LIBERALISM and BIG GOVERNMENT is primarily a euphemism or Trojan horse used to attack the interest of black people who are attempting and in need of rising up from over 300 years of racial oppression. Those are not the Harvard Researchers words; they are and have been mine and the opinion of Black Introspection....loooong before such a study was done.

There are numerous issues that supposedly separate conservatives from liberals, however, we should not be fooled into believing that the ones talked about the most are the ones that matter the most to white people. The reason being is that white people have an extreme aversion to talking about race or topics that have profound racial implications behind the scene, because white folks fear being seen or interpreted as racist. One should not underestimate the stigma associated with being seen as a white racist today. It is such a force that whites rarely talk about it openly because the more they talk the more naked they become and the racist imperfections exposed. Thus, they like to remained clothed and hidden to hide these blemishes on their soul.

The attack on Liberalism is most profoundly an attack upon government transfer payments. This is why the conservative motto is “personal responsibility”. What that really means is that they do not want to be held responsible, via their tax dollars, for the problems of the poor, who they see as being the creators of their own poverty by virtue of making poor choices, being irresponsible, lazy and wanting something for nothing. Of course, these stereotype of the poor fall in line with the traditional stereotype of black people in this nation and given that black people are disproportionately poor, it logically follows that whites believe blacks are disproportionately poor choice makers (lack on intelligence), irresponsible and lazy. Hence, they do not want their supposedly hard earned tax dollars going to subsidize inferior peoples.

The role of the black conservative and their promotion as spokesman, by white conservatives, in regards to social issues profoundly affecting blacks, are done primarily as a shield or smoke screen to hide white racism. White conservative racism fights the black masses throught he proxy of the black conservative. These black conservatives then willingly, due to the rewards, perks and promotion they receive from white conservatives, zealously embark upon a campaign to paint the black underclass as the cause of their own problems….to the delight of the white establishment. These same blacks then fiend being taken aback by charges that they are “sell-outs” or “Uncle Toms”…….(whom the cap fits….let them wear it!)

Their conclusions were explained in one word…..RACISM. I need not say more at this point in time….rather I will just simply paste their summary findings. This is PROFOUNDLY true folks. I should help everyone better understand how much RACE matters in politics in America.

Two demographic acids are corroding Continental Europe's welfare states. One is Europe's aging population. The other is the flow of immigrants from soon-to-be new member countries in the European Union and from outside the union.

In our recent book Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Edward Glaeser and I discuss why the welfare state is so much more generous in Europe than in the US. One important explanation is the much larger racial heterogeneity to be found in the US relative to the more homogeneous Continental Western Europe.

Consider this: according to the World Value Survey, whereas 60% of Americans believe that the poor are "lazy," only 26% of Europeans hold this belief. Not surprisingly, those who adhere to such beliefs are more averse to redistribution and welfare, and evidence shows that in the US, those who express more "anti-minority" points of view are also more averse to redistribution and more likely to have less sympathy for the poor.

It seems easier for white middle class Americans to consider the poor less worthy of government support if they think of them as different. To put it crudely, but candidly, indifference comes easy if the poor are assumed to be mostly "black." This is more difficult in Norway, where rich and poor are white, often blond and tall.

Much experimental and statistical evidence shows that individuals trust and associate more with others of the same race. Precisely for this reason, political opportunists in the US have long used the race card to discredit welfare and redistribution, from the Jim Crow system that segregated blacks in the South before 1964 to the infamous Reagan-era charge about black "welfare queens" who drive Cadillacs. Right wing white politicians, predisposed against taxes and redistribution, use the race issue to secure the votes of poor whites, who otherwise might vote differently on purely economic grounds.

Even more fundamentally, racial considerations also influence the nature of America's political institutions. Proportional representation, widely adopted in Europe in the first decades of the 20th century, was never embraced by the US because it is a system that would allow black representatives to be elected regularly.

In Europe, however, socialist and communist parties imposed electoral systems based on proportional representation precisely because they open the door to representatives of minorities (the communists and socialists themselves). The few American cities that introduced this system in the Progressive era, between 1910 and 1930, soon abandoned it - or were forced to - in order to stop the election of black representatives. Today the only US city that uses proportional representation is the leftist bastion of Cambridge Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is widely viewed as one factor that promotes the implementation of redistributive policies by providing a political voice to minorities. Cross-country evidence shows that the size of public redistributive spending increases with the degree of proportionality in the electoral system.

There is more. Many redistributive programs in the US are run by the 50 states. States that are more racially heterogeneous have smaller redistributive programs, even controlling for their level of income. Welfare is relatively plentiful in the overwhelmingly white states of the North and Northwest (Oregon and Minnesota, to cite two examples) and in some states in New England (such as Vermont). It is lacking in the racially mixed Southeast and Southwest.

Continental Europe is becoming, and will become, more ethnically mixed as more newcomers from Eastern Europe and the developing world arrive. Xenophobic parties are on the rise across Europe; in some cases, they are in office. Think of Jörg Haider and the late Pym Fortuyn, or, to a lesser extent, Italy's Northern League. It will not be long before even Europe's more respectable conservative parties reach for rhetoric about "foreigners coming here to feast off of our taxes."

Simply put, when middle-class Europeans begin to think that a good portion of the poor are recent immigrants, their ingrained belief in the virtue of the welfare state will begin to waver. Even Europe's leftist intelligentsia now associates crime and urban squalor with immigration. The step from here to lamenting the high taxes spent on welfare for immigrants is a but a short one.

When this happens - and I say "when," not "if" - there are three possible political responses. One is to close borders to poor immigrants, eliminating any correlation between poverty and immigration. The second is to somehow restrict welfare benefits to "natives." The third is to reduce the size of welfare for all because political support for it is declining.

The first strategy is short sighted and the second odious. I hope that the third one will win out, because it would mean relatively open borders, no discrimination, and less government intervention.

Not to worry: the European welfare state will remain more generous than the stingy American one, but it may become more manageable and less intrusive. The fact that this will come about because of ethnic "animosity" is sad and depressing. The silver lining is that the European welfare state does indeed need trimming!

Alberto Alesina is Professor of Economics at Harvard University and the co-author of Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference (Oxford University Press).

SOURCE: