January 31, 2005

PBS and Black History Month..

PBS never lets us down when it comes to Black History month. They continue to demonstrte more than any other network an effort to put forth our story or atleast try. They are not going to let us down this year either, so get your vcr's, and dvr's ready.

PBS will be running a four Part series entitled "Slavery and the Making of America"

"SLAVERY AND THE MAKING OF AMERICA delves beyond the concept of slavery as a whole to focus on the remarkable stories of individual slaves, demonstrating that these Africans and African Americans were not passive victims but survivors who refused to concede their culture, character or spirit to the system that persecuted them. Over the last decade, leading scholars have unearthed a wealth of information that affirms and substantiates slavery's integral role in the development and growth of the United States."


On their Emmy Winning Show, American Experience they will commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Malcolm X death with a special entitled "Malcolm X - Make it Plain" due to air on Feb 21, 2005.

"This film chronicles Malcolm X's remarkable journey from his birth on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska, to his assassination at the Audubon Ballroom in New York City on February 21, 1965. His compelling story is told through the memories of people who had close personal and working relationships with him: prominent figures such as Maya Angelou, Ossie Davis and Alex Haley; Nation of Islam associates, including Wallace D. Muhammad, the son of Elijah Muhammad; and family members, including his wife, Betty Shabazz, and his oldest daughter, Attallah Shabazz. Included is extensive archival footage of Malcolm X, speaking in his own words at meetings and rallies, and in media interviews."


On Feburary 3rd they will show a documentary about "The Quiltmakers of Gee's Bend"

"THE QUILTMAKERS OF GEE'S BEND tells the story of the critically acclaimed African-American quiltmakers from Gee's Bend, Alabama. The New York Times hailed their work as "some of the most miraculous works of modern art America has produced." The documentary explores the extraordinary lives, inspirations and history of these women, and also follows them on a poignant and sometimes comical bus journey to see their quilts exhibited at a major museum."


On Feb 07, 2005 PBS will air Chilsholm '72 Unbought and Unbossed"

"Announcing her candidacy for president on the evening news, Walter Cronkite quipped, "A new hat — rather a bonnet — was tossed into the presidential race today." As revealed in "CHISHOLM '72 — Unbought & Unbossed," a new feature documentary having its world broadcast premiere on public television's P.O.V. series, this first-ever run by a woman and person of color for presidential nomination was no laughing matter. Nor was it a polite exercise in symbolic electioneering. The New York Democratic congresswoman's bid engendered strong, and sometimes bigoted opposition, setting off currents that affect American politics and social perceptions to this day. Shirley Chisholm died at the age of 80 on January 1, 2005, at her home in Florida. "


On Feb 01, 2005 (TOMORROW) PBS will be airing "February One: The Story of the Greensboro Four"

"February One: The Story of the Greensboro Four" offers an unusually intimate portrait of four familiar yet little-known men whose moral courage at age 17 not only changed public accommodation laws in North Carolina but served as a blueprint for non-violent protests throughout the 1960s. The film airs on PBS Tuesday, February 1, 2005.


America Beyond the Color Line with Henry Louis Gates Jr.February 6

In four programs, Gates travels to four different parts of America - the East Coast, the deep South, inner-city Chicago and Hollywood. He explores this rich and diverse landscape, social as well as geographic, and meets the people who are defining black America, from the most famous and influential - Colin Powell, Quincy Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Fannie Mae's Franklin Raines, Jesse Jackson, Russell Simmons, Chris Tucker, Alicia Keys, Maya Angelou, Morgan Freeman - to those at the grassroots.
Coming face to face with the people and places that constitute the African-American experience today, Gates confronts the issues he spends his time writing and thinking about: race, identity, integration, culture, class, the legacy of history and what it means to be black and American today.


– February 14 - 10:30PM
A film by Diane Bloom

"Viewers will be enthralled by this riveting film on the remarkable relationship of an outspoken black woman activist and an embittered klansman. The story of the altogether unexpected emergence of an alliance and a friendship between these two antagonists is moving, comic, and inspiring."
William E. Leuchtenburg, The William Rand Kenan Professor of History, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

"About 25 years ago, I met the two heroes of this film -- CP Ellis and Ann Atwater. Their story is one of redemption. I think it's the most important documentary I've seen, and may be the most hopeful film in years." Studs Terkel

Long Walk to Freedom
February 18th 10:30PM

An intimate portrait of the 20th century great leaders, Nelson Mandela.

Check your local TV direcory for correct date and times of these shows.

These are the programs I know about, there may be more.

January 30, 2005

Talking East while Walking West

Lets talk a little bit about what conservatives and republicans champion to the poor, which is choices, responsibility and accountability. Apparently, the republicans like to talk East while walking West. No one in the current republican leadership, nor their pundits, are willing to take responsibility for all the miscalculations or outright prevarications concerning the Iraq occupation.

How can anyone of character and substance preach to the masses personal responsibility and accountability, while refusing to be responsibly and accountable when the shoe is on their foot. I guess the republicans are the party of do as we say and not as we do. This administration is not even willing to admit that it made mistakes or miscalculations. The first step in being responsible and accountable is to make an admission that one made errors, bad judgments in their choices. However, if one is lying about their motives, their were not mistakes, only prevarications.

How could Dr Rice be promoted after the Iraqi debacle? Talk about rewarding incompetence or deceit, this is a good example of it, notwithstanding her intellectual accomplishments and credentials. If she is as intelligent as they say, then by default she is either simply a token “yes man/women” or simply deceitful. However, what is even worse is that the people did not even hold the main choice maker, George Bush, accountable for all the know mistakes and unfounded pretexts given for out actions, which cost over a thousand American lives thus far.

This is supposed to be the party of morality. Well if that is so, they have their own self serving working definition of the term. I think what morality means for conservatives is simply sitting in church and professing a belief in Jesus Christ. There belief, in and of itself, is their salvations and thus requires no works or deed of righteousness and morality. When they are not faced with temptations, they seem moral. However, when they face temptation they are as immoral as they come. It is easy to say that others make bad choices and should be personally responsible, when one is not and have not been in their situation.

I refuse to accept that so many Americans can be that credulous and accepting of right wing propaganda. There is something insidious and ulterior about why so many people are still supporting the republicans to the degree that the president could be reelected. It has nothing to with morality, the belief in personal responsibility, accountability or anything like it. I think that the real reason that Bush was reelected is due to fear, taxes and racism.

The ubiquitous resentment of every republican is taxes. The crux of the matter is simply that they do not want to pay them. They/we are already the riches people on earth, yet, republican types want to be even richer and the government is keeping them from this goal with “big government” and giving their hard earned money to lazy black folk. That bring me to the other motive of why so many people continue to vote republicans. They want to cut aid and programs that they see disproportionably being utilized by black people. This is the old racist historical reality of America, represented in politics by the “Southern Strategy”.

Fear, however, following 911, is what really got Bush reelected. When people are scared, they and feel the need to be protected, they gravitate to the bad boys. People often wonder why women are attracted to bad boys types. One of the primary reasons for this is the sense of protection from others dating a bad boy, notwithstanding that the bad boy may whoop on them to from time to time. The American people in fear see republicans in general and George Bush in particular as “Bad boys”. They are willing to shoot first and ask questions later and a fearful America is attracted to such traits after 911.

I am almost totally repulsed by politics. How anyone can put so much faith and trust in this game is beyond me. People co-opt the parties platform and rhetoric and expose it with the passion as if it were dictates given to them by God personally. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

The making and meeting of expectations in IRAQ

In Iraq, the primary phenomenon that will determine the long term outcome as a nation is the management of expectations by the US. One can only feel disappointed or cheated if one has an expectation of what will be. Often times, human expectations can be very unrealistic, bordering on fantasy. Other times, our expectations are set by promises or using other entities success as an expectation of the fruits that will come to us. The US must ensure that the expectations that it has created, in the rationalizations for its invasion, are meet. Failure to do so will create a worse Iraq than before.

The success or failure of Iraq’s future democracy will come from expectations juxtaposed against the realities. When the US vilified Saddam and blamed most of Iraqis problem directly on his shoulders, it created the expectation that removing Saddam would lead to a better Iraq. The failure of that to have manifested, to date, is largely what is responsible for fueling the current insurgency. It is true that some things have gotten better, but it has been offset by other things becoming worse. A people who used to live in fear of their leader, now live in fear of each other. There has been no net gain, yet, the expectation of the people is for just that.

Had the regime change brought about immediate improvement in the lives of the people, the insurgency could have never taken roots to the degree it has. Instead, two years post the topple of the regime, a good percentage of Iraqis see no change for the better and many see things as being much worse. It is this disappointment that leads many Iraqis to feel lied to and manipulated for the control of their resources by America and thus to pick up arms against the current power structure in an insurgency.

Now, we have the appearance of democracy in the form of elections. The propaganda from America is that Democracy is the salvation. You have Iraqis who are salivating and excited over being able to choose their leaders. This jubilation is born from one primary expectation, which is the expectation that choosing their leaders will make their lives better. People do not vote just for the sake of voting. Rather, people vote because they want the ability make change in politics that will make their lives better.

If a year after the elections the people of Iraq see no fundamental change or improvement in their lives, the whole thing will fall apart in anarchy or civil war. This begs the question of why and how would simply having an election change anything on the ground? Would such improve the economics? Would such make the streets safer from criminals? Would it improve electrical output? Would in improve the long lines Iraqis must wait in for fuel? Would it end the insurgency? Will the American troops leave?

One can see already that the US is trying to subdue expectations and to call the election a victory in and of itself. We are now starting to point to our own democracy and how long it took our nation to rise from oppression, to subdue the expectations of Iraqis and Americans. That might work on the Americans, but it will not suffice for the Iraqi people. I am sure that they are not willing to wait 200 years before this thing takes off and bears fruit. They will need to se results in a few years.

If the US was smart, it would be “holding back” delivery of things until after the election. Then post election start ramping up meeting the expectations of the people so that the people will assume that things are getting better by virtue of democracy. However, all indications are that the US is not smart, if one extrapolates from the recent empirical facts. In fact, everything has been a miscalculation, if not prevarication, on the part of the US.

What the US should have did was to time these milestone events with the ability to deliver change that would work to meet the Iraqis expectations. That requires foresight, planning and the willingness to be flexible, in regards to troop strength and monies. Instead, staying the course and saving face has lead to the inability of promises to meet realities for the Iraqi people. Yes, I said promises. You do not invade a nation, killing an estimated 100,000 innocent Iraqis, who would most likely be alive today if Saddam was still in power, unless you are making the people a promise. We did not rationalize our invasion based on removing Saddam “might” make the peoples lives better and the world safer, it was an implied promise, based upon the sacrifice to do it.

The truth is that we do not know for certain what the goals and plans of our nation is in Iraq. We would be fools to simply trust what they tell us or to believe that what they are telling us is their motives is their ONLY motive. It may be true what they are telling, but what they are omitting may be of greater weight in the motivation of our activity. The argument can be very easily made that we want to keep troops in Iraq for a long time. It is not secrete that we need or want military bases in the Middle East and that we want to ensure the flow of oil is not used politically to hurt our interest. However, the people of the Middle East do not want US troops based on their soil. So instability in Iraq could work to our geopolitical advantage.

January 28, 2005

Form over Righteousness

Have we reached the evolutionary apex of political/economic human constructs? Has all there been and is the only choices of what can be going forward? Have we accepted the belief that there will never be any construct “better” than the political/economic construct of Democracy/capitalism?

I for one believe that there is too much focus and competition over construct, as opposed to righteousness and benevolence. The weak link in any construct is the humanity running it, not the construct itself. For example, most Americans believe in God. Yet, God runs a dictatorship in that she/he has absolute rule and that he/she has created the laws and commandments for humanity. Failure to adhere to the dictates or to accept the force as the supreme and only God comes with punishment in the after life. Yet, if we define dictatorial construct as inherently evil, then is God and religion inherently evil too? It is no wonder why so many democratic nations see theocracies as “repressive” and as denying people freedom. However, increasing freedom does not necessarily increase righteousness. It can, and I am sure does, open the door for unrighteousness for entities as well. American culture is in a downward spiral of moral decay. Yet, most people fail to link our individual freedoms to this decay, because we don't want to give them up. Some want to interject more religion into the state, however, such would increase repression and oppression, as it does in all other theocracies.

Any time there is a construct were a single or a few entities are determining what masses should do, with consequences for those who do not follow, it is dictatorial. However, it is not necessarily unrighteous. On the flip side, if the majority of people are evil, the democratic majority rule construct will produce evil leadership as well. High moral sounding documents, like our own constitution, will only have nominal theoritical value, but not practical application. For example, our constituion declared that all men were created equal, while having certain color men in bondage. The majority of people do not even have to be evil…just ignorant and credulous. Thus, evil can come and manipulate the ignorant and credulous into believing that what is truly unrighteous is actually being done for righteous motives. We have empirical evidence of this coming from the acceptance and practice of slavery by many so called Christians in America. They rationalized to the people that slavery was righteous because it was in the savage Africans best interest, to bring them among “civilized” people and to the proper God. They even pointed to scripture, all while living in a democratic republic.

When we talk about granting freedom, we must talk in the context of maturity. Children often want freedom from the dictates of the parents when they are young. However, children lack the maturity to make the decisions that are in their best interest often. If you given children enough freedom, they can become their own worst enemy, as well as, problematic for others. In regards to maturity, where is humanity on the evolutionary scale? Are we still in infancy or childhood in regards to evolution? Have we stopped growing, mutating and evolving to something more mature, intelligent and benevolent? It is very possible that we are not at the evolutionary stage to totally handle freedom, without that freedom ultimately hurting humanity more than advancing it. That is a philosophical point to ponder. A hundred thousand years from now, if humanity still exists, I can almost guarantee that it will NOT be with the models and paradigms that exist today, in regards to political and economic construct. It will be something more righteous and equitable than current constructs. The big change systems will be rooted in the foundation of mutual human cooperation as opposed to fueling systems via human competition as exist today. It will be a global world without national borders of division and competition, resulting in warfare, wealth redistribution and poverty.

Under the competitive construct, things are constantly evolving and improving in order to stay ahead of the competition. For example, it is competition in the free market and the absence of monopolies that keeps companies from exploiting consumers. This is why the nation imposed anti-trust laws against industries monopolizing industries. However, what about political constructs? What would the absence of competition political constructs do for humanity? Let us not forget that that many of the civil rights gain of the 60’s were related to the competition against communism. Our nation had a hard time justifying condemnation and criticism of the treatment of people in Russian and China, when it was legally oppressing its own black citizens. All these nations had to do was to point the finger back and the USA treatment of black people and say that we were just as evil. Thus, this competition added pressure on our government to grant civil rights to all its citizens so that we could condemn communism without being hypocrites.

It stands to reason that if democracy became ubiquitous around the globe, that the absence of competition would result in democracies morphing into something more oppressive, while being democracies only in a nominal sense. Multinational corporate interest would become a global oppressor, rewarding just enough of humanity to pit them against those that it exploits, thus keeping the systems in place through voting and the democratic process. This is my fear of what is down the road with the new world that is being driven by the USA. I believe that the primary goal of the spread of democracy is not freedom for people, but rather, freedom and access for western capital and privatization and control of assets in other lands. In the open bidding for these assets, western deep pockets will nearly always win and the resources and labor of developing nations will come under the control of Western interest, as well as, new consumers. It is not altruism that is behind the push to spread democracy and capitalism. Rather, it is simply greed. As I noted above, ignorance and credulous can lead to the brainwashing of the masses to believe that actions rooted in greed are actually motivated by righteousness and benevolence.

Invariably, people who critic the current system of democracy and capitalism, as practiced, are condemned as being supporters of other forms of system that curretly exist (they don't entertain the option that I am seeking the creation of a construct superior to all that exist or have existed...its a philosphical critic not an advocacy for another system). The effect of this is that evolution is halted and stagnation manifest. There is not motivation for improvement if one believes that because what we have is the current best there is that we also live under the best system that can be. Those who condemn critics and critiques of the system are forcing its stagnation. That which stagnates in a changing world often degrades and falls behind eventually. If and when that happen, it will be the result of a nation of people who are unwilling to change and evolve due to an unwarranted belief in superiority.

January 26, 2005

Zero Sum Game

I would like to talk a little bit about economics. I tend to be the type of thinker that starts from the premise of human biological instincts and drives. Such is the root of all our behavior. The two pillars of human drive and instincts are the seeking of nutrients and the seeking of reproductive activities, which leads to a competition for survival and progeny. Economics is actually both a competition for nutrients, as well as, a competition for mating. It provides the system, means and rewards by which are able to feed ourselves, plus, acquire material things to help the males compete for mating opportunities over alpha females. Hence the ultimate drive or motivation for economics is eating and copulating and the disproportionate allocation of income and wealth is born from this competition, which is profoundly unfair.

In our economic system of capitalism, success and failure are the opposite wings of the same bird. It is the creation of the system, for the system and by the system. In other words, wealth and poverty, to a large degree, are the creation of the other in a competitive system under the laws of supply and demand. The primary proof of this is that all competition produces winners and losers, if not a draw. The nature of competition is the creation of relative phenomenon of success and failure, the opposite wings on the bird of competition. Hence, any competitive system or construct, as capitalism is, produces the equal and opposite reaction of success and failures, in relative analysis, if not absolute. Moreover, the nature of competition is that in the absence of equality, which is the draw, everyone cannot be winners; some must have a lesser status than others.

The law of supply and demand in the free market is what determines the rewards in economic competition under capitalism. The value or reward for the possession of a resource or asset is increased based upon the supply relative to the demand. If demand for an asset exceeds supply, then the value or reward for that asset increases above the equilibrium point of value or reward (units of supply matches units in demand). If demand for an asset is less than the supply, then the reward or value of the asset falls below the equilibrium point of equality. Reward and value is generally measured in income and price variables. Hence, we are talking in terms of wages and prices. Wages and prices are what determine the level that one is able to acquire nutrients for survival and material possession for survival and competition for alpha mates.

The illusion or propaganda of the system is that it is not a zero sum game. True, it is not an absolute zero sum game, but it is a much closer to being a zero sum than the propaganda of “win-win”. The “zero sum”, for those who may not know, means that there is no net gain or that gains are always offset by losses equal losses. As an example, take the National Football League (NFL). The NFL is a zero sum game. The number of losses always equals the number of victories in the league. Every team in the NFL cannot be winners simultaneously. It is a mathematical impossibility. If there are currently teams with losing record and teams with winning records and the league wanted to promote parity, the only way that such could manifest is that currently elite teams harbor more losses, while currently losing teams harbor more victories. In essence, parity or equality, as a goal, requires a loss for the elites, in a zero sum or near zero sum system.

In our economic system, the economic elite essentially have power to shape the game and competition through politics. Their goal is to preserve their status and rank and to fight against equality, because as shown, equality in a competitive construct and system can only be achieved with the lowering of the status of the elites and a redistribution of reward and value to those at the bottom rung. There are many things that obfuscate and camouflage this reality, because the system is so complex and have so many variables and the elite uses the complexities to hide the root realities. The goal of everyone is at least maintain, if not strive for a better life. Thus, one should expect fear and intransigence on the part of the elites to take a loss in a zero sum game. The only difference between the desires of the rich and poor is that the desires of the rich are backed by power to manipulate and shape the game in their favor, where the poor have no such power and are often dived to fight among each other and not unify against the elites.

Beyond the theoretical, let me provide some practical manifestations of what I am saying about supply and demand and zero sum. Let us take a profession such as Engineers. Engineers command a pretty decent salary. But what would happen if all of a sudden more people became educated increasing the number of people with engineering degrees way over Demand? The long term free market resultant is that Engineering salaries would stagnate and being eroded in real dollars going forward due to inflation. Thus, the direct resultant of people gaining education and Engineering skills, created a loss to for existing engineers. That was just one example. If you take the entire economy and what it demands for in terms of labor and skill sets, it is estimated that only around 26% of that demand requires a college degree. These degreed jobs offer the most reward in terms of compensation, due generally to the supply of the college educated relative to demand. However, if the educational system was overhauled to produce a labor pool where 80% of the population held marketable degrees, while the economy only demands that 26% of the labor pool be educated, the salary of the educated elite would plummet over time. Again, thee rise of the uneducated would come at the expense of those currently educated…a zero sum.

As the great Carthaginian General Hannibal once notes”. “It is not that I must succeed, rather, it is that others must fail”. The nature of competition is such that one can promote their victory and rewards by sabotaging others in the game. No one wants to take a step backwards and everyone is striving to take step forward. No one is striving to have less, if not striving to have more. The power of the incumbency of the economic elites gives them the motive, means and opportunity to ensure that they continue to maintain, if not strive for more. The only way that such can be accomplished is by using such power to sabotage the chances of the poor. They cannot sabotage in such a way as to create a caste system or the people will see the system for what it is and rise against authority and the system. Thus, it is not made so hard that some cannot rise from the bottom to the top. Rather, it is made so that probabilities will keep most from being able to reach the top.

The White Abstract King: Misperceptions and Corrections (A Quotatarium)


If they shall fall away, [then] renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” - Hebrews 6:6

The shame of course, as the title suggests, is the historical memory and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What has been crucified anew, if you will, (hijacked is more like it) is that very same legacy and memory of exactly what he was about and what he stood for.

A preceding portion of that scripture quoted above suggests, intriguingly so, that it’s impossible for the People Of The Dream, so to speak, to “fall away”. This brings to mind a curious notion I have long since pondered on:

If White Americans regard the racist beliefs and actions of the "founding fathers" and other otherwise great American leaders or icons of the past as simply something that could be attributed to “the times in which they lived”, are the racial attitudes and beliefs Whites have today merely a function, a convenient reflection of the times in which we live in today?

The underlying truth and premise there is that White Americans, in truth, have been historically on the wrong side of race-relations. If we go by the rhetoric of the majority of Whites (and some Blacks who are at least in some respects ideologically or philosophically aligned with what is largely "White thinking"), they would have us to believe that the People Of The Dream, Black people, have indeed fallen way. Now, excuse me, but that's some funny math. And no amount of funny carnival mirrors can compensate for the obvious distortion one would have to accept to make such a premise believeable. But, there does seem to be some support, or at least a theory, for why my thoughts above ring true:

None of the civil rights acts of the 1960's were supported by the majority of whites. [Up to 74% felt that Negroes were "moving too fast" and "asking" for too much.] Neither was desegregation via the Brown v Board decision. And needless to say, neither was abolition of slavery. But interestingly, after laws were changed, more and more people (though admittedly not enough) came to accede to the new norm, and actually reduced their opposition to such laws and changes. Keep in mind, most people are conformist. They assume the laws are legitimate, and the state is legitimate. As a result, when activists force changes, over time (sometimes a very short time), most people come to at least passively accept those changes..." Tim Wise

Passively? Perhaps passively aggressive would be more accurate but at issue here is not just the views of White Americans. Certainly and, obviously, any number of any people of every race/ethnicity in America (or the world for that matter) would seem to latch onto the MLK captured in one line or two of his famous “I Have A Dream” speech. We all know it by now, the homogenized (and bastardized) catch-phrase “content of character” and the other assorted Brotherhood Of Man, colorblind themes. Black folks and White folks holding hands. Ain’t that grand? Such fabulous myths.

Seriously, the force of those words, in context and direct from the source, of course are hardly problematic. The way they have been kidnaped, raped, misappropriated and coopted are without question - problematic. They have been used to shrink and reduce his words, his beliefs in a way to where his most to-the-point views have been rendered unrecognizable. That, of course, is no accident. But Dr. King was particularly mindful of the pretenses of Whites, in particular, who proclaimed to be all for him but were really more of a hinderance.

To highlight my point, I couldn’t help but directly borrow this quote from James Agee taken from a piece on the same subject written by Paul Gaston. It captures this decrowning of King (the taking away some of his ruling philosophies) with uncanny accuracy:

The deadliest blow the enemy of the human soul can strike is to do fury honor... Official acceptance is the one unmistakable symptom that salvation is beaten again, and is the one surest sign of fatal misunderstanding, and is the kiss of Judas."

I can hear the words of that (new) Negro spiritual, “Where you there when they crucified my (Dr.) King?”

Certainly, Dr. King has been put to shame and crucified by those who have cynically misused his words against some of the very things he was adamant and unmistakably vocal about. I need not mention Affirmative Action, for surely he weighed in on that even before it earned its name... On the Pro side. I won't mention that he openly advocated for essentially hard quotas. That would seem to suggest he actually was practical and realistic. Note: He spoke about the prevailing dialogue were the White consensus view was to merely concede equal rights (under the law) to Blacks, in minimalist fashion, and how their Letter Of The Law sense of what equality was, was unrealistic - not to mention in violation of obvious logic and the Spirit Of The Law (of equilibrium).

No, and I won't mention how MLK by all appearances was down with Reparations. It's pretty clear that he felt that "They Owe Us" and he said things that literally said just that as well as figuratively calling for "checks". No, talking about all that would be a distraction to the from all this dreaming we like to do. All this devoid of reality rationales some of us, too many of us come up with.

"We've come a long we, but we still have a way to go." If that wasn't so cliche it would be passe'. Such is the stuff of supreme mythology. The empty and meaningless necessary rhetoric for the illusion that there is a commitment to do just that - go all the way. The fact that Kings most practical and relevant views have been marginalized is resounding evidence that there is no such commitment.

Despite new laws, little has changed...The Negro is still the poorest American -- walled in by color and poverty. The law pronounces him equal -- abstractly -- but his conditions of life are still far from equal." - MLK

Something that's abstract is something that is removed from reality. Something that is said and mentioned in a way to draw attention away from the recognizable truth of what has made things current the reality. Finally, something that's abstract, like the prevailing ideas of what "equality" is in America, is something that is disassociated, disconnected from what is specifically at issue. So there is no wonder why King's Dream is what is promoted. Dwell on the abstract and you don't have to be bothered with the troubling facts that come from America's troubling past. Let's just forget that. Along with that, let's forget the conditions King put on his dream too. Conditions he put on just about everything he said.

Obviously, Dr. King wanted to deal with the real. Instead of just merely being satisfied with "equal rights", Dr. King knew that it would take more than the mere passage of laws or even a change in White attitudes towards Blacks to make winning civil rights meaning. He spoke in very specific terms, not just dreamy ones. One specific thing he spoke on was, as his quote above suggests, how he felt there was a pressing need to have real equality in every aspect, every condition of life, not just equal rights on the law books.

So, it is obvious that he recognize both race and class were inextricably tied (again, look at the quote). And, he was an avid proponents of redistributive policies. Again, he did favor Reparations, quotas, and affirmative actions style programs without question. Unlike those who pretend to know him but don't or would rather dismiss his discomforting views, he vigorously thought and rethought what it would take to achieve racial JUSTICE for Black people. That, he saw as no contradiction to his noteable "content of character" clause. So, bump what you've heard.

MLK spoke widely about radical change. And, no, even after the passage of the Civil Rights Acts he still wasn't satisfied. (If you read "I Have A Dream" you would know he set conditions on that too. "We will not be satisfied until...") Even after that, after Blacks were allowed to vote he still advocated radical change and even used that term radical with the term revolution. Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that his vision for America and for how Blacks could become fully "equal" would undoubtedly be radically different from what we have today. He wanted to get to the root of the matter. And, at the root of that was the problem he saw his people in.

"The Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for the concrete and prompt improvement in his way of life." - MLK

See?? He didn't dwell on the abstract. Yes, he had a dream but he spoke widely on Remaining Awake.

Here are some selected quotes to shatter some misperceptions, detach those still in the abstract and properly put MLK into proper perspective with his own words on things that were beyond just dream-speak:


January 24, 2005

The fear of black unity.

Upon watching a recent episode of the Discovery Channel, it confirmed the validity of what I had come to realize from observation and history, which is the fact that human instinct directs humans to hunt in groups. Early humans found that their survival odds were increased by banning together for the hunt for nutrients and for protection. Even though human economics has progressed from the stages of hunters and gathers, our biology is still programmed by this natural selection evolutionary tendency morphed over tens of thousand of years. The vast majority of humanities evolution has been in the stage of hunters and gatherers, all other subsequent eras represent only a drop in the bucket of natural selection evolutionary biological programming.

Knowing our biological predispositions and programming is important because it lays the foundation of human understanding and is or should be the starting point of all inferences and conclusions concerning human behavior and proclivities. The human drive to group and hunt is still strong today, but it manifest differently. Team sports are one of the most satisfying adventures for humans because it satisfies an urge to group for competition. Politic parties are another form of ideological human grouping to compete for ones ideological interest. Nations are grouping for global competition. Street gangs are grouping for competition. Organizations are grouping for competition. Religions are grouping for the competition of souls and everlasting life. Families are groupings for competition. Hence, biologically, humans need to feel a sense of belonging to a group to feel protected or to forward their interest through strength in numbers.

In light of this biological predisposition and empirical evidence that grouping together for protection and competition is the rule and has proved successful in human evolution and survival, there is much intransigence to black groupings. There seems to be a fear of black people unifying as a competitive block in this world. The rationalization goes like this: If black people can unify under the banner of black interest, why cannot white people unify under the banner of white interest? That is a fair question. Nothing will stop white people from unifying for competition but the lack of a competitive threat. White are enjoying the bounty from their centuries of colonialism and imperialism predicated and rationalized based upon the inferiority and savage nature of non white peoples. Their disproportionate assets and wealth is the direct result of European conquest on non white people land (and resources), labor and capital. Thus, when non white people who have been oppressed and exploited under white supremacy coalesce, whites see this as a threat and hence rationalization for renewed white collectivism to hold onto their privilege and superiority of wealth and conditions.

The quagmire for black people is that every action creates and equal and opposite reaction. The action of our unification to promote our shared interest of protection and economics creates the equal and opposite reaction in whites to do the same. Thus, the force that originally created our problems, white racism, is invigorated when we attempt to unify and recover to lift and protected the interest of the masses of our people. Whites today generally do not see themselves as part of a white collective competition. They see themselves as individuals instead. The actions of past white collective actions has accrued and passed down so much wealth to white peoples that they do not need to hunt and compete as “whites”. Today, they hunt and compete as members of political parties and nations, to preserve their interest. Therefore, they do not see themselves as “whites”, but rather, “Americans”, “Conservatives” or “Liberal” (few label themselves liberal, however). All these teams are effectively vehicles to provide defense and offense for white interest, in a plurality rule construct where whites represent the plurality in each competitive entity.

Black people forming black unity constructs, whether in the form of Black Nationalism or political parties are threatening because, whites could never have plurality and control over the entity, in a democratic construct. Hence, the block would become a competitive threat to the interest of whites, in perception, if not in reality. The preference is to have blacks join any of the groups controlled by white plurality, which essentially subdues black interest and integrate blacks into the intra-white competition between liberals and conservatives or between America and other nations and regions. Under such diffusion, the black collective globally will never rise, because there is no group effort to defend or proactively promote our interest.

January 20, 2005

Two wrongs do not make a right, but it does produce equality.

Can racism be a cure for racism? Some say no. Yet, analogously, how can snake venom be a cure for snake bites? How can counter violence be a cure for a violent attack? How can kidnapping a person and holding him against his will be a cure for the wrongs a person commits against another in the form of a crime? How can setting a controlled forest fire help prevent and cure out of control forest fires? How can injecting people with a virus help prevent people from contracting the virus? If a leg was broken and healed without being set properly, the re-breaking of the leg is required to reset it so that it can heal properly.

The truth is that the effects of racism cannot be offset without the practice of racism. Inequality was created from unequal treatment of equal peoples. The only way to undo the effects of unequal treatment is to reverse the unequal treatment. Mathematically, inequalities are created when an equation that was once equal is manipulated asymmetrically. In other words, one side is treated out of balance with the other, changing the equality to an inequality. A fundamental rule of mathematics is that in order to maintain equality, both sides must be treated equally. Thus, the only cure for inequality is to go forward with reversing the unequal treatment of sides. That is the only solution that logic provides.

In my own life, I practice discrimination. Any thing that I have of value I try to share that with another black person. I know many wonderful white people, but none of my best friends are white. I believe in targeting black people with for the sharing of all the things that I feel have value and worth. It is not that there are not white people who do not merit this sharing, but rather, that the inequality will never be broken unless discrimination is done to favor black peoples. If one accepts the proposition that blacks must pull themselves up their bootstraps, then they are promoting black racism and discrimination in favor of our people to do just that. Others argue towards individualism and that individuals should succeed or fail ignoring collective membership. However, historical white racism was a collective action that had a collective racial effect and thus requires a collective counter action.

I object to the notion that equality can be restored without focusing on race, which some people call or see as being racist. If a person has a broken leg, it does not make sense to treat each limb equally, if the goal is to cure or heal the breakage. A competent physician would target the limb that was broken for treatment, thus giving it attention and effort not provided to the other. When there is a specific ailment on should not seek a general treatment, but rather, a specific treatment. The idea that we can somehow effectively treat past racism with a colorblind solution is illogical, as I demonstrated mathematically. It is a concept that is the creation of a white supremacy nation that continues not to be contemporary with the true realities of the problem and cure of black problems in this nation. Whites cannot accept it when they too must assume some burdens in providing the cures for past racism (such as Affirmative Action), which means by default that they can accept that blacks continue to suffer from the effects of past and present white racism.

In conclusion, although many white people allow themselves to feel normalized by highlighting and pointing out black racism, it is not the same phenomenon as white racism. Racism and discrimination, done carefully and strategically, that moves an inequality towards equality is a logical and good thing. On the other hand, racism and discrimination that augments inequality, which white racism does, is a bad and illogical thing. They only way that this would not be true is if one assumes that the premise that the races are equal in capacities is actually false. Then the whole logical theory does not hold water for those who believe that that genetics keeps blacks from being able to perform equally to whites in the type of behaviors and achievements that create income and wealth

January 19, 2005

Russell Simmons, President of the NAACP?

It is being rumored that the NAACP is considering Russell Simmons to be the next president of that Organization. If there has ever been a time where the next President of this organization will be important to the survival of it, this is that time. The NAACP is under attack from all directions, but most importantly from the BUSH administration and their watchdog group called the IRS. The NAACP has been very critical of Bush for his refusal to meet with the Organization and attend its annual meeting. Bush has however attended the annual gathering of the National Urban League. The NAACP is in a bit of a crisis with Kwesi Mfume stepping down in the midst of its battle with the Bush administration and facing an audit by the IRS that may lead to the organization loosing its non-profit status.

The worst thing the NAACP can do right now is appoint Russell Simmons to head this organization. Russell Simmons has direct ties with the hip-hop industry and has on many occasions defended the industry and the filth it puts out. I can not imagine how the NAACP got to this point where they would even consider Russell Simmons as a possible successor to Mfume. Russell has done some good; I do not want anyone to think that the Russell has not been an activist. His biggest accomplishment to this day as far his activism goes is his recent work to get the Rockefeller Laws over turned.

Although the president of the NAACP is not considered a political figure, he will and must be able to speak to political issues and have creditability when speaking on those issues. This is where I think Russell Simmons fails; he does not have the background, in politics nor does he posses any creditability in the political arena to be the President of the NAACP. This whole thing is starting to look and sound like rappers turned actors but now we have a hip-hop mogul becoming the President of a Civil rights organization. The appointment of Russell Simmons would be great fuel for the fire of those who oppose this organization and would like for it to become irrelevant. Surely the NAACP can search amongst Black intelligentsia and find an able and willing Black man or woman to head this organization.

January 13, 2005

Dwelling On The Superficial: The “N” word vs. White America (guest commentary)

On a short road trip for work, I tuned my radio to the almost unavoidable conservative talk show. It’s either that or sports because that’s about all I can listen to on the radio where I live. It was the subject of the Mike Gallagher Show that drew my attention. Not so much for its content or the actual subject per se; it was the things that were not being said, the things that apparently did not occur to the host or the audience that got me to thinking.

The topic of this show had to do with the “N” word. Apparently, Mr. Gallagher had heard enough from his audience to make the declaration that he would no longer use the “N” word on his show. He apparently had a number of shows that dealt with how Black youth and Black entertainers - the hip hop generation - tend to use the “N” word with no guilt. No compunction. No respect for the hurt that it symbolizes.

Of course, Gallagher’s Black callers (the one’s I heard comment) all chimed in by saying that the “N” word should never be used for any reason under any pretense. It, in their opinion, should be promptly banished from (American) English. So, hearing this - perhaps via e-mail as well as from callers - Gallagher decided to revoke his journalistic license to use the “N” word even if only in academic terms because he was convinced by the responses from his Black listeners that the word was/is vile and hurtful on its face.

Now, first... Let me say this clearly. My point here in bringing this up is NOT to discuss the Ins and Outs of using or not using the “N” word. With that said, What I believe is a telling revelation about race in America is the broad cross-racial consensus about something as superficial as a word-name-term like the “N” word while there remains a huge gulf along racial lines on things that impact people the most.

At best, someone saying the “N” word is a personal insult. Yes, it’s one with a deep history but it really doesn’t go beyond one person say something demeaning to another person. It is in that respect that I call it superficial. It exists mainly on a personal level.

The correlating hypocrisy comes in when we see how little concern Whites primarily, and Blacks alike have for the greatest insult to Black Humanity: America’s continued structural and systematic hold on White Privilege and White Supremacy.

In his book, “White Racism”, Joe Feagin closes his analysis of America’s intrinsically entrenched White Racism with a powerful, self-evident point: “The base of the U.S. system must be replaced if systematic racism is to be removed, just as a sinking foundation of a dilapidated building must be replaced. A new [Constitutional] convention is required... to address restitution and [equal] rights...” and to ensure we have a true democracy that is representative of all the people.

Ironically, the sparkling consensus that appears to be present among Whites and Blacks on something as superficial as the use of the “N” word effectively dissipates when the subject of the clear and present insult of a White framed country, based on White framed document is discussed. Yes, I’d say that’s pretty ironic. Actually, it’s really cynically hypocritical that so many Conservatives, Black and especially White ones, would pretend to be so incensed by the casual non-reflective use of the “N” word by Black hip-hoppers and, yet, be so comparatively comfortable with, if not actively complicit with America’s system of White Supremacy, this is an egregious insult. I am simply asking, which is the bigger, more harmful insult: A term with a vile and distasteful history like the “N” word; or a system that effectively accords (the highest) privilege to White skin and still produces the same historical equation of Niggerization - i.e. the subjugation of Black freedom and aspirations by a White focused, White dominated power structure?

The irrefutable point is that the ultimate Power Relationships between Blacks and Whites remain unchanged. Unlike the broad and varied calls to categorically banish the “N” word, few have conceived or would ever begin to even suggest that there needs to be a complete and thorough rooting out the much more expansive and extensive, ever present reality of America’s system of White Supremacy. Most Whites either fully embrace it for what it is as it embodies what’s “good for them” or vicariously delude themselves into thinking that there is some redeeming value in it (along with fringe benefits that they would rather not forsake). Some Blacks just simply resign themselves to the idea that “That’s the way it is. It’s A White Man’s World” - and this is the logical extension of a lot of Black CONservative thinking as well as the resignation of others who buy into deferring to “the system”.

(Note: This is also the thinking of a lot of the “traditional Civil Rights leadership”. They share the same fundamental ideas in common with Whites, in general, and Black Conservatives to a certain extent. They believe there is some redeeming value in the system.) To prove my point one need only reflect on the obvious facts: QUOTE: According to Feagin, blacks comprise 12 percent of the U.S. population but less than one-third of 1 percent hold positions of power.

The idea that people can show more outrage over sometimes careless, sometimes inconsiderate and, yes, still sometimes mean-spirited remarks like using the “N” word yet seem to be essentially silent on the outrageous reality of White Supremacy in America - giving consent by default if not by design - is like attacking kids for dropping out of school while overlooking the piss poor school system that never cared whether they were there or not.

Amazingly, people - especially CONservatives - can call for the sweeping reform, if not the complete scrapping, of the public schools system but hardly few would ever broach the subject of scrapping the way American society is structured with its built-in mechanisms designed to perpetuate and maintain White Privilege and White Supremacy.

Many are willing to separate students who achieve - even those who do so in failing schools - from their assessment of the (poor) health of the public school system. Naturally, they would characterize those students achievement as one of “achieving In Spite Of” the poor school system. Ironically, many of those same people will fail to distinguish and some intentionally won’t view Black success and progress in the same light: That Black progress and success is achieved In Spite Of the deep, inherent flaws in America’s [WHITE] institutions.

But, when you have so many White people willing to agree with what words shouldn’t be used but adamantly uphold racists like the “founding fathers” as men to be revered with very little question as to what their flaws meant to the very core of America’s “democracy” itself... you don’t expect anything beyond the superficial. And, lip service, for one, has always been superficial.


New Name...

As this Blog grow in popularity and in content, it is only natural that we reconsider many things. One of the things that we have pondered over is the name of this Blog. Many of our readers have commented on the name and have given us their interpretation of what they thought “Black Thought and Black Introspection means. In light of this and in an effort to provide a bit more clarity in what readers can expect when they browse to this Blog, we have decided to rename the Blog to “Black Perspective and Introspection” By doing so we let anyone who browses to this Blog know that on this Blog they will find our perspective (a Black perspective) on the various things we write about and we will also engage in self examination (Black Introspection). We will still be widely known as Black Introspection (or BI as my sister calls it :)) and still use the Domain name BlackIntrospection.com This name change also helps in finding this Blog via search engines by removing the use of the word “Black” twice from the title. We welcome any comments on this change.


When I moved to the Twins Cities of Minneapolis-St. Paul in 1993-4, there was only one black radio station serving a metropolitan area of about 2.5 million people, a 100,000 of whom were black. In the subsequent 10 years, the black population doubled and the black music genre has gone even more main stream. Today, there are two black format radio stations serving the Twin Cities market. One is black owned and operated and the other is white owned with a mixture of black and white DJ’s.

The Black owned station is KMOJ, broadcast frequency 89.9 FM, is a community based radio station that gets little revenue from traditional advertisers with deep pockets. It calls itself “The Peoples Station”. This station caters to primarily the African American community, but also the Twin cities large African population with news and programming. This is the station to turn to when you want to hear local news affecting the black community, as well as the station that provides a strong and unfiltered black commentary and perspective. However, this station FM broadcast power is only 1 kilowatts.

The new kid on the block is B96, FM frequency 96.3; with broadcast power 100 times that of its rival KMOJ. Its broadcast kilowatts allow it to transmit its signal to the entire Twin cities and beyond. KMOJ cannot be heard clearly outside a 15 mile radius centered at its location on the grounds of a North Minneapolis (heart of the black community in the twin cities) housing project. B96 thus captures and benefits from large numbers of white listeners to Hip Hop and R&B. Consequently, it pulls in large advertising revenue and thus the station generates more revenue from a much larger market share than KMOJ. In fact, not only has B96 captured part of KMOJ base black audience, it has siphoned off some of their DJ’s as well as they can afford to pay them much better than a community (black community at that) based radio can.

One of my major problems with this is that B96, lead by its popular morning DJ, Tony Fly, is promoting the negativities of Hip Hop culture. I am not saying that Hip Hop culture is negative, as a whole, rather, that it has its negative side and this Tony Fly exacerbates it. Tony fly, by the way, is a white guy who speaks in a black vernacular and slang on his radio show. This guy is always talking about Boes and Hitches (switch the first letters) and pimping. He even has had promotions and events entitled as such. He must feel that this type of rhetoric is simply Hip Hop or what black music is all about. In my opinion, his behavior is totally irresponsible, but then again, controversy sells in media and he may be striving to be a “shock Jock”. B96 is also notorious for doing a poor job of beeping out curse words in lyrics.

KMOJ is much more responsible in its broadcasting and it also gives the community a voice and commentary. You do not hear DJs promoting the misogynistic and thuggish negative side of rap music, by parroting the behavior, like you find at the white owned station. The Black owned station also devotes air time to community activist, who speak on issue affecting the black community, such as police brutality, gangs, racism, poverty and the gamut of the black experience. Needless to say, more than a few white folks like their black radio minus any black social commentary..."thank you very much...but no thanks". They like and promote the music produced from the conditions of blackness, but they do not want to hear black people talk about the conditions of blacks. All they seem to want to hear are the lyrics about blacks killing each other and pimping dem plack boes, with a strong base in the background so they can dance to it too.

This is how I believe that smut of Hip Hop gets propagated into mainstream; it gets distributed on the backs of white ownership and interest. In the beginning of Hip Hop, many artists complained that black stations would not play their music and that they were censuring them, so they went underground. Black owned stations initially did not play overtly negative lyrics as they do now. The change came when Hip Hop crossed over and whites seen the lucrative dollars in this explosion into popular culture. Thus, the phenomenon of white owned radio stations, with white DJs who use black vernacular and slang, started to push the envelope of the type of lyrics that got air time. They gained market share from this strategy, forcing black owned stations to follow suit, in an attempt to compete for market share.

Indeed, white owned radio is pimping the genre of black music for profit. It is also the white listening consumer market who dominates Hip Hop consumption. Thus, it is white Demand that is shaping what is being supplied in the capitalistic free market. The entertainment industry is about pushing the moral envelope to gain attention and hence market shares, which begets increased advertising, which begets increased revenue and profits. In the Twin Cities, it is obvious to see that the more capitalistic station is the station making the most money, as well as, doing the most moral damage in the community. The community funded and supported KMOJ, while not perfect, does give something positive back to the community in terms of a voice that reflects the causes and conditions that give birth to the Hip Hop phenomenon. Black owned radio is being brought out nationally, which means that the moral envelope will pushed out even further.

January 12, 2005

Addicted to change

Have we become addicted to change in America, irregardless of change in the functional utility of what we are replacing? It seems as if a major measure of the quality of ones life is variety through change, regardless if the change brings any new functional utility to our lives. There is no mystery of why this is so. It is simply the resultant of conditioned psychology by a consumer driven and dependant economy, which brainwashes people into believing that they must have what’s new.

A good percentage of the time, when we make purchases of things like cloths, cars, new homes, appliances, remodeling and the like, it is not done out of functional utility improvement, but rather, simply for change. The change may be inspired by being tired of what is old or from status that can be gained by having possessions at the higher end. Even if there is slightly new utility or functionality in our trade, most times, it is not something that we really need. Even relationships are traded in simply from the rationalization that people get tired of each other....the newness, challenge, mystery and associated pleasure fades. It’s akin to chewing gum. Some people only chew the gum because of the sugary taste during its,newness, but once the sugar is gone, they throw out the gum and pop in another new stick. Is the utility the sugar and newness or the chewing of the gum?

Does this addiction to change and something new apply to the functional utility of truth as well? If something is true, but old, do some folk grow tired of hearing it? Without a doubt! Take for instance race and racial discrimination and its effects. This is certainly old news and an old explanation of black problems, but there is still much truth in it, despite all the progress this nation has made. Despite its foundation in validity, however, some (many) people are simply tired of hearing about it and thus desire a change in explanation (or topic) for the causes of black problems, whether or not functionally more truthful. Not only has race, as an explanation and topic, become old, so has the people and leaders who risked their lives fighting for equality. A growing number of people are now tired of them too and are calling for their replacement (some new blood and thinking), with no proof that their functional utility has diminished or that their replacement utility is superior.

I believe that change is a way that we exercise our freedom. It gives us a way of feeling empowered and in control of our lives and society. Freedom is a form of pleasure to humanity, however, the over exercising of freedom is akin to freedom masturbating. Our society and culture is simply into change because we can and it gives us pleasure from variety and the sense of power. In truth, we are not really adding to our functional quality of life mostly, but rather, to our perceived quality of life defined by a corporate capitalistic interest. That interest, through the conduit of advertisement, keeps the system buoyant by promoting that people trade in the old for the new, which keeps people consuming and corporate profits flowing...and the elites smiling at their portfolios.

Million Dollar Baby = Rocky and Shawshank Redemption


First let me say, if you plan on seeing this movie, you may want to stop reading this right now. This review will contain spoilers, plot twist, and my overall analysis of this Movie.

Million Dollar Baby is Clint Eastwood’s latest film that is like an updated version of Rocky and Shawshank Redemption in one, except the boxer in this movie is a female. It is no secret that Rocky’s success at the box office was due in part to the racial overtone of the movie. Rocky gave white folk in film what they could not and did not have in the real world; a white male Boxing champion that could beat the Black male Boxing Champion. Rocky played by Sylvester Stallone rose from obscurity and financial ruin to become the boxing champion of the world beating Apollo Creed played by Carl Weathers in Rocky I and Rocky II. In Rocky III, Rocky again does the impossible by beating Clubber Lang, the big mouth bad ass played by MR.T. If there was any doubt that Rocky was a film with contemporary social commentary being played out by actors, all doubt was removed when Rocky IV was released. Rocky IV was released during the height of the Cold War; after having Rocky beat America’s (white folk) internal enemy (the Black man) in the first three Rocky movies; the makers of the Rocky franchise turn their attention to the external enemy of the day; Russia. In adding insult to injury in regards to the Black Champion (and Black people in general), the makers of the movie franchise one upped their white champion by not only having the Russian beat the Black Champion easily but killing him during the process, only to have his death avenged by non other than Rocky, the Italian stallion.

Million Dollar Baby does not go as far as the Rocky franchise did, in fact I would say that the aim and ultimate goal of this movie was not one bit close to that of the Rocky franchise but the end result regardless of aim or intention was that they produced a film similar in many ways to the Rocky Films. The Million Dollar Baby is played by Hilary Swank whose character is named Maggie Fitzgerald. Much like Rocky, Maggie is in financial ruins; her family is trailer trash (in the literal sense) and her mother commits welfare fraud. Maggie is as far from being a champion fighter as one can be. However, with a little training by Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) who in the beginning did not want to train her, she rose from obscurity like Rocky to face non other than the Black boxing champion. Up until this point this movie will have the viewer thinking, how can this be a great movie, this is nothing more than a female Rocky movie, and just as you are thinking this, the movie takes a turn that no one expects. Before I get into that, let me tell you about some of the other characters and plots in the movie.

Morgan Freeman plays Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris; a boxer who day has long passed and is now nothing more than a washed up has been who is a janitor for Frankie Dunn boxing gym. Morgan Freeman role is almost similar to all the other magical Negro roles Hollywood have given us, while he posses no special powers he does have great insight into boxing and how Frankie Dunn thinks. Morgan Freeman narrates this movie just like he did in Shawshank Redemption, so many times I was waiting for him to say “get busy living, or get busy dying”. Also in this movie Mike Colter (a brother) who plays Big Willie Little, Frankie Dunn’s ticket to the championship. Frankie Dunn has one big problem; he procrastinates and hold boxers back, thus prompting this brother to leave him after having taught him everything he knows and got him one fight from the title. This of course makes the brother appear to be ungrateful for all that Frankie has done for him (a point reinforced later in the movie), never the less, the brother goes and fight the champion whom Frankie thought he was not ready to fight and beats the guy and becomes the champion. Later on in the movie, when Maggie (the female boxer) was ready to fight the female champion Frankie is still procrastinating, which sends Morgan Freeman character into action and by doing so adds clarity as to why Big Willie left Frankie. Morgan Freeman takes the female boxer out to dinner and just so happen the promoter who got Big Willie the Championship fight walks in the diner, and his arrival sparks Morgan Freeman to basically tell Maggie it is time to make a choice, do she stay with Frankie or go with this guy who can get her the big fight and the money. Unlike the ungrateful Black boxer, she tells the promoter to go to hell and that she is staying with Frankie Dunn thus reinforcing the ungratefulness of the Black Boxer.

Getting back to Maggie fighting the Black female Boxing champion where I said most people would be thinking this is Rocky all over again. The Black female Champion (Billie The Blue Bear) is played by a real female boxer named Lucia Rijker. Lucia character is just like MR.T character from Rocky III. She is a dirty fighter, she cheats by using her elbows, by grabbing and throwing her opponent just as MR.T did and she hits her opponents when they are down. Maggie as I said was doing the impossible just like Rocky did, she was beating the champion when this movie takes a twist no one expects( I remind you for the last time, if you plan on seeing this movie do not ready past this point.). After the bell rings ending the third round and the boxers were headed back to their corners, Maggie took her eye off of her opponent (the Black champion), violating the number one rule of boxing “always protect yourself”. As Maggie was walking towards her corner, the champion punched her knocking her off her feet, and just so happen her manager had put the stool in the ring and as luck would have it, Maggie fell on the stool neck first, paralyzing her from the neck down. From this point on, this movie becomes a sob story of Clint Eastwood first blaming Morgan Freeman for what happen being that Morgan Freeman is the one who pushed Clint to train the woman. Later on Clint apologizes saying he was wrong for Blaming Freeman. Maggie never walks again and spends the rest of her days in bed, where she starts to get bed sores which eventually lead to her loosing one of her legs. The part of the movie that is winning over the critics I believe is when Maggie asks Frankie Dunn to do for her what her father did for someone, and that is kill her so that she do not have to suffer laying there in bed. Frankie says no and she gives this whole speech about how she rose from obscurity, to see the world and have thousands of people chanting her name. In what some will say is the most moving part of the movie she says to Frankie Dunn, “Don’t let me sit here suffering until I can’t hear those people chanting my name anymore”. This is the most powerful moment in the movie and clearly is what making the critics love it. Frankie eventually disconnects the machines and she dies.

I have seen many Award wining movies and I can say, this movie should not win one award. There was not any great acting in this movie and all the buzz this movie is getting is being driven by this movie appealing to the viewers’ emotions. This is basically a movie about an underdog, from poor beginnings who becomes a good boxer against all odds (read reality) and then has that tragically taken away from her by a dirty and brutal Black woman. The second half of Million Dollar Baby is what distinguishes it from other underdog movies but to get to that point, you will have to sit through Rocky V, and another magical servant Negro Role played by Morgan Freeman not to mention Clint Eastwood saying to himself after Maggie knocked the Black Female Champion down “stay down Bitch”. If this movie should win anything it should win best adaptation of a franchised movie (Rocky) and most unoriginal movie plot by having Morgan Freeman narrate this movie just as he did Shawshank Redemption.

January 11, 2005

The Tsunami Aid

How many tragedies can the soul, heart and pocket deal with? In looking at the recent Tsunami tragedy, I cannot help but to juxtapose the worlds response to that compared to the worlds response to the constant tragedies of Africa. There is definitely a distinction and difference in the way that the West responds to crisis in Africa and the way it responds to crisis in other parts of the world.

I believe that the West sees Africa and Africans as a people acclimated to tragedy and suffering and hence, there is less a need to help them than there is to help people less acclimated to suffering. They see the suffering and tragedy of Africans to be self inflicted and born from a people who are savage, corrupt, inept and unable to govern themselves. Thus, the West sees tragedy in Africa as an infinite loop that will never be broken. Thus, the souls, hearts and pockets of the West cannot afford to get caught in this endless cycle, in their opinion.

The perception of the African and of Blacks that allows this deference of compassion from the West is the belief that black people are their own worst enemy. If the biggest enemies of black people are themselves or other black peoples, then the only logical solution is to allow them to perish or for them to be infinitely supported, protected and subsidized by white peoples. The West has assumed the former position, although their aid and initiatives to Africa gives the false impression of the latter. Africa is being strangled by Western Debt, while other nations that experience tragedies gets moratoriums on debt repayment and in the case of Iraq, get much of their debt written off.

African peoples are essentially of no interest to the West now that all the cotton has been picked, the Sugar cane chopped and their shoes have been shined by machines. The West has control of Africas natural resources directly or via proxy and the people have been pacified and have forgiven or forgotten the 400 years of destructive influence and actions the Europeans inflicted upon the continent and people. Today, the African people pose no threat to Western peoples for the West to take interest in winning the hearts and minds of African people (whats the gain?). If and when Africa becomes a hotbed for anti-western animosity and terrorism, then the West will either ramp up their efforts inciting conflicts, Africans fighting against each other, taking away their aim on the West. On the other hand, they could try to win the hearts and minds of the African through investments, debt relief and aid. The prerequisite, however, is that the west needs a compelling INTEREST.

One simply has to look at the US and West’s response to Genocide in Bosnia, as contrasted with their response to Rwanda. One simply has to look at its response to the US African Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and contrast the response and outpouring with that of the US attacks on 911, where the Western world stopped to help an America that needed no help. People will try to find rationalizations for these different responses, but the biggest unstated rationalization for allowing these tragedies in Africa is the belief that Africa is over populated, as I pointed to in the Op-Ed below.

All the proof that anyone could want is evidenced by the UN efforts, led like puppets by the West, to control the growth of population in Africa. It is no secret that the West believes Africa needs more people like an individual needs a whole in his or her head. This is why they have been progressively promoting means, such as Planned Parenthood and contraceptives, over the last half century, largely with no success. Thus, when tragedy strikes Africa and millions of people lives are threatened by conflicts and disease (like AIDS), the West is slow to react because it has a known motive and history of promoting population growth reduction in Africa. Hence, no matter how tragic these things are, they are for the ultimate good of Africa, in the minds of many. This rationalization is akin to the way that we can accept that loss of American soldier’s lives for a greater good or objective.

In truth, much of the Aid from the West for the Tsunami tragedy is the result of a competition to prove or show which nation is morally superior. When the US was attacked as being too” cheap”, in aid for victims, it threatened our self proclaimed status as the most caring and giving people on earth. That is an image that we covet and need to offset all negative things our nation does behind the scenes, which have causes so many in the world to hate us. Hence, instead of being motivated by pure altruism, or motives are all convoluted with selfish interest and trying to win hearts and minds.

January 10, 2005

The over population myth.

The measure of success in nature is not a point in time, but the continuum of time. The Western world likes to see itself as a success, based upon humankind’s definition of success, while seeing the Global south, or people of color, as failure in juxtaposition. However, by nature’s definition, the truth is actually the inverse of what seems intuitive, given the wealth of the West compared to regions like Africa.

By nature’s definition, the only measure of success is fertility or reproduction. The reason being is that the prime biological directives of all life are survival and continuing the blood line through reproduction. Survival without reproduction produces extinction, while having reproduced, but not survived, continues future existence of the blood line. Thus, one can argue that rates of fertility and reproduction are nature’s ultimate measure of success.

The truth of the matter is that all the improvement in the quality of life and life expectancy in the West have come with the trade off of lower fertility. How? The West energized its economy by promoting a new role for women in society, which allowed them to compete with men for income and wealth opportunities. In this competition, fertility or child birth becomes a competitive disadvantage to women. Thus, women need to postpone child bearing until many of them have successfully matriculated college. When college is done, then they need to put off child bearing to establish their careers and remain competitive with men for economic opportunities. The end result is that the number of children that women give birth to in their lifetime has fallen drastically.

Capitalism is resource intensive and the primary resource needed for growth is human capital. New workers and consumers is what gives capitalism its growth, as the primary rule. Thus, capitalism facilitated and promoted the woman’s movement because it increased GDP via integrating women more heavily into the economy as workers, which created new income and hence increased consumption and corporate profit, but at the expense of reducing fertility rates among women. Augmenting this is the added associated cost of rearing children, which has grown exponentially due to day care and other cost, which used to be free services in the economy provided by house wives and extended family. Children are often seen as a restraint on wealth creation, which seems paramount in Western culture and capitalism.

In order for any grouping of humans to have a net population increase the women need to average 2.1 births per lifetime, on average. Obviously, it takes a man and a women, 2 people, to produce progeny. Thus, women need to produce two children, on average, in order to offset the eventual loss of both parents. If women have only one child, per life time, then within a single generation, the population will be cut in half. However, with increased longevity, the reduction in population will not take place until the birthing generation dies off. Then what was hidden will becoming overtly evident with a radical reduction in population in a short period of time. (evidence of this crisis can be seen in what is happening with social security).

Currently, Western Europe has fallen below the 2.1 fertility rate. Western Europe on average has a fertility rate of about 1.5. Spain and Italy are down to 1.2. Germany is at 1.3, The United Kingdom is at 1.5, France at 1.6 and Eastern Europe is averaging about 1.3. All of these nations, and indeed the continent, are trending downward. The United States is at 2.1 and Canada is 1.7. The U.S rate is born from the higher percentage of nonwhites in the total population, which are the only thing keeping fertility rates buoyant. If the white population were isolated, rates would be closer to that of Europe.

In light of this, we can see who is truely facing exentiction, but what people are growing? There are two identifiable human groupings with the highest rates of fertility and they are Blacks and Muslims. In fact, the overlap of those groups have the highest fertility rates of all. For example, Niger, Somalia and Mali all have female fertility rates at 7.0 or above. However, Uganda, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and a few other nations with a mixture of religions also have fertility rates near 7.0. More broadly, Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by the Islamic Middle East and Asia has the highest rates of fertility in the world. Thus, the distinction threat in the world is facing the Caucasian and Christians and it is a phenomenon already in progress.

Not surprisingly, the West is and has been pushing the myth of overpopulation, to control the population of high fertility nations and regions. In Africa, with one of the lowest population densities on earth, the West has been claiming that Africa’s poverty and problems are the resultant of too many people. Thus, the west has be pushing population control measures, through the UN, for the last half century, with the goal of reducing the Africans population growth, if not overall population. Those measures have not had very much success and that is why it is believed by many that humans (Caucasians) engineered a virus to be spread via sexually activity (the conduit to fertility rates), to purge many Africans from the earth.

The theoretical war on terror is rhetoric that in practice looks a lot like a war against Islamic peoples and governments. In terms of religion, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions because it followers have some of the highest rates of fertility. Thus, the West being a primarily Christian religion is threatened by the spread of Islam, because the Christian people are being fruitful at the expense of multiplying. The dictate was that Christians be fruitful and multiply in balance and equilibrium of the two. However, the Christians have increased the fruit by subtracting from the multiplying. There is a clash of cultures and civilization born from the spreading of Western imperialism and capitalism.

The threat of extinction is accelerated by the West’s short term solution to their population crisis, which is immigration. The West MUST open its doors to immigration if the economies are to continue to grow domestically. When that happens, miscegenation further erodes the Western purity or influence in the nation, changing the hue, culture, beliefs and traditions from that of Caucasian peoples. However, this phenomenon will give rationalization to revived racism among whites who will feel squeezed and threatened (this is already occuring in Europe), who want to preserve their race, culture and way of life. This is where globalization comes in. Globalization will bring white capital and jobs to where the people of color are, instead of keeping the jobs in the West and bringing the people of color to the West and hence miscegenation. This is not the conspiracy of racist, but rather, the conspiracy of capitalism to find the emerging markets and cheapest sources of labor.

Capitalism needs growth to survive; therefore it is constantly seeking expansion. The expansion requires bringing new resources into the game. The greatest replenishing resource today is humans. However, the Caucasians are not replenishing and most of the natural resources in the West are already being used in the game of capitalism. Thus, the emerging market and the future of capitalism is dependant upon the resources of the people of color, their human energy, their lands resources and their consumer spending. Any population that is therefore not linked to the game of capitalism is either a target for conversion or an expendable population.

One would think that Capitalism would be pro population growth ...if its goal is growth, However, capitalism only values human capital when it has economic demand for it. Capitalism cannot swallow the elephant of humanity in one bite, but rather, must gradually eat and digest the elephant over time. Eating too fast would cause indigestion and not be healthy for the system. The current growth needs of Capitalism could not digest Asia and Africa at the same time. Thus, it is now chewing on Asia, which has many more people than Africa and will take a long time to consume. Hence, the African peoples are disposable currently, because capitalism has no demand for the labor of the African, while it already has direct or proxy control of most of Africa’s resources. Therefore, the claim of overpopulation and population control measures upon the continent, such as AIDS. Asia, on the other hand, is growing from western capital investment.

The West sees the African peoples as liabilities, as they see the African in constant need of humanitarian assistance and aid from the West. Sense the continents resources are firmly in the hands of the West and capitalism, allowing and promoting wars, disease, and corruption to ferment helps to promote controlling the African population. However, it is the long history of how the West gained control of Africa and its resources that have made the African peoples unable to be independent and take care of themselves.

In conclusion, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. There can be not GET without a corresponding GIVE in nature. The Western people have sacrificed their racial and religious future; there blood lines, to maximize their living today. A large part of this is driven by the elites and their game ponzie scheme called capitalism. Propaganda has fooled the populous into believing that the game produced win-win, however, soon, the game will be revealed for what it truly is, when the cost and consequence of past and present actions start debiting the credits.

January 08, 2005

Armstrong did not set Negro-Cons Back...

As I traverse the Blogsphere and read various articles and listen to all the talking heads, the one thing we see happening is all Negro-Cons and Conservative alike are abandoning Armstrong Williams. This is not the least bit surprising being that Negro-Cons have no sense of loyalty and are more interested in keeping in tune with what their white counter parts have to say than bonding amongst themselves to produce something worthy of the attention of Black men and women. Not one Negro-Con or white conservative have stood up for Armstrong with their so-called Christian convictions and said, he made a mistake and had a lapse in judgment as do all men at some point, and now that his mistake has been made known, it is time to correct it and embrace our brother as Christians do, Not one Negro-Con has said this; the reason being is they are some pathetic men and women who only care about themselves and personal gain. Read what the Negro-Con Lashawna Barber had to say. She first tells us about how Christian she is and how much she agree with the conservative agenda but then she goes into this brouhaha about how Armstrong have set Negro-Cons back, as if they were actually upward mobile. Lashawna like all other Negro-Cons are only looking at how Armstrong actions will affect them being that they are already considered handkerchief heads. Message to Lashawna and other Negro-Cons, Armstrong did not set you back; he only confirmed what we already suspected and knew about Negro-Cons. Now do the Christian thing and forgive your brother. LOL

January 07, 2005

The Coon(m)enator Armstrong Williams...


Back in November Noah posted an article that contained information about the Negro-Con Ward Connerly being paid more than one million dollars to do the bidding of white conservatives. Well, today we have more proof that Negro-Cons are nothing more than political whores and will do anything for the almighty dollar. USA Today is reporting that the closet homo-sexual and Negro-Con Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 to promote Bush NCLB Act on his radio show and to interview Secretary of Education Rod Paige. This is clearly tax payers’ money being used illegally and some congress persons are calling for an investigation.

Armstrong admits that what he did was unethical but then tries to counter it with, “I wanted to do it because it is something I believe in”; while a little voice in his head was saying plus I got $240,000 to do it. Armstrong while being paid to sell us the NCLB Act, used his celebrity and relationship with other Black folk to get them to interview Rod Paige and discuss the NCLB Act. This Coon(m)entator is out of control and will do anything for a dollar. As stated before, if you want to see what is motivating the Negro-Cons, follow the money!!

January 05, 2005

Seven Dollars a Week or Seven Thousand Dollars a Week?

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

This is the question we will inevitably be forced to face (ask and answer) in regards to actors and actresses who take stereotypical parts in movies, young women who shake and put on display for the world their (ass)ets in music videos and artist who sell pornography via their singing and rapping.

Hattie McDaniel who is best known for her Oscar winning role as Scarlet O’ Hara’s sassy and loyal servant in “Gone With Wind” said in response to those who criticized her for playing a mammy in several movies; “"Why should I complain about making seven thousand dollars a week playing a maid? If I didn't, I'd be making seven dollars a week actually being one”.

With that said; Essence has launched a campaign entitled “Take Back the Music”. The purpose of this campaign is to address “the imbalance in the depiction of Black women’s sexuality and character in music and in music videos” Essence makes some insightful observations in regards to the some of the effects music and music videos have, Essence writes;

“The damage of this imbalanced portrayal of Black women is impossible to measure. An entire generation of Black girls are being raised on these narrow images. And as the messages and images are broadcast globally, they have become the lens through which the world now sees us. This cannot continue.”

It is said that if people treat you a certain way, and look at you a certain way, you will began to act and behave in the way you are perceived. I believe this is what Essence is saying when they speak of the damage to young women that grow up seeing these images more often than not.

I have heard many artist speak about their right to make a living and I do not think any one will deny that every man and woman have a right to make a living for themselves and their families, but must their lively hood be made possible at the expense of Black folk by perpetuating stereotypes and images that are degrading and self destructive?

One question I often ask myself and others as have Essence is; are the images being discussed here under attack because of what they do, or because of the lack of balance? Take note of the fact that while Essence is asking for a paradigm change in the portrayal of Black women, the change they seek is rooted in the imbalance of positive versus negative images of Black women in music and music videos. How many Black folk are on television and in movies playing redeeming characters versus those that are playing characters that are stereotypes and demeaning to Black folk. Can we have balance and still have what we have today? Can the two images co-exist as they do in the real world? The entertainment industry rarely creates anything; it only promotes a thing and beams it across the globe. The pimp, the drug dealer and the prostitute existed long before Hollywood and music gave theses individuals’ attention.

I believe the very thing we see happening in music, movies and television we see happening in politics and the spread of certain ideologies via the media. While Negro-Cons represent a small portion of the Black community, the time allotted to them on television, the space allotted to them in newspaper is not equivalent to the number of Black folk that share their view points and behavior, so it is with the negative images of Black folk in the entertainment industry. The over representation of certain images, ideology, and politics in any medium that is not generally true about Black men and women can be damaging to Black folk in many ways and promotes those things, thus I believe this is why some Black folk seek balance versus the complete removal of a thing because as much as we might hate to admit it, that thing we hate to see and talk about does exist but we all agree it does not exist in the numbers that makes it a general representation of Black people thus it should not get as much time on display in comparison to those things that we can say are generally true about Black men and women and promote positive imagery.

There are far more of us that chose the seven dollars a week versus the seven thousand dollars a week, the problems is us seven dollars a week men and women do not get the face time and promotion all over the world the seven thousand dollars a week individuals get although we out number them in a ratio of probably 1000 to 1 if not more and this is what Essence seeks to change and I support them in this effort.

If you do not comment on this topic here and even if you do, go over to Essence website and leave a comment there in the space they have allotted for reactions to their campaign.

January 04, 2005


One of the main problems in the black community, over the last 3 decades, has been the homicide rate. This past year ended with many cities, such as New York, Chicago, Detroit and other major population centers, with homicide numbers the lowest that they have been since the 1960’s. This overall reduction of homicide rates in major cities is primarily due to the reduction of homicide among blacks.

Although rap music glorifies the culture of violence, rap thug culture is not the cause of violence. In truth, there is little correlation between homicide rates and levels and popular culture, although popular culture does help to glorify and promote it, as Faheem pointed out in the Op-Ed below. The real cause of elevated levels of violent crime is the combination of human desire for mind and body altering substances, like drugs and alcohol, prohibition of these substances, poverty and the black market economy for the buying and selling of these mind altering substances. In other words, its ecoonomics.

Most people do not know that rates of violent criminality used to be just as high for white folks in America, during the 1920’s and 1930’s, during the era of prohibition against liquor, as it is for blacks today. This era gave birth to many famous and notorious gangs, that are now romanticized, all of whom were white and who came from the ranks of the white ethnic poor, such as the Italians, the Irish and even many Jewish gangs. The competition for market domination or expansion between competing groups was carried out through violence and lead to one of the highest homicide rates during the last century, for the nation. Many wealthy families, such as the Kennedy’s, rose to wealth, in no small degree due to bootlegging. The end of prohibition, in 1933, resulted in a radical decline in the homicide rate.

Today, there are many more forms of mind altering substances, most of which are disproportionately marketed and sold in the black community. Poor black communities are incubators of such activity because it gives the poor alpha males what they covet, which is economic opportunity to money and status, albeit...illegal. For those who are aggressive, smart and risk takers and ruthless, yet, see no road map to legitimate success in the ghetto, the illegal drug trade fills the gap. It should also be noted that in the proper environment, these alpha males and their traits could be channeled to legal success in the business world, because those same qualities brings success in the legal and illegal business world. Thus, as long as there is a market demand for substances not sold legally, there will be poor folks trying to make it big in the illegal economy. However, it should be noted that the upper class white business types are at the upper end of drugs entering this nation from their source. They are the initial buyers. In some cases, the government has even participated.

Despite this link to illegal drugs, there are more than a small percentage of people who believe that the high level of black homicide rates is due to genetics. I have had debates with people who invoke science and genetics to explain black homicide rates in juxtaposition with other so called races. They point out cancer research that shows that blacks have higher levels of testosterone than do whites. They then make the logical leap noting that males have higher rates of homicide than females, due to higher testosterone levels, in their opinion. They then go on to reason, from that previous inference, that the supposed higher rate of testosterone among blacks over whites is therefor the cause of the higher rates of black violence and homicides. Of course, when I asked then did testrone levels in the 60's vary from levels of the 80s, thus explaining the large increase of homicide in that time window, they could not reconcile their theories with fact.

In truth, the high homicide rates come from the economic competition and the police help to contribute to and promote the competition. The reason being is that when police take down or out major players in the game, other player’s war to compete for the new territory opened up. Thus, the more successful the police are at arresting and breaking up major drug enterprises, the more violence it simply promotes....as long as market demand remains. The reason being is that there is always a steady supply of new entrepreneurs from the ranks of the poor, although not exclusive to the poor, who will compete to fill the market demand at profit. It may seem counter intuitive, but by simply letting major players in the game become powerful, they become so strong that people fear challenging them and thus violence over territory is reduced in the long run. In the legal economy competition is good, but in the illegal economy competition is bad for the community and thus monopolies promote less violence.

What the war on drugs has essentially accomplished is nothing but locking up a hundreds of thousands of young black males, while increasing the black homicide rate simultaneously. In essence, the war on drugs resulted in a war on young black males. However, the war has calmed down mainly due fewer new users of crack cocaine, which was the drug that created the most market demand and associated violence. The fear of becoming a “crack head”, by virtue of observation of those addicted to crack, has reduced the demand for that drug considerably. Now that market demand has fallen, the rates of associated violence have declined as well. The police like to take credit for this decline; by saying it is the resultant of police tactics and strategies, which is far from the truth. The truth is that declining demand for crack cocaine and improved legal economic opportunities of the 90’s caused the decline.

The obvious conclusion from empirical evidence of the last century makes a strong argument for the legalization of drugs. The legalization of drugs would have the effect of reducing black homicide rates as well as black incarceration rates, both of which are phenomenon’s that help to erode our community and deplete a generation of young black males. I am sure that there are some that WANT to see black males making enemies and warring with each other and or locked behind bars. The reason being is that black militancy was once overtly noted by then FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover as being the number one threat to the nation’s internal security. The reason is born from the black reaction to 300 years of our oppression and the young male being the primary threat of any oppressed group. They are the ones likely to rise in rebellion against the oppressor. Thus, it is best the keep them occupied fighting against each other instead of the “System”. I have no doubt that this is the reason why drugs became pandemic in the black communities after the social unrest of the 60’s.

I believe that initially, this was all a conspiracy to keep black people from fighting the system in the 1970’s during the “black power” era. They succeeded in their objectives and society has since become more tolerant of black people, than before. However, once they set the game up, they could not turn it off (not that they wanted to or cared) and it has continued to reek destruction upon the black community until this day.

Black Sites and Forums