The Value of Black Life

after all the recent cases if police brutality and civilian murders, i wanted to compile a list of some significant and important cases just to show that, as many have said, this IS terrorism. here are a few cases that i think are important in showcasing not only the disregard for the Black life, but also how justice/punishment is virtually non-existent.

1. Trayvon Martin (17)- shot and killed by a member of a largely white neighborhood's watch committee. Trayvon was unarmed. George Zimmerman has yet to be arrested.
2. Kenneth Chamberlain (68)-tasered, then shot to death by police responding to a medical alert. it is unclear why the police responded with deadly force to a medical emergency. even after Chamberlain informed the officers he was alright, they broke the door off the hinges, tasered him, then shot him to death in his home. Chamberlain was unarmed. the name of the officer has not been released. no one has been charged.
3. Kendrec McDade (19)-shot by police officers responding to a supposed theft who believed he was armed. McDade was unarmed. officers involved were placed on leave.
4. Tommy Brown (35) & Wife (35) -shot in front of his children while playing basketball with them. after his children ran to tell their mother, she emerged from the house and was shot and killed as well. both were unarmed. John Oliver Hill Jr. has been placed under arrest.
5. Wendell Allen (20)-shot by police doing a drug raid. Allen was unarmed.
6. Howard Morgan -shot 28 times by 4 white cops. Morgan was an undercover 13 year veteran of the Chicago police department. after being stopped for driving down a one-way with his lights off, Morgan was placed on the ground (after having his weapon removed and after he informed them that he was an undercover policeman) and shot 28 times.-21 times in his back and 7 to his chest. he survived (i'm mentioning it because they wanted to kill him) and was then charged with the attempted murder of one of the policemen. Morgan was unarmed when shot. he was found guilty of attempted murder (even though he was shot 21 times in his back by 4 policemen!!) and is currently incarcerated.
7. Rekia Boyd (22)-shot in the head and killed by officers attempting (recklessly) to shoot a supposedly armed man who claims he was unarmed. Rekia was unarmed.
8. Rahmarley Graham (18)-shot by police while supposedly attempting to flush drugs down the toilet. Graham was unarmed. no officer has been charged.
9. Jateik Reed (19)-beaten to death by police officers while handcuffed after being arrested supposedly for drug charges and assault. Jateik was, again, unarmed and handcuffed while beaten. no officers have been charged.
10. Tarika Wilson (26)- shot to death during a raid of her home for the purpose of arresting her companion, who was believed to be a drug dealer. Wilson was the mother of 6 children, and was shot while holding her 1-month old son. he was shot in the shoulder and had to have one of his fingers amputated. Wilson was unarmed. the officers were placed on administrative leave.
11. Aiyana Jones (7)-shot to death in her neck during a police raid while attempting to arrest a homicide suspect who shares a home with Aiyana's father. Aiyana and her father were unarmed. there have been no arrests or suspensions.
12. Oscar Grant (23)-shot to death by an Oakland police officer for supposedly resisting arrest...while he was handcuffed and on the ground. the videotape, recorded by numerous BART passengers, show Grant on the ground, handcuffed behind his back, being accosted by this police officer, then shot. he was pronounced dead the next morning. the police officer was charged and found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. he served a total of 8 months and 8 days in prison.
13. Amadou Diallo (24)-a Guinean immigrant, who apparently looked similar to a serial-rapists the cops were searching for, Diallo was shot 41 times by 4 police officers who mistook Diallo's wallet for a gun. a simple rectangular wallet. Diallo was unarmed. officers were charged, and later acquitted by a jury.
14. Dannaer Fields (49), Bobby Clark (54), William Allen (31)-shot to death this week after giving directions to the shooter. the shooter, a white male, targeted the Black neighborhoods of Tulsa, Oklahoma killing 3 Black men and wounding 2. the 2 men responsible have been arrested, but the media has hesitated to say this is a racially-motivated serial killing.
15. Sean Bell (23)-shot along with 2 of his friends after an undercover officer at a club believed one of the members of Bell's group possessed a gun and may have intended to use it at the club. 5 officers proceeded to empty 50 shots in Bell's vehicle. wounding his 2 friends and killing him. no shots were fired at the officers. all 3 men were unarmed. the officers involved were acquitted, but were later fired or forced to resign.
16. James Anderson (49)-ran over and beaten to death by a gang of teenaged white Mississippians who went out patrolling the streets of their town for the sole purpose of finding and killing a Black person. after being beaten, Anderson was attempting to gain his balance when the teens hit him head-on with their pick-up truck. two of the teens involved were charged, but the others in the vehicle were not (i was not able to find any info on whether they were found guilty or not).

there have been numerous cases of Black people, particularly, Black men being murdered under false pretenses of perceived threats or blatant disregard. and as often as this is occurring (#14 was THIS WEEK), with the prevalence and the violent nature of these attacks, we have to see this as nothing but terrorism. if all these instances i listed were white women and Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old white girl, and they were murdered by Black police officers and citizens, the National Guard would have been called to ever major city years ago, and every Black male would be in jail (well, the latter is already true). the only reason this has not been deemed terrorism by the government is because they would have to do something about it, and with the "justice" you can see that has happened to these murderers listed above, it should be clear that Black life is not of any value.

let this be a wake-up call to every Black person and all people of color. our lives are not valued here. to all of you who feel some sense of pride in calling yourself something hyphenated with "American" at the end, WAKE UP. you are not an American. you're a tax payer who lives on American soil. a little over a century ago, you weren't a full human. a few decades ago, lynching, convict labor, sharecropping, and Eugenics were all genocidal methods in one form or another supported or encouraged by the US government. we do not get the benefits of justice, Due Process, or even respect. we are not Americans and we never have been. the sooner this is realized, the better our situation will be and the quicker we can progress as a community.

in addition, there have been other incidents that show the lack of value our lives are given. recently Anna Brown, a Black woman was dragged out of the hospital for begging for treatment. they believed she was crazy and/or posed a threat and had her arrested. she died on the jail-cell floor, bleeding to death. in New York City alone, 183 people have been killed by the NYPD since the Diallo shooting. that does not include the murder of Troy Davis or Larry Davis. the overwhelming majority of the missing persons reports filed in this country are Black people, meanwhile the media focuses on Casey Anthony or some other white child that has been abused. this is not to lessen to fact that anyone abused, kidnapped, or missing should garner attention. we are all of value. this is simply to show that white lives, beatings, or police brutality cases (recall the outrage of the OWS movements after police tear-gassed crowds of young white hipsters) are always priority. 29 people have been murdered by police this year alone.

these are not isolated incidents. these are the results of a system founded on racism and poverty. and personally, i am to the point where i see no point in marching, in protests, in rallies, in letters and phone calls to congressmen and senators, in t-shirt campaigns and the like. these things are doing nothing. how many times are we going to march and say "never again"? we've been saying "never again" since Diallo. we've been signing petitions and getting the best lawyers and suing police departments since Bell. and NOTHING has changed. they are still shooting us when and where they please and getting paid vacations as punishments.

it has been said that insanity is doing something the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. is this not the textbook case of insanity?? we march every time somebody Black is shot and expect things to change??

we need to meet violence with violence. for every Black person that has had 41 shots emptied into him UNARMED, there needs to be an officer dead. under just circumstances (and by "just", i mean that justice is served and at least attempted by those we pay to protect us) , i would most certainly advocate against violence, but these are not just circumstances; this is not a country that values our lives. this is a country in which numerous Black people have expressed their fear of walking the streets. even a routine traffic stop is reason enough to fear for one's life even if they have no illegal weapons, drugs, or prior convictions. we as Black women are frightened that our kids walking to the store will not return and that the men in our lives will be shot to death while reaching for their wallets. we also fear for our own lives, as it can be seen that Black women have not been excluded.

again, THIS IS TERRORISM. recognize it for what it is.

think. criticize. comment. be cautious. buy a gun. learn how to use it.

update:

even a better example of the of our lives to this society

what does it mean to be RADICAL?

i was watching a lecture from Melissa Harris-Perry she gave at a university about her book, Sister Citizen, where she talked candidly about the plight of Black women and what it feels like to be in our position in this society (if not all universal political spheres). i agree with everything she had to say, and i have a lot of respect for her.

recently, Harris-Perry snagged a spot for a new show on MSNBC where she talks politics and other social issues with a Black Feminist edge. doing a little research on her, i see that her first book, which received little to no recognition was followed-up with Sister Citizen : Shame, Stereotypes, and Black Women in America in September of 2011. prior to that, and currently, she is a professor of Political Studies and African American Studies.

my question is : how is it that Harris-Perry has been able to rocket to the top of the media, become a political analyst, and be rewarded with a show of her own on a major news network so quickly? not only that, but she doesn't seem to be saying anything other Black Feminists haven't said prior to her. she has not produced any shocking statistics or studies or theories on the struggle of Black womanhood in this country, yet MSNBC is asking her to tweet her opinions on The Help?

this is not a criticism of her. the fact that a Black woman is actually speaking to our realities is radical, in and of itself. her metaphor about 'The Crooked Room' (in the first link above 12:50 in) is so on point and true. however, these are not things i have not read somewhere in the pages of a bell hooks or Toni Cade Bambara piece. she is radical, in that she speaks. for a Black woman, in a post-colonial (arguably) society, that alone is radical.

however, i personally have a narrower idea of what radical is. radical, to me, is scaring white people. it seems to be very easy, and for some whites, it is. but to scare even the liberal white people who date Black people, love Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles and listen to Wu-Tang and Outkast is a feat upon itself.

take the slight dichotomies of the past and present. W.E.B. DuBois experienced so much animosity that he retreated to Ghana. whereas, Booker T. Washington was sharing crumpets and tea with Alabama political figures who probably lynched and castrated Black men on Saturday afternoons. although he was assassinated, white people LOVE Martin Luther King Jr. so much so that they even have a holiday reserved in his honor. Malcolm X, on the other hand is still regarded as a militant, violent, racist who hated white people. even on a global scale, in Africa, many who posed a geniune threat to the white supremacist platform, have been assassinated : Nkrumah, Lumumba, Sankara and The Mau Mau. Obama-not a threat. Louis Farrakhan-a threat. Henry Louis Gates J.r-not a threat. Assata Shakur-a threat. bell hooks-a threat. the education of Black youths-a threat. an African American/African connection-a threat. solidarity amongst all people of color-a threat. John Africa-a threat. Michael Steele and Herman Cain-about as much a threat as Taylor Swift.

those who talk about whiteness, white supremacy, and colonialism and even suggest resistance and/or self-defense are the real threats to white people. and off that, it is clear to see why Harris-Perry received a show so quickly from MSBNC - because she isn't a real threat.

from now on, i'll be looking for the people that scare white people. white people love Obama just as they all love tokens that pose no threat to them. i can't wait for the person to run for president, write a book, become a professor who's dodging bullets and has to hire Suge Knight as a bodyguard. maybe we shouldn't wait for someone to do be that, and should just be them ourselves.

and i think, most importantly, we have to be aware of these things and learn to question and criticize those people that are picked to be our representatives by white people. we have to ask ourselves, whenever someone Black wins a political position, gets a television show, or gets national recognition for something, what have they sacrificed or diluted or stay silent on and why are white people okay with them?

with all that said, i have yet to read her book. i plan on doing it soon and maybe writing a review about it. if anyone has read her book and would like to give some insight, feel free.

"He got the peace prize, we got the problem. ... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over." - Malcolm X on Dr. Martin Luther King after he received the Nobel Peace Prize

comment. think. criticize.

Teenage Pregnancy's new white face

i recently found the website XhibitP via TheNuBlack website. XhibitP is a virtual gallery that houses works from various artistic mediums that address social issues. currently, they're tackling issues surrounding teen pregnancy.

teen pregnancy seems to be everywhere in the media right now. Sarah Palin's daughter was a teen mother, MTV has a new show entitled '16 and Pregnant', and there was a story in the news recently about a high school in Tennessee that housed more pregnant females than ones that were not. conversations have arisen which have asked whether shows and movies (like Juno) that showcase teen pregnancy are glamorizing teen pregnancy or educating the general public.

most episodes of 16 and Pregnant feature white teenagers being raised by their middle/upper-income families. Jamilah Lemeiux brought to light the fact that at a time in which pregnancy was only though to inhabit poor women of color, it was something to be ashamed of, but now that it has a white face, it is something to look at sympathetically.

it's interesting the way the media has chosen to portray teen pregnancy. when young black and brown women were getting pregnant (Claudette Colvin), it was seen as something to further negative attitudes against black women. they were seen as loose, promiscuous, and void of any value (which, in our society, almost always centered around virginity) they may have had (which wasn't much to begin with considering their "race"). the ideas about a black women being nothing more than lascivious sexual objects were then coupled with the idea of that women of color were negligent and irresponsible mothers, all while we took jobs mainly as care-takers, wet-nurses, midwives, and baby-sitters to white families. the idea has not changed much. although it has currently been joined with the idea that we're having abortions like it's a Sunday ritual.

unfortunately, this is nothing more than racism functioning in the social realm. when black and brown women do something society as deemed irresponsible, devious, and sexually deviant, there are movements that call us feeble-minded and justify sterilizations. when a white woman does it, and Lemeiux said, it's something to feel sympathetic about, and something that truly needs to be addressed now; something for politicians to rally around; something the society needs to get to the bottom of. if shows like 16 and Pregnant are going to be shown, they need to show the diversity and the reality of these situations. they have failed to show women from lower-income housing; ones living in government housing; ones struggling to make next month's rent; ones that do not know who the father of their child is; one's without cars, without parents to depend on, or without enough money to have baby showers.

but on another note, what is the deeper issue with teen pregnancy? is it the fact that they are having sex at what our society sees as a young age? is it because the US doesn't have the economic or social stability for a teen mother to be independent? is it because these women are nowhere near the mindset one needs in order to be a mother in this country? is it because religious influences convince us that celibacy is the only right way to go about procreation?

in traditional indigenous societies, women had children regularly starting in their teens. the problem between their societies and ours is that we have taken away rites of passage and other social forms of teaching the youth to be adults, not to mention genuine respect for human life over that of career opportunities and monetary gain. so do these young mothers have the issues or the society?

society is definitely the problem, although we should not wait on young women to get pregnant in order to act. when a young woman becomes pregnant, there are organizations willing to give her an abortion (although it is illegal in some states), and the government willing to give free food (WIC). but where is the other help? where is the help a young woman needs in order to know how to care for her child? financial advice to help her be independent? or any other type of social safety net that insures she's in the most healthy (physically, but most importantly, mentally) state she can be for herself and her child?

after reading a very insightful and inspiring chapter from bell hooks about sisterhood, i feel as though women of color (and ultimately all people of color, but there needs to be a model, first) need to rally around one another and create these types of safety nets. we need to build organizations that offer mental, physical, economic, and spiritual aid to teen mothers, as well as single-mothers, or just mothers in general. we have to be the ones that decide how our communities receive sex-education and demand that it not be saturated in religious nonsense and sexist notions of value and womanhood.

when women of color look down and spread gossip about other women of color because they happen to have 2 and 3 different fathers to their children, or may keep more than one sexual partners, we are maintaining the social cesspool that these children are unfortunately born into, not to mention that it severs any relationships that could garner unity.

bell hooks quotes Toni Morrison in Feminist Theory where she urges women to repair our relationships:

"i want not to ask you, but tell you not to participate in the oppression of your sisters....I am alarmed by the violence that women do to each other: professional violence, competitive violence, emotional violence. i am alarmed by the willingness of women to enslave other women. i am alarmed by a growing absence of decency on the killing floor of professional women's worlds."

bell hooks follows up by saying this:

"To build a politicized, mass-based feminist movement, women must work harder to overcome the alienation from one another that exists when sexist socialization has not been unlearned, e.g. homophobia, judging by appearance, conflicts between women with diverse sexual practices. ... we must renew our efforts to help women unlearn sexism if we are to develop affirming personal relationships as well as political unity."

i think once we (as women of color) take control of ourselves and commit to one another - young and old, pregnant, not pregnant, post-abortion, academically educated or not - only then will we see a situation in which children are welcomed into the world as opposed to being looked at as burdens that our society has made us bear or obstacles we have to overcome in order to live with any level of stability.

comment. think. criticize.

Civil War re-enactments and other festivities saturated in White Privilege

recently, i had a discussion on Tumblr about how people celebrate (do re-enactments) of the Civil War and/or other historical events from the Antebellum south and what exactly these events are saying. a fellow Tumblr remarked that she and/or her ex participated in Civil War re-enactments and that it was really just a chance to get dressed up for history buffs. and i've just read about how the 50th anniversary of the secession is coming up either now or soon and all the parties and whatnot that will be planned in celebration.

why is it that the LOSING side of the war is always so eager to bring it up and have celebrations surrounding it? losers are supposed to sulk and whine about what could have/should have been done better, mourn their dignity, pride, and self-respect, and then MOVE ON. this is with wars, civil disputes, basketball games, and marching band competitions. i don't know why Mr.Charlie and the rest of his imps feels as though he is exempt from this rule. ??

considering i'm from the south, this topic is not a new one to me. going to school with most whites wearing shirts with the confederate flag on it (along with hats, belt buckles, hair bows, necklaces, backpacks, cars, school supplies, and other memorabilia), there were plenty of people eager to defend The South when negative sentiments were expressed. a shirt i recall is the one with the confederate flag that says "i'm offended that you're offended". it should say "i'm offended this makes you recall slavery, lynchings, and the compete subjugation of your people....it should make you recall well-trained horses in Confederate colors and those good ole Antebellum values!"

aside from that, i've had some more in-depth conversations with people on Myspace political forums and in person about the role slavery played in the events. most southerners (and/or Republicans) will contend that slavery was not an important role in the war. states rights, and laws regarding self-government (or small government) were the main reasons for the war. this goes against what i'd learned in nearly all my history classes, but the again, these classes have left out too much for me not to be skeptical about their curriculum.

so i've been doing more research myself. Wikipedia and the National Park Service have written some articles about the main issue in the war. and it ain't states' rights. here is what Mississippi had to say when it seceded:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money [the estimated total market value of slaves], or we must secede the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property."

many apologists of the south would like to mention the fact that most white southerners (2/3rds, to be more exact) and those that fought in the war did not own slaves, therefore the issue could not have been slavery. but the southerners that did not own slaves were working and poor classes whites. and to my knowledge, no nation has ever went to war with even a regard for the poor and working class. the rich (powerful) individuals control almost all issues with any government. in the South, they were slave-owners whose main source of wealth was slavery. even now, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the working/poor classes of Americans and all to do with various corporations' monetary interests. yet, as in the Civil War, the main individuals on the battle ground are working and poor class individuals that will gain nothing from fighting. and besides the superiority whites self-imposed over blacks, what did the South have prior to the war that was so important? what is so important and singular to the South that white southerners feel the need to celebrate on nearly a daily basis that the Union was against? oh, right-SLAVERY.

but this issue and this post isn't so much about the Civil War as it is about race relations and who comes out of history looking gallant and/or neutral and who does not.

if whites who support the south can now tell a history in which it was not as gruesome and sickening as it really was, their self-pride is restored. knowing that you come from people who lynched blacks and sold their genitals as souvenirs in front of cheering mobs is not a story one would want to tell their grandchildren. and likewise, theres almost never any mention of slavery in any Civil War reenactments (which i believe take place annually) and there will be no mention of in these upcoming events. the lives of those most effected by the war (non-whites) are non-existent...yet again. these events are done by people who have the privilege of looking into their history and not seeing the complete dismantling of their ancestors' basic human rights. and they're CELEBRATING it.

and this is my main issue with these events-it is a continuation of the white-washing of history. in most public school textbooks, educational lectures, and historic events like the upcoming ones, the perspective; the lives; the basic human struggles of non-whites are too often left out, forgotten, ignored, or glossed over. the more knowledge i gain about the past the more enraged i am that i haven't know these facts before; the more dismayed i am about the "education" we receive in public schools. we see this in what has happened to the Arizona school system, we see it in our national holidays such as Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, and now we see it with these commemoration events. i've talked about my disgust with the whitewashing of American history before, so i won't go into it again. these upcoming events just drive home the point that we as communities need to start educating our children. it is not up to the oppressor to educate the oppressed. mis-education or no education at all is tantamount to their power.

we need to make it mandatory that every time history is mentioned, the race relations and what they have done to our respective communities and relations be made evident. every Confederate flag should be shown alongside a photo like the one below (there are plenty photos more gruesome, but i'd rather not show those. if you haven't seen them, however, you should look them up). and every time some trumpet is sounded to honor the Confederate states, someone should be blasting Strange Fruit by Billie Holiday. the minute we forget what happened to our people is the minute it will happen again.

i'm going to be in the south during the planned parade in Montgomery, Alabama, and considering i'm about an hour and a half away from there, i'll more and likely be protesting the event in some form or fashion. the NAACP is planning to protest, but if they plan to be peaceful about it, i'll be doing my demonstration on my own.

comment. think. criticize. if you're in the south and want to join me in protest, hit me up.

also, check out the post about this topic at a blog i follow.

Racism in Religious Imagery

so i mentioned a while ago how i had just discovered all these old Phil Donahue episodes on youtube. one in particular that i want to discuss is the one entitled "Was Jesus Black?" in this episode, Phil has various black people on the show discussing the historical references and arguments to support the idea that Jesus was black.

while i am fascianted with nearly every aspect of religion, i am only vaguely concerned with the racial make-up of Jesus. theres barely any evidence to show he existed at all, let alone any to give insight to his "race". black people should spend more time questioning the morals and subliminal messages of the bible than the racial make-up of any of its important figures. but thats another post. i wanted to expand on the comments made by the (self-identified) white people that phoned in to offer their opinions.

the main sentiment of the white individuals in the audience and on the phone was- "what does his skin color have to do with it?...i don't care if he's black, green, or hot pink!....it's sacreligious to speak about the phenotype of god...etc." what i find interesting is that it didn't seem much of a concern for the white people calling in to question why it would be such an issue to worship a god (or god in human form) that looks nothing like you. then again, it doesn't take much of an imagination to wonder why some individuals have such difficulty stepping into the perspective of someone of a minority race when our perspective has been, for the most part, ignored, distorted or completely left out in most textbooks, history lessons, and general historical education. the inferiority complex evident even today in many (most) black and brown people has to be examined from all axes. religion may not be the arena most people explore, but with people of color being some of the most religious in the country, this field has to be studied.

growing up in a non-denominational church in southern Alabama, the only figure in my religious upbringing that resembled me in was satan and his demons. they were the only dark-skinned individuals in ANY religious imagery. in contrast, every depiction of God, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Noah, Moses, or any angel was white. Asians, Pacific Islanders, Blacks and Native Americans did not exist. at the time, it didn't have much effect on me (or so i didn't think). living in a country in which most shows, movies, television commericials, etc....are white, white, and white, it wasn't something that stuck out to me. every now and then the pastor of the church i grew up it mentioned the verse in Revelations that talks about Jesus having "hair like wool...", which got a reaction. but that isn't enough to reverse the overwhelming racial preferences in Christianity.

i don't consdier myself a Christian presently, but the idea of a white god and a black devil never was a factor in that. and i'm wondering now, why is that? why is it easy for many black and brown people to accept this idea of a white god? what kind of effect does this have on the personal esteem when all the people that look like you in the Bible dwell in hell? does it have any effect on our thoughts?

i've recently read about the Black Madonna and about how the imagery of Christianity at one point and time was very black, but was changed once it reached the Americas. Europeans changed this imagery to fit themselves as a people, so why haven't we as blacks and browns changed the imagery to suit ourselves?

in some circles, it is happening. one of my aunts gave my mother a Bible with all the characters represented as black people a while back. it was the first bible i had seen like that; the first time i had seen a black Mary and Joseph holding a black baby with black wise men behind them. Afro-centric churches have changed the imagery of Jesus, but as far as the masses of black church-goers, i think the imagery is consistently white.

what have been your experiences with religious imagery? do you think it has effected your personal ideas on color, race, or nationality? do you think it effects the esteem of others? is it necessary to liken the imagery of your religious gods and goddesses to oneself? also, if one can change the imagery of religious figures so easily, and have it become near fact in many people's eyes....wouldn't it be equally easy (and possible) for one to do the same to the religious text itself; to the message of the Bible? can this be added to the argument that suggests Christianity was instrumental in the mental enslavement of Africans?

comment. think. criticize.

where in the world is Phil Donahue?

i just found this video of an old Phil Donahue show entitled "The Issue of Race" in eight parts. what ever happened to the Phil Donahue show anyway? another video popped up on the sidebar of his show entitled "Was Jesus Black?". lol...if Phil isn't dead by now, can we start a petition to get this man back on television? give him the rights of the BET network since they clearly don't know what to do with it...

anyway, this episode includes Sistah Souljah (hip hop artist and activist), Dhoruba Bin Wahad (a former Black Panther), Cornel West, Alan Keyes (republican asswipe) and others. i really like how everyone just threw themselves out on the table, some let go of some rage.

it's interesting to look at this-filmed sometime in the last 80's/early 90's and see that a lot of the things they are discussing; problems in the black community; problems in dealing with race have not really changed. i had never heard of Dhoruba Bin Wahad, but he brings up some really good points and i really respect how he integrated the issue that is patriarchy into his arguments when the others were mainly focused on race. and Cornel West brings up some very good points as well. i figgin love him. i love how he seems so passionate about everything he says. theres much i disagree with him on (in the area of religion), but i don't see how anyone cannot like this man. and aside from that white man who was talking nonsense i didn't really dislike anyone with the exception of Alan Keyes. i don't know if anyone remembers, but he was in the primaries of the presidential race in '04. and he was exactly the same in '04 as he was in this video-a joke. talking complete nonsense nowhere near the core of the problem. he's like a black Sarah Palin with a penis. and it's sad that he and Michael Steele are poster children for Black Republicans.

interestingly enough, it seems as though all the people on the panel want the same things for our communities and our relations, but are still arguing.

here is the first clip (1 of 8):

Emory Douglas

so i've seen one or two of his images on the internet a few times, but today i say a book at Barnes & Nobles about all the work of Emory Douglas, famous poster artist from the 60's who chronicled the revolution from the perspective of the Panthers especially, but of all oppressed communities. he is an amazing amazing artist. his use of collage, bright colors, and text add to the subversion of it. i think many people forget that the Panthers were as much against classism as they were against racism. "the pig" was not a synonym for white people, it was the upper class, the imperialists, capitalists, racists, and anyone who supported the oppression of any group of people. these posters have so much to them.

i wish you could see the text on the smaller ones, but if you google his name, you can go the websites i got them from and enlarge them.

Race and Representation

i was reading an article about an artist by the name of Kenya (Robinson) on a blog and something she said stuck out to me:

"I feel like Black people in America (specifically) feel a sense of shame attached to the brutality of our collective history. I hope to inspire a sense of entitlement that comes from acknowledging our strength and recognizing our birth right to the American dream. I wish to inspire active questioning through my artwork. Whether it’s an address to the lucrative ambitions of the prison-industrial complex (or a visual investigation of the misrepresentation of women in mass media (White Bitches: The Platinum Eaters). There is a reason that Art can transcend language- I believe that I can help create a space to insert diverse voices into this dialogue."

i think theres at least a tinge of shame as well as a lot of ignorance and misinformation surrounding our history. i read a book a while back that spoke about shame and how people are shameful of things they shouldn't be many a times. being a descendant of a slave and being raped, for example. i believe the book was Black Rage.

i would really like to explore more imagery of black and brown people from a time when our society was more covertly racist. googling words like "mammy", "jim crow", and "pickaninny" produce a plethora of strikingly racist, negative, and sometimes just confusing images from the past. for example, i've seen an image of black children with alligators many a times without the slightest explaination. recently, a blog i follow-Abagond, did a post about the history of "Gator Bait" that provides the story behind the photos.

more importantly, how have the images of the past translated to the present day? have they translated at all? if so, what is the impact on our society? what is the impact on our individual identities? does anyone see similarities between, for example, mammy and the black woman with a southern fried accent selling none other than chicken on Church's commercials (really. the only thing she's missing is a gingham rag on her head, a white baby on her hip, and the omnipresent "yessa massa". although theres a mountain of reasons to stop eating at Church's, i'd stop eating there just off that)?

comment. think. criticize.

also, if you have some other photos that have racist content for other groups of people, feel free to share. i know there are plenty of racist cartoons from the early 1900's depicting Mexicans and Fillipinos in demeaning and ignorant ways, but there weren't many i could find on my search.

Errorzona

my friend Yvette sent me this video about how Arizona (aka Errorzona) wants to take ethnic studies classes out of the public school curriculum. the main video on that link is a conversation on the Anderson Cooper show between some cunt from Arizona and Michael Eric Dyson (LOVE him! love when he told the guy the CORRECT pronunciation of Paulo Freire. me and Dyson are actually dating. he's unaware of it at this time, but will know some time in the near future...), but the other 3 videos below it are interesting as well.

if i believed that the current public school curriculum was balanced (learning about all histories, cultures and peoples as opposed to just that of Europe), i might probably think that a class like this would be divisive. however, anyone that has taken the time to actually think about their public schooling, and look to what is being taught now, they would know that the "knowledge" being taught at these schools is extremely euro-centric. i talked more about that in a past post. i think this journalist best describes what is happening with this law, but anyone with at least a 2nd grade education could see that this is nothing but racism. "it teaches minorities that they're oppressed." the guy in the first video and the woman in one of the videos below it said this. with no response as to whether it is true or not. in other words, they don't want these classes teaching the truth. too much knowledge is apparently a bad thing.

this is nothing more than an assault on the realities of oppressed people; minorities; an attempt (or rather, a continuation of) to discredit, deny, and vilify the lives of those that the mainstream society would rather not think about; an attempt to deny that their histories and struggles not only took place but that they have a direct correlation to what our situation is in this country presently. and not just a correlation with the current situation of their descendants, but of this nation as a whole. slavery made this nation one of the wealthiest in the world, yet we shouldn't hear about the side of those enslaved? even today, do you know where your tomatoes come from and who picks them off the vine? and people think this is a "post-racial" society....

i'm ready RIGHT NOW for a protest. anyone know of any in the nyc area? hit me up.

i think Harriet Tubman said it best when she said: "I freed thousands of slaves. I could have freed thousands more, if they had known they were slaves." lacking the knowledge necessary to realize that you are a member of an oppressed group of people is not a victory against racism (as these legislators would have one believe). it is ignorance.

comment. think. criticize. protest. organize.

have you seen the KKK?

yesterday i was talking with one of my coworkers and i mentioned i was from Alabama. his response, like others i've gotten, have been questions about the race relations there (all of these people have been black). "isn't it scary living down there?" or "have you ever seen the KKK?"

moving to New York i had many people telling me this was a dangerous city filled with hoodlums, druggies, rapists and murderers. one of my coworkers in Alabama even offered me her mace when i told her i was moving. few, if any, of those individuals had actually been here, let alone lived here. and thats the same case with the New Yorkers i've encountered that ask me about the south.

it seems as though many northerners believe that the south is stuck in the 60's in which blacks are still being lynched on a daily basis, having to move off the sidewalk to let whites pass, and are constantly bombarded by the N-word. even moreso, they think that the KKK is still....running things, i guess.

my coworker asked me if i'd ever seen the KKK.

no, i haven't. although they do have the occasional rallies or...new member orientation (??) in some smaller neighboring towns (i am from Enterprise. just think south of Montgomery and a little north of Florida). and if i ever had encountered the KKK, more and likely, they would give me some bullshit speech about how they don't really hate blacks and browns and Jews, they really just dislike miscegenation as opposed to real physical danger. i think people should be more alarmed by these blatantly racist groups, otherwise known as "tea parties" more than groups like the KKK which almost no one takes seriously anymore.

but i think the underlying implications are one, that the south hasn't progressed, two, that the north has and/or always was progressive, and third, that racism is always simple and overt.

in retrospect, i have encountered racism, but in ways that weren't really directed at me. i had a friend in elementary school that was forced into breaking up with her boyfriend in junior high by her parents because he was black. while the encounters i've had with her parents have been nothing but normal and pleasant. i've been in conversations with friends, where someone comes up and says to the person i'm talking with something like "did you hear Becky was pregnant? yea, and its by a BLACK man." to me: "....oh, no offense though." and at the time i was completely confused as to whether it actually was offensive. fortunately, i've progressed. other than that, i cannot say i have encountered blatant racism directed at me.

to the second and third point.....we all need to realize that racism exists everywhere. just because theres a ton of black people here, with blacks holding office and living in extravagant brownstones does not mean racism isn't here. it is there when you look at the black unemployment rate, the schools that are being closed down (most pupils being blacks and latino), in the schools populated by blacks and latinos that have less than average test scores and skyrocketing drop-out rates, and in the seat that no one will sit in on the subway more and likely because theres a black man next to it.

the other day my roommate, who is born and raised in Harlem, was telling me about how theres no white people living in projects, or at least not when he was growing up (he's in his late 20's). he said whites all lived in the rich neighborhoods, while almost all the blacks lived in lower-income housing, with no in-between. i asked him if this warped his concept of what he, or any black person could achieve, considering he knew not one black that was well off, let alone middle class....and he said it definitely did. and from what i've experienced, that is pretty much how it seems to be. there are some stops on the train in which only whites get on or off, and these are the rich areas, while any stop that has mainly minorities getting on or off are more and likely low or lower-income housing areas.

i might even go so far as to make the argument that the race relations are more warped in the north than in the south. most Jews are in one neighborhood, most Puetro Ricans in another, most Italians in another, Chinese in another, most blacks in one (which, as i've come to learn, are made of two sub-groups-one being "regular black", which is anyone that has no island heritage in their family, and then theres blacks from the Islands like Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad, Barbados, etc. the latter is the nighborhood i live in. mostly....non-regular blacks?? irregular blacks??), most whites in another. i mean, one could almost assume that this segregation is government mandated. and with this separation comes ignorance. and ignorance breeds a plethora of problematic and counter-productive concepts, stereotypes, and ultimately racism. not to mention that it makes racist policies easier to implement when all one group is in one neighborhood.

in my hometown, there are whites, blacks, asians, hawaiians...and probably everything else. this could have something to do with the fact that Enterprise is right next to an army base, bringing in people from everywhere. but i think this is the case in the rest of my town. not that there is a lot of diversity-it's still mainly white. my point is more so that all of one group is not living in one neighborhood. there are blacks and whites in all of the neighborhoods. and the schools don't have all latinos and blacks going to one school while the whites all attend another.

then again, this may just be my town in particular considering it is neighboring a military base. maybe it is the anomaly . i don't think i can say the same for the smaller neighboring towns.

if you haven't been to the north, it is not what you think. and if you haven't been to the south, it is not what you think. not everywhere, anyway. then again, i probably can't speak about "the north" and "the south" considering i'm really only mentioning my small town vs. NYC.

think. travel. comment. offer your perspective.