Welcome to Bizarro World...

Quick hypothetical situation:

It's 2007. A Muslim (or Black or Latino man) comes to an event at which President Bush is speaking and stands along the route the President is expected to travel. He holds a sign which endorses violence against political leaders. On his thigh is a holstered firearm. What happens?

If you think for one second that the end result mimics what happened to William Kostric, the white man who did this Tuesday, you're simply delusional.

Now the reality. 2008: Mr. Kostric attended a New Hampshire event at which President Obama was speaking, openly displaying his loaded firearm whilst holding a sign that read "It's time to water the Tree of Liberty" (a reference to the Jefferson quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"...and I sincerely doubt Mr. Kostric considers President Obama the patriot in this equation).

Was he arrested, charged, prosecuted, imprisoned? None of the above. From footage and reports it's unclear whether or not he was even questioned or observed/followed.

He states that a firearm is a defensive tool (an odd belief in a country with nearly 10,000 homicides by firearm per year). He states that he feels the event would have been safer if everybody attending had a gun. This poppycock is too irrational to event attempt rebuttal.

Now, just in case one think me a tad hyperbolic, peaceful anti-Bush protesters were arrested in Tampa Bay, NYC, Crawford,TX, Charleston, WV, and Kennebunkport, ME (just from a quick Google search). Protestors were also arrested at the 2008 RNC.

And just in case I'm accused of playing the dreaded race card, I'll provide a reminder that although the avowed white supremacists who were captured with rifles in a plot to assassinate then Senator Obama at the 2008 DNC were arrested, no charges were brought against them. Although the very same prosecutor charged an inmate—who just happened to be black—who had mailed a threatening letter containing baby powder to John McCain, stating "we won't stand for threats of this kind in Colorado". Because we all know how much more threatening a black man who is locked down at a penitentiary is than a car full of Neo-Nazi tweakers with rifles roaming about free in public.

There are rather blatant double standards at play here. It sorta reminds me how a Black Harvard professor can be (falsely) arrested for "disturbing the peace" in his own home, while angry white mobs can violently attack a man at a townhall meeting in Florida with no fear of recourse from law enforcement officials. But it's probably just me and my crazy biases overreacting again.

The Racial Undercurrent in the Health Care Reform Brouhaha...

It's so painfully obvious. Birthers. Teabaggers. The sudden flip in the Republican Party's key talking points, from same-sex marriage and abortion to Affirmative Action and gun control (a not so subliminal play to age-old race panic about black crime perpetrated against white chastity). Swelling membership of white-supremacist ranks, cries of "reverse-discrimination and Obama's alleged racism and comparisons to Hitler. They try to play it off as if it's not racism. Nowhere remotely near racism—after all, how can we be racist if we have a Black President? Indeed, they try to convince us that it's Socialism they're against (though the American tradition of anti-Socialism is itself spurned on by xenophobia). Never mind those signs comparing Obama to a monkey, or outright calling him "nigger". Forget that Beck is claiming Obama's attempt at reform is all about reparations. Nope, nothing at all to do with race here, move along, please.

I voice it to my immediate associates every time I see it dripping from the foaming mouths of the protesters in their worked up panics. But I don't see it addressed. Well, at least not with any degree of mainstream exposure, which I'm admittedly not too shocked over. Thus I was quite pleased to see NPR cover it recently.

Professor Harris-Lacewell hits the nail squarely on the head. "I want my America back" is coded language with racist undertones. Which America is it, exactly, that they want back? One with legislated segregation? One with rampant, overt institutionalized racism and sexism? What precisely do we need to repeal to get back to these beautiful glory days? Welfare? Social Security? Medicare? A national highway system? Child labor laws? Unions? Women's suffrage? Manumission? Whose America is it we so desperately need to return to? Exactly which freedoms have been so rampantly eroded, other than the freedom to openly discriminate and oppress entire chunks of the population with no regard to repercussion? The attrition of disparate privilege is not a loss of rights. Equality for all is not implicit with oppression of others.

"Individual responsibility" is classic political white supremacist lingo that is almost exclusively applied to those very same individuals they refuse to actually view as individuals, instead of representative embodiments of an entire population group and supposed "cultural pathology". When is this phrase injected into public discourse other than conversations on welfare, criminal punishment, or any other social issue which is immediately identified with black people in the eyes of the majority?

Who are they talking about when they say "real Americans"? Natives?

Race is most definitely an underlying factor, and anyone who thinks the protest against reform would be equally as rowdy if proposed by a white President is simply disingenuous.

But enough with vain attempts at reason or logic. At times we can just apply simple measures and see what conclusions can be drawn. So, I propose a quick test: Simply ask yourself, how many minorities are so up in arms about Health Care reform? I pretty much see only white faces protesting. Not too many black or brown faces in the affray (unless they're having their Rosa Parks posters ripped out of their hands). Isn't that odd? Yes, quite peculiar indeed.


Update: Tim Wise elucidates the issue in his article Racism, Right-Wing Rage and the Politics of White Nostalgia, which he penned after his CNN appearance discussing this matter:

Hip Hop and America...

In response to my race and religion post, Shinsyotta directed me to a post he wrote entitled “Hip Hop’s Influence on Black Culture.” Utilizing an admitted fascination with memes (which I share), he draws a comparison between Hip Hop and religion. I too see the obvious correlations, and agree that musical genres and faith systems both play large roles in the development of an individual’s behaviors and personal preferences, and even influence political and social convictions. What I also note is that both are more specified (child) cultures within a larger, more general (parent) culture – in this case American culture. Influence traverses a two-way street in this system and, predictably, parental sway is more pronounced.

To this point, I believe I see the crux of what Shin is trying to convey, and am in general agreement. I can’t, though, allow Hip Hop to be a considered a cultural substitute for religion amongst blacks. They are two distinct forces with their own ramifications for each group. Religion does its damage and controlling for people of any race, ethnicity, color, etc. As I’ll demonstrate later, Hip Hop is just as powerful a force in white culture now as black. Overall, both have financially benefited whites more, and kept blacks in certain positions.

Hip Hop provides quite an interesting scenario, and I posit that its interrelation with the American system is cyclical and has come full circle. Its genesis lies in black experience; its impetus is American culture. With time, Hip Hop inevitably switched the tables and affected popular culture in America. This momentum was reversed, and the American way of life then took hold of the reigns. More simply stated – Hip Hop is a culture which arose in the black segment of America’s population in response to the conditions of America’s control on that segment, eventually grew to the point that it influenced popular culture in America, and, upon reaching that status, Hip Hop became an instrument to further those conditions of American control on that segment.

It’s all one big clusterfuck where America’s influence on black culture influenced Hip Hop which influenced America which influenced Hip Hop to influence black culture.

Still with me? Good.

First I want to point out that Hip Hop is not synonymous with black culture, and assuming so would be as ignorant as suggesting all white people wear John Deer hats, watch ‘rasslin’ and NASCAR, and have mullets. In Shin’s original he clearly states this with a disclaimer of generalization. Now, onto a quick clarification.

Rapping is something you do; Hip Hop is something you live. Hip Hop is much more than music. Those in the know state there are four elements of Hip Hop (with beatboxing occasionally thrown in as a fifth): DJing, MCing (rapping), B-Boying (breakdancing), and writing (graffiti art). These are merely forms of expression for Hip Hop as a full blown cultural phenomenon, and today we see that this definition of a system of parts seriously understates the complexity of the whole.

But music is the main channel through which a culture is expressed and spread (some may argue this prominence of music above literature and art, but I propose music is literature artistically presented – this, admittedly, is simplification to expedite my premise), and in our particular case, the music is undoubtedly the most visual aspect of this culture, so I will give focus to Hip Hop music as a generic for the culture.

Shin starts by stating that musicians, as pop culture icons, are in fact role models. I am in full agreement. As not only a Hip Hop head, but also an MC, I used to hate the idea of people allowing music to influence them. If true, my conscience would attempt to censor my artistic expression. I vehemently preached that the idea was utter bullshit. I was young, hopeful, and ignorant.

I live in a rather small city (pop. 40k) and witnessed a change in its black youth when BET and MTV finally arrived on our cable. Soon after, I was no longer the only white guy at the black parties and lunch tables.

Hip Hop definitely holds influence.

Jump ahead to 2005, and Hip Hop is now pop music and popular culture (as proud as I am, I am equally jealous and disappointed). The “mainstream” form we’re inundated with is that of common thuggery, misogyny, materialism, and general low class mentality.

And it is on purpose.

Music is a cultural phenomenon, and as such, it is a commodity. Music defines one’s choice of social grouping. Music is the litmus test of consumer interest and is intricately tied to demographics. Beyond being commercial, music and videos have become forms of commercials.

Historically, white America has created a certain image to be associated with black folk, and this is further pushed through the music.

I’m not saying that the record execs sit around plotting ways to keep blacks in a certain position, but that they shamelessly utilize pre-existing conditions to keep money in their pockets. Why change the ways of the world if they lead the way to your bank?

Notice that the music which is presented glorifies the assigned criminality and hedonism of blackness, which we (white people) find safe to emulate in our own skin (I don’t have room here to postulate why we find black folk so inherently “cool” and “hip.”), and the commercial use is still manifest shuckin’-n-jivin’ and skinnin’-n-grinnin’. Entertainment is a type of service, and whites have never had a problem with what blacks can do for us – it’s what they can do to us that terrifies (and motivates) us.

White teenage boys would not be (and weren't) rushing to the stores en masse to buy Paris, X Clan, or Public Enemy or Talib Kweli and Immortal Technique. That voice doesn’t portray the image of blackness they’re familiar with, and therefore isn’t “genuine” enough to be marketable. Educated and socially conscious? Please! The news doesn’t show black graduates and entrepreneurs, it shows composite police sketches of suspects. Blacks graduate from the streets (school of hard knocks) and black entrepreneurs are drug dealers and hustlers (and now record execs). Likewise, little teenybopper white girls want to dance, be the desired sexual objects portrayed in the music, and see Ja Rule and 50 with their shirts off.

A sad result is a proportion of the black youth running around with bandanas hanging out of their pockets (thanks to Snoop, at least they're on the correct sides, but this only provides further emphasis – a profound example indeed) and belittling one another for not wearing as much (African slave) jewelry and being equal victims of capitalist oppression and materialist superficiality. There’s an influx of individuals who don’t own property but have four-figure-dollar rims on their cars; buying hundred-dollar sneakers instead of paying tuition.

It may be argued that Hip Hop has drastically improved race relations in America. Today’s white youth are much more likely to associate with black youth and be aware of some of the issues that face these fellow Americans. Interracial relationships are much more prevalent. White kids idolize black men, something unheard of in their parents’ generation. As legendary MC KRS One puts it, “what go around come around I figure: Now we got white kids callin' themselves ‘niggas’.”

But look a little deeper. Most white guys who are “down” don’t emulate KRS. Their mold isn’t Cornel West, Michael Eric Dyson, Tavis Smiley, or even John H. Johnson or Martin Luther King, Jr. – eloquent, conscious, educated bothers. They idolize 50 Cent and Young Jeezy. They put on their “blackcent” and emphasize how “hard” they are. They perpetuate images of poverty, ignorance, violence, and criminality. Liekwise, white girls don’t aspire to be Oprah, Shirley Ann Jackson, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou or myriad other positive, strong sisters. It’s Lil’ Kim’s lofty status they aspire to, and they continue myth’s of promiscuity and animal-like sexual drive and prowess (while carnal excellence and gifted endowment may possibly perceived as positive for black men, a look into these myths’ origins quickly present an ugly truth).

And more and more black kids are doing the same.

Shin touches on this by presenting the underachievement speculation:

“Anyone who succeeds and grows as a person is seen to be abandoning the culture and as somehow less ‘black’.”

This is a frequently voiced situation, which I’ll admit does have some value, though it is hardly exclusive. It is human nature to need belonging and to define what merits it accordingly. “Misery loves company” is a truism. Nearly all lower class and economically challenged people exhibit apparent underachieving qualities and engage in ostensibly self-sabotaging activities in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. It provides comfort, and can be seen as choice instead of submission or defeat. It is perceived as a reclamation of sorts to take what is perpetuated against you and use it to define yourself.

Shin also believes that black society’s exclusive “blackness” is ultimately negative for an inclusive society to flourish. This is a more tricky issue.

I disagree that a “separate ‘black culture’ is detrimental to human society.” I hold it is the complete opposite – variety is the spice of life. The only alternative is assimilation, which has historically proven disastrous. Conformity of cultures translates to a loss of identity. A separate black population is detrimental (perhaps this is what he meant). It is not the separation of black culture but its place in overall American [read: white] culture that impedes human society.

His statement, that as a result, “they therefore…don't contribute to human society as a whole” is quite dangerous territory. I think I see where he’s coming from and what he’s getting at, and I offer that individual and categorical differences define, not defeat, human society.

All in all, for lack of better term, everything's not black and white. Hip Hop, its roots planted in black culture, has become American and, increasingly, world culture. This has had definite positive impact, but its long-term effects aren’t proving to be completely constructive, or even benign. What we see manifested is a conditioned, socially engineered, self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Hip Hop presents an increasingly complex paradox and reflection of the fires that provided the spark of its creation. Sadly, it has defeated itself through its own success.

The American Culture of Race and Religion...

In response to my post(s) on race and religion, Aaron Kinney (for whom I have a high amount of respect) commented:

"I think it’s cultural rather than racial, personally."

As he clearly states, this is his personal opinion – to which he is completely entitled, and along with which I very frequently find myself in total agreement (still undecided as to objective vs relative morality). Quite obviously, this is one of those rare times I disagree. While a simple conflict of opinion is very minor indeed, I feel this particular statement deserves further consideration.

For clarification, "cultural" needs to be defined before this point can be considered (all emphasis mine):

"cul·ture (kŭl'chər)
n.
1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought."

This is a very broad, sweeping definition, and includes religion as a mere piece of a larger puzzle.

"2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty."

This, I feel, is more along the lines of what AK meant, but it would apply more to the African American culture as a whole, which is multi-faceted, and of which religion is only a part, no matter how big a part.

"3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture."

This would narrow it down to what the topic is: religious culture amongst Americans, and its differences amongst blacks and whites in particular.

"4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization."

I think this is more along the lines of 1.2 above.

If AK intended "cultural" along the lines of 2 (and 4), it just isn't particular enough.

I personally feel that some people use words like "culture" to dampen the effect when they mean "race." In fact, when it all boils down, the modern, Western concept of race is a purely social construct with no scientific validity. It can be argued (valiantly and biologically) that there is only one race - human, or Homo sapien sapiens - with an overwhelming body of supporting evidence from geneticists. From there we see that what we refer to as races are in fact just separate cultures - or, more specifically, population groupings - within that one race, essentially based on geographic separations. But we have to be real here: those different categorical groupings would be divided along pretty much the exact same lines we currently use to popularly define race. Obviously, there are distinct cultural differences between, and amongst, the races - which, by the way, allow for some flexibility (me for example) - but the similarities, although emphasized far less, outweigh the differences.

Besides, that's not what I was getting at in my post.

Due to the way history has played out we find ourselves in the current predicament: We live in a country that's overwhelmingly Christian, and divided along color lines. This is and has been a fact since non-indigenous (read: European) people first arrived, complete with cargoholds for stolen goods, resources, and lives, aspirations of colonialization and imperialism, a capacity for mass genocide and land theft, and a Bible full of atrocities to back it all up.

In my post, I feel I focused on issues that were blatantly based on, and particular to, race (in its most widely understood connotation). The curse of Canaan is based on a perceived literal translation of Noah's sons' names, specifically that Ham actually meant "black" (a priori or not). It has been accepted for years that Noah's sons we're the precursors of today's racial divisions. Canaan (Ham's son)'s curse to be a servant amongst servants (the word "servant" is used in translation throughout the Bible where the intent is no less than "slave") to the other two for all time was a major defense used by white people for enslavement of Africans.

The history of Europe's people cannot be told without tales of conquest, colonizing, and empire building or with the exclusion of Christianity. Through the first, the second was spread (whilst the second was used as the excuse for the first). Another consequence of conquest was the subsequent subjugation of the conquered by the conquerors (how's that for alliteration).

{My current personal theory is that Europe's relatively small size and lack of resources made expansion a must, and conquest a necessary evil. Both Africa and the Americas' sheer size and natural abundance provide explanation for the relative absence of these actions on each respective continent. I cannot accept that blacks and Native Americans were too ignorant or unambitious to engage in near constant war and colonization of other people's land, nor that Europeans have an innate bloodlust and greed (although for the latter it does seem to be a cultural norm). Geography of course played a major role, but I am digressing from the point at hand.}

I need not hear that white slavery was a reality or that freed blacks also held slaves, as it is essentially meaningless. It cannot be argued that the black experience in America has been anything other than one of oppression – property for over 300 years, then merely three-fifths of a (hu)man, and nothing less than a second-class citizen since. This is not debatable. The Civil Rights era was only 40 years ago. White Americans as a whole have held a position of (absolute, crushing) power from the very arrival of Europeans in 1492 (here I need not be informed that the Irish and other European immigrants were mistreated - or that pre-Columbus explorers reached the continent).

I illustrated that this relationship of subjugator and subjugated formed distinctly different views on, needs for, and practices of religion in America.

Here, culture is irrelevant. An elderly black man in Mississippi and a teenaged black girl in the Bronx (or Beverly Hills for that matter) can be, and probably are, as different as possible culturally, yet share the same legacy and most likely the same religious views. The mere fact that Christianity can be found on six continents, in nearly every nation, and amongst people of completely different backgrounds – one-third of the earth’s population – demonstrates that it is a culture all to itself which transcends and further distinguishes other cultures completely.

I fail to see how the psychological damage of a slave mentality, or the perceived and realized privilege of a master mentality, as they apply to religion, and as religion applies to them, are cultural issues.

Although, as I acknowledged, there are certain similarities on socio-economic (class) levels, there is still a major difference. A difference that gets to the heart of matters of race in America, and which is the only discernable, distinguishing characteristic of a "white culture" in America...

No matter how poor or socially excluded a white person is, they can always say, "at least I’m not black."

Atheists in an increasingly Christian dominated society should – albeit to a very, very small degree – be able to relate, or at least sympathize.

Shooting Myself In the Foot...

I pen an entry that, although I won't say is an absolute must read, is deserving of consideration, and it goes unnoticed. Well, at the least, unremarked. I really, truly thought this particular piece would be my most read to date, and would inspire serious commenting.

I then, in the mood to focus on something much more lighthearted and inconsequential, post a movie critic-styled entry that drips of self-indulgence, focusing on a couple of compliments I received recently. This gets comments.

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

It doesn't require a perusal of my entire blog to see that I have an affinity for discussing two topics in particular: race and religion. Those near and dear to me are all too aware of this (and I fear a bit annoyed). I pretty much only discuss items considered controversial by the lethargically apathetic masses. Why waste time opining the already well established? Well, I fucked around and wrote one post focusing on the two combined, and it may have bit me in the ass.

I am fully aware that the heavy emphasis on both endangers readership. Why? Well, we know I wouldn't bite my tongue in a seizure, so I'll call it like I see it.

I suppose it safe to assume the individuals who will gravitate toward one subject matter over the other most likely have a vested interest in the particular issue they choose. This seems rather obvious. I'll wager that those choosing race are either a representative of a minority, an individual who comes in frequent contact with such or, conversely, a racist of sorts. Likewise, those partaking of the religious commentary are most likely either atheist, the "undecided" in search of answers, or theists actively looking for debate.

Basically, I’m suggesting black folk are peeping my race posts and atheists are here for the god-bashing.

At the risk of perpetuating a form of stereotyping (imagine that) I have to note that, from my own observations, African Americans are less likely to be agnostic or atheist, and therefore don't share my views on religion (I would love to see actual data on this). On the other hand, I suspect most of the faithless visitors are white, and, although overwhelmingly liberal-minded freethinkers, have natural aversions (future topic) to my posts on racism.

Boy that was a lot of stereotyping.

The bottom line? I fear the people who would frequent more often to read my essays on discrimination may be turned off by my overtly anti-Christian themed posts, and vice versa.

What's noteworthy is that both groups are in the minority nationally, discriminated against by the same common enemy, and outspoken (bravely so) about issues of major importance, yet choose their comfort zones according to what most affects them on an individual basis. Maybe this is closed-minded. Maybe it just makes sense and is efficient. Maybe I just want someone to read my dammit post and tell me what they think.

I’ll note here that the issues of race and secularism are two of the most important we face, and the two most debated during the founding years of this country. See how far we’ve come in 230 odd years?

You Get What You're Looking For...

"blacks loot new orleans hurricane katrina"

No, that's not the synopsis of news headlines over the last couple weeks, it's the search term somebody used to find my page.

Look at it.

That's all that really needs to be said.

Unfortunately, some just won't get it, so more will be said.

Think there might be an extraneous term in there? The very inclusion of that one word - "blacks" - speaks volumes about not only the individual who typed it, but also about society as a whole.

It should have been left out, of course, but even worse, it could have been left out. There is no reason to type "blacks" because it's understood that that's exactly who the perpetrators are anyway.

But this person still typed it. This demonstrates precisely what was being looked for. Due to an environment of institutionalized and aversive racism, coupled with (and resulting in) a corporate media structure that is fed off of advertising revenue - which is a psychological game played with a target audience based on previously established belief structures - and used to sway, if not outright form, public opinion in a sound-bite society, we have a concrete example of conditioning (and arguably, social engineering).

It's not simply that this person thought the inclusion of the term would provide specificity enough to sufficiently narrow the results to exactly what s/he wanted to find. Besides, in the most likely scenario, our searcher didn't sit and formulate a search strategy, carefully considering the best approach before taking the appropriate course of action - s/he just pulled up the search engine and typed what came to mind.

It's merely a reflection of what this person is seeing on the television, internet, and in print media, hearing from others, and programmed to think on an almost instinctive level.

Even more alarming to me is that this person actually expected "blacks" to be a feasibly productive term. To this person, it's so obvious that black folk do all the looting and rioting that it should only be expected that a journalist would just come out and say so in a report. More frightening is the fact that such obvious stereotyping would be looked down upon, and therefore other methods have been developed and employed, with perhaps even more success (and the whole mind state that goes with this).

Was this person searching for ways to assist those afflicted? What about "help hurricane katrina victims"?

Or how about "prevent hurricane katrina disaster"? I'd assume it's more effective to discover and prevent the cause of a disease (even if it is social) than fight the symptoms. I mean, do we want to eradicate herpes or just stop the itch? Cure cancer or merely stop hair from falling out during chemotherapy?

Even a purely intellectual inquiry such as "hurricane cause" would show some hope for human nature.

But greed, xenophobia, and bloodlust once again defeat altruism, sympathy, and compassion.

I'm not even going to assume this person has a confederate flag hat covering his mullet or some lightning bolts tattooed on his neck. Realistically, this isn't some crazed, sociopathic, bigot. Or even a Republican. He doesn't necessarily have to be male, uneducated, or even white (but we can safely - though not absolutely - assume s/he isn't black). This very well could be some liberal-minded, college educated Generation Xer who listens to Hip Hop and cried over visions of starving African children.

But this person IS racist (which one does not have to consciously or intentionally be). And it would probably be safe to say American and Christian. All three of these say a whole lot about the place we live in: something that is verifiably demonstrated in the phrase "blacks loot new orleans hurricane katrina."

Playing the Blame Game...

Amid reports of roving gangs of armed thugs commandeering supply-laden rescue convoys, thwarting rescue attempts, looting, and even raping fellow citizens, coverage of the inefficiency of federal response to Katrina in general has been, metaphorically so, inundated.

FEMA Director Michael Brown has even gone so far as to partially blame the dire situation on the victims themselves.

I can and will not grant a pass to these dispicable examples of human smegma. But I will take a moment to ask, "Why?" Although nothing can justify the actions of these individuals, a look at possible motives and rationale may offer much needed perspective, as it points to a larger, more substantially paramount yet conspicuously ignored underlying cause.

These people are witness to extreme suffering and trauma. And what relief do they see in sight? In a country whose leader was swept into office on a current of vows of National Security, and privy to the creation of a Department of Homeland Defense, assured of its intrinsic abillty to respond promptly and effectively in situations of crisis, they see the manifestation of hollow promises and triviality of rhetoric.

If it appears as if anarchy is setting in, it's, well, because it's anarchy! Where is effective authority? This is as glaring an example of "political disorder and confusion" one needs to see.

If you need a nexus, imagine surviving a disaster, barely existing for hours and days in a complete state of desolation and destruction, with the concept of abandonment slowly presenting itself all around. Now add in a dash of death , disease, and dehydration. Stir this into the contaminated sludge you're wading through, and - voilà! - civil unrest!

This is why people are looting:



They have no fucking shoes! They have no shelter, no water, no food. The basic essentials for human survival are gone, everything they've ever possessed has been erased, and the usual means of obtaining replacements are no longer available. Although some of this civil disobedience is, well, no longer civil, I believe the bulk of it was prompted out of necessity, and escalated (according to human nature) from there.

Yet, news would rather report these evil swarms of renegades than acknowledge the national disgrace that is the government's response. And a society that cheers on underhandedness as entertainment on Survivor, Big Brother, et al. as a show of REALITY is in shock and awe (pun intended).

Where is our humanity? For god's sake (hope the evil atheists don't expel from their coven for that) the mayor of NOLA called off search and rescue efforts to focus police actions on thievery! Once again we're reminded that material possessions are of more signifigance than human life. Does it not bewilder anybody that people avoided evacuation and actually barracaded themselves inside to prevent theft?

Add in the unavoidable fact that a large chunk of the "perpetrators" (and afflicted) are poor and minority, coupled with usual media bias, and it really shouldn't be all that suprising.

On that note, religious groups have already convicted homosexuals as the impetus of destruction. If we can obtain [read: forge] "intelligence" connecting al Qaeda, I will seriously not be suprised. (Un)fortunately, we already have scapegoats. Especially when they don't match the reflection we see on that TV screen - often unnoticed, but constantly present - floating just on the surface of the disinformation, outright lies, and propaganda.


*NOTE* It was later discovered, after the chaos settled, that the reports of evildoers, child rape and murder in the Superdome, attacks on police and rescue officials, and general violence in the aftermath of Katrina were all hyperbolic panic and false. This, of course, received far less press than the specious reports.

Eradicating Poverty...

Chi-Town MC Vakill tells us that women are "like tornadoes - they scream when they come and take everything when they leave."

Granted, she's not a tornado, but apparently Hurricane Katrina a bad-ass bitch. She screams and floods in waves when she comes. Unfortunately, she's gonna take the most from those who have the least.

Ned Sublette reported that the poorest one-fifth of New Orleans wasn't evacuated. He draws the valid analogy:

It's as if you had advance notice that Mohammed Atta's crew was coming to the World Trade center and evacuated all but the poor from it.

134,000 people are just too poor to merit rescue. In a city that is 67% black (and I'm sure that number's even higher in the representation of this particular group), more than half of them have even less chance of being rescued.

Amazingly, the oil platform workers had no trouble being evacuated. The Sun rose in the east today too.

I can't help but speculate if a storm of "swarthy" men in turbans were having a flag-burning rally, the Gov't wouldn't have too much difficulty promptly amassing resources comparable to what would be appropriate to keeps these Americans out of harm's way.

I'm gonna have to check in with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as to what's been done to incur god's wrath. Maybe the poor are just crawling with marriage license seeking homosexuals and drowning in murdered fetuses. They do eat a LOT of shellfish down there. They must be wallowing in some form of sin, because god's about to put the smackdown on the unrighteous again, just like he did with the tsunami. Maybe he's just trying to shift focus away from his loyal messenger, what with the blatant media lies about calls for assassination and all.

Revolutionary Philosophy...

Somewhat pertinent to my previous post is track 11 on Immortal Technique's Revolutionary Vol. 1 album, Poverty of Philosophy

Tech is a powerful, gifted artist who spits politically while maintaining the edge and wit of a true, seasoned battle MC.

This particular "song" is more of a speech, one of many used as intermissions on his album.

I'll See Your Ghetto (Part II)...

...and raise you a reservation.

We aren’t the only ones slinging the word “ghetto” around. I see far too many young (and old) Black folk using it in absurdly self-deprecating ways. A perverse sense of pride has even become attached to it. I’m sure many have heard the “You might be ghetto if…” take on Jeff Foxworthy’s incomprehensibly successful redneck jokes (which further demonstrates that what we’re dealing with is class, not race–-whole other topic).

I recently read Chris’ brother Tony Rock’s statement, “I didn’t know Whitney was as ghetto as she is,” referring to her portrayal on Bravo's newest horror show.

Essence ran a cover story on Mariah’s confused ass, and in it, the Brat was teeming over with affirmations of Miss Carey’s ghetto nature (she listens to rap music!!). See, it’s a glowing compliment. And, it solves everything. Mariah blatantly denies and embraces her ethnicity to pursue her own ends?! No way, Mariah been ghetto! Translation: Mariah is black, y’all (the assumption that this needs to be confirmed is a whole other issue).

I’m a realist. A lot of us choose to pretend we live in some alternate universe, and espouse idealist thoughts, but too bad, so sad; There is a time and place for everything.

Now, I think I should note I am a firm believer in humor being a remedy for all maladies. I also understand the concept of flipping the tables, and reclaiming vile epithets as a way of building self-confidence in an environment set up to destroy it (the most obvious, argued, and completely misunderstood by white folk is the notorious N-bomb). But I don’t support the practice. It’s superficial and does nothing to defeat the word. The original connotations still hold power, and even worse, the word gains a perceived acceptance in usage. In the end, it has not been reclaimed; it has been given a free pass.

I also want to clear the air of the misconception that is constantly being pushed, of Black people’s (perceived) near obsession with underachievement. This is most often expressed along the lines of “Black kids make fun of other Black kids who speak well, do well in school, yada yada yada.”

I’m not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that this is pure myth, only that is greatly exaggerated (to serve a contemptible purpose).

How many White kids, who excelled in education and eschewed social pursuits for academic ones, do you know of that weren’t labeled “nerd” or “geek”? And I have had PLENTY White folk call me a sell-out (usually our version of it: race traitor). Once again, we’re dealing with the actions of a certain class of people, not the entire group.

The worst part about the popularity of “ghetto,” as it holds a place in America’s vernacular, is in its connotation. When Whites use it (even jokingly, in a “lighthearted” manner), it’s negative, reflecting the long-held notion of blackness itself being negative in white America.

When Blacks use it, it’s become positive, a badge of honor, even, reflecting Black folks' apathetic/conditioned acceptance of the long-held notion of blackness itself being negative in white America.

It is not Black culture to be poor. Ignorance, poor health, classlessness, lower moral values, etc. are the symptoms of poverty, not characteristics of Black people. That is not the history of Black people. That may be the consequence of history ON Black people, but it is not the fact of blackness. We need to eradicate this line of thinking, and the mainstream use of “ghetto” in this context.

Black people were not born into ghettos, they were sentenced to them. The ghetto was put on Black people, just as the word has been, and neither is acceptable.

I'll See Your Ghetto (Part I)...

...and raise you a concentration camp.

(Post prompted by Tiger Lilly.)

ghet·to - 1. A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure.
2. An often walled quarter in a European city to which Jews were restricted beginning in the Middle Ages.
3. Something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto

Semantics aside, we all know what people mean when they say ghetto in 2005*. There’s no positive connotation involved.

I argued this point constantly at work (remembering, since I am in America, I was surrounded by clueless White folk).

Anytime somebody was using something that wasn't in perfect, or even acceptable, condition it was "ghetto."

"This mop is ghetto."

"So you're saying ghetto means broke down, shoddy - not proper or right?" I would ask. Then I'd assure them they were racist. Hey, some of us just need to face it. I’m not a mind reader, but a bookie would be foolish to put odds against them having another definition for the word.

Although, fervently denied, or even snickered at, my claim would always be proven. Eventually.

"I have a ghetto-booty," one privileged White girl would boast (large yes, almost on scale with her ears, but I doubt any quarters would bounce off of it).

"What's that mean?," I asked.

"Oh, you know," she answered, searching for a way to make it sound flattering, "Black girls just...don't care so much about being all skinny and stuff."

This is the same girl who grew up in the county (read: country-ass boonies), refers to Black people as "colored," who's father is the pastor of their cult church (which proscribes miscegenation), and who, after her "phase" of whoring around, will, I’m sure, be the Stepford version of Ann Coulter.

"So, you’re saying ‘ghetto’ means ‘Black’?"

"Uh...um...err," by this time her backup is usually arriving. Funny how if it’s said in unison, it’s the truth.

The discussion would usually involve histrionic confessions of righteousness (I’m sorry, how silly of me to think you’re racist when you listen to Ja Rule and fucked a Black guy or two – finger snaps and neck rolls added for emphasis - girrrrlfriend) or pitiful attempts to show how offended and hurt they were ("racists aren’t good people!"). Eventually someone in the group would make some lame joke, usually geared at discrediting me, and they’d all laugh their way out of it.

The bottom line is, to White people, ghetto is synonymous with Black. Ghetto is also synonymous with "fucked up". It’s not exactly a leap to see this as a categorical syllogism concluding that Black people are fucked up (if a=b, and a=c, then b=c).

This isn’t my only beef with the widespread use of this particular word though, and I will shortly continue this post.

*Don't attempt to tell me we're talking about oppression of Jews either. If I said I was going to go smoke a fag, you'd probably think I was gonna shoot a homosexual, not light up a Newport. This also applies to a nigger simply being any "lazy person." We know exactly what we're talking about here.

Part Two

White like me?

Shark-Fu over at ABB posted on being invisible.

I responded: “This is exactly what I'm fighting to prevent my daughters from having to experience.

Growing up in this "society," I can't shelter them from experiencing ignorance, hatred, discrimination, and sexism, but I can help prevent them from having to live a lie - from being anything short of what and who they are.

Their mother is one of those Africans who emphasize that they're not a "black American." She has my children attending a lily-white, conservative, Christian school, ensuring that the only people they're exposed to are but a sampling of what is out there to experience. [A sampling which represents their near polar opposite.]

As a white man I have an overwhelmingly-difficult task ahead of me, but my daughters WILL be able to hold their heads up as strong, proud black women.

And at times, maybe even angry black bitches. Just don't let me be around if that label's applied.”

I’m sure this riles some feathers, and I will assuredly be touching on this subject in the future.