Thats what I'm Talking about!!!

The complete text of the slavery apology resolution approved by the Alabama Legislature on Thursday:

WHEREAS, slavery has been documented as a worldwide practice since antiquity, dating back to 3500 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia; and

WHEREAS, during the course of the infamous Atlantic Slave Trade, millions of Africans became involuntary immigrants to the New World, and millions more died during passage; the first African slaves in the North American colonies were brought to Jamestown, in 1619; and

WHEREAS, the Atlantic Slave Trade was a lucrative enterprise, and African slaves, a prized commodity to support the economic base of plantations in the colonies, were traded for tropical products, manufactured goods, sugar, molasses, and other merchandise; and

WHEREAS, some African captives resisted enslavement by fleeing from slave forts on the West African coast and others mutinied aboard slave trading vessels, cast themselves into the Atlantic Ocean, or risked the cruel retaliation of their masters by running away to seek freedom; and

WHEREAS, although the United States outlawed the transatlantic slave trade in 1808, the domestic slave trade in the colonies and illegal importation continued for several decades; and

WHEREAS, slavery, or the "Peculiar Institution," in the United States resembled no other form of involuntary servitude, as Africans were captured and sold at auction as chattel, like inanimate property or animals; and

WHEREAS, to prime Africans for slavery, the fundamental values of the Africans were shattered, they were brutalized, humiliated, dehumanized, and subjected to the indignity of being stripped of their names and heritage, women and girls were raped, and families were disassembled as husbands and wives, mothers and daughters, and fathers and sons were sold into slavery apart from one another; and

WHEREAS, a series of complex colonial laws were enacted to relegate the status of Africans and their descendants to slavery, in spite of their loyalty, dedication, and service to the country, including heroic and distinguished service in the Civil War; and

WHEREAS, the system of slavery had become entrenched in American history and the social fabric, and the issue of enslaved Africans had to be addressed as a national issue, contributing to the Civil War from 1861 to 1865 and the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude on December 18, 1865; and

WHEREAS, after emancipation from 246 years of slavery, African-Americans soon saw the political, social, and economic gains they made during Reconstruction dissipated by virulent and rabid racism, lynchings, disenfranchisement of African-American voters, Black Codes designed to reimpose the subordination of African-Americans, and Jim Crow laws that instituted a rigid system of de jure segregation in virtually all areas of life and that lasted until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and

WHEREAS, throughout their existence in America and even in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement, African-Americans have found the struggle to overcome the bitter legacy of slavery long and arduous, and for many African-Americans the scars left behind are unbearable, haunting their psyches and clouding their vision of the future and of America's many attributes; and

WHEREAS, acknowledgment of the crimes and persecution visited upon other peoples during World War II is embraced lest the world forget, yet the very mention of the broken promise of "40 acres and a mule" to former slaves or of the existence of racism today evokes denial from many quarters of any responsibility for the centuries of legally sanctioned deprivation of African-Americans of their endowed rights or for contemporary policies that perpetuate the status quo; and

WHEREAS, in 2003, during a trip to Goree Island, Senegal, a former slave port, President George W. Bush stated, "At this place, liberty and life were stolen and sold. Human beings were delivered and sorted, and weighed, and branded with the marks of commercial enterprises, and loaded as cargo on a voyage without return. One of the largest migrations of history was also one of the greatest crimes of history ... Small men took on the powers and airs of tyrants and masters. Years of unpunished brutality and bullying and rape produced a dullness and hardness of conscience. Christian men and women became blind to the clearest commands of their faith and added hypocrisy to injustice ... For 250 years the captives endured an assault on their culture and their dignity ... While physical slavery is dead, the legacy is alive. My nation's journey toward justice has not been easy, and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation ... and many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times ... We can finally judge the past by the standards of President John Adams, who called slavery 'an evil of colossal magnitude' ... "; and

WHEREAS, in Alabama, the vestiges of slavery are ever before African-American citizens, from the overt racism of hate groups to the subtle racism encountered when requesting health care, transacting business, buying a home, seeking quality public education and college admission, and enduring pretextual traffic stops and other indignities; and

WHEREAS, European and African nations have apologized for their roles in what history calls the worst holocaust of humankind, the Atlantic Slave Trade, and racial reconciliation is impossible without some acknowledgment of the moral and legal injustices perpetrated upon African-Americans; and

WHEREAS, an apology for centuries of brutal dehumanization and injustices cannot erase the past, but confession of the wrongs can speed racial healing and reconciliation and help African-American and white citizens confront the ghosts of their collective pasts together; and

WHEREAS, the story of the enslavement of Africans and their descendants, the human carnage, and the dehumanizing atrocities committed during slavery should not be purged from Alabama's history or discounted; moreover, the faith, perseverance, hope, and endless triumphs of African-Americans and their significant contributions to the development of this state and the nation should be embraced, celebrated, and retold for generations to come; and

WHEREAS, the perpetual pain, distrust, and bitterness of many African-Americans could be assuaged and the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers would be affirmed, and great strides toward unifying all Alabamians and inspiring the nation to acquiesce might be accomplished, if on the eve of the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in the New World, the state acknowledged and atoned for its pivotal role in the slavery of Africans; and

WHEREAS, acknowledging that there is a difference between what is wrong and right, and that slavery as an American "Institution" was a wrong committed upon millions of Black Americans and that their ancestors are the beneficiaries of such wrongs, including, but not limited to, segregation under Jim Crow, housing discrimination, discrimination in education, and other ills inflicted upon Black people; and

WHEREAS, the State of Alabama, the Governor, and its citizens are conscious that under slavery many atrocities and gross violations of human rights were imposed upon Black people, and that acknowledging these facts can and will avert future tragedies, be they in the Sudan, or other parts of the world; and

WHEREAS, the State of Alabama has a long history of civil rights involvement and is on the cutting edge of effective measures to promote racial tolerance, such as the Birmingham Pledge; now therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, BOTH HOUSES THEREOF CONCURRING, That we express our profound regret for the State of Alabama's role in slavery and that we apologize for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States of America; we express our deepest sympathies and solemn regrets to those who were enslaved and the descendants of slaves, who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and we encourage the remembrance and teaching about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and modern day slavery, to ensure that these tragedies will neither be forgotten nor repeated.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That it is the intent of the Legislature that this resolution shall not be used in, or be the basis of, any type of litigation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution shall be known and referred to as the "Moore-Sanders Apology for Slavery Act."

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to each state elected official; the Executive Director of the Alabama Commission on Higher Education; the Executive Director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Alabama Chapter; and the Executive Director of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Alabama Chapter; requesting that they further disseminate copies of this resolution to their respective constituents so that they may be apprised of the sense of the Alabama Legislature in this matter.


http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070525/NEWS/705250306/1001

How I made it out the Hood.

I am from the so called “hood”. I come from working class parents and I grew up about 4 blocks from a housing project, a real housing project in the stereotypical sense. Over the years there were murders, robberies and assaults right in front of our home. I grew up around people on welfare and working class families. I grew up around current and eventual murderers, pimps, hustlers, drug dealers, prostitutes and the like. However, the vast majority of people I grew up around were descent folks with Southern values all wanting the best life possible for themselves and their families.

My parents were not highly educated. They grew up in share cropping families and eventually in adulthood migrated from the Mississippi Delta to Michigan in search of a better life. Nearly everyone in our neighborhood had parents that came from Mississippi or Alabama with similar background as my parents. Of course, our neighborhood was not all black when we first moved there; it was about half black and half white. However, in about 5 years it became 100% black for blocks and blocks. I am not saying that my life and family are a microcosm of the often lamented “black experience”, but I dare say that the chapters of my life and family were shared by millions of other African Americans.

Today, I have a college education a good salary and live comfortably with my wife and children. All the children I have produced I have produced in wedlock. I now live in the frigid state of Minnesota in an integrated community. I have achieved an income stature significantly above most black folks and above most white folks as well (although the latter seems only theoretical). In light of this, people often assume that I have been responsible and made the right decisions in life and that is what separates me from those who still languish in the hood. This theory assumes that people like me demonstrated superior discipline, morality, values, choices and responsibility. People have actually told me this many times. In other words people assume characteristics of strength and responsibility allowed me to rise above my condition.

Wrong! What allowed for me and many others to make it out of the ghetto were relative weaknesses and this is a truth that is rarely mentioned. Some people do rise out of the ghetto from vision and discipline, but just as many, if not more, make it out because they were less competitive for stature in the hood because of personal traits and did not get trapped. You see the hood is no different than any other environment as it essentially revolves around the competition for mates and mating and all the materialism and posturing for rank and status that is part and parcel to that game. So the hood is no different than Beverly Hills other than the avenues to top ranking usually involves something nefarious if not athletics or entertainment. It has its own social hierarchy that motivates competition for ranking.

As an example, I look at my life vs. the life of my older brother, who is still trapped in the hood. Why did our lives turn out so differently? It was not personal responsibility, discipline and or a superior intellect that allowed for better choice making. Rather, it was personality traits out of our control. He was much stronger and more fearless than I was. He also had the better looks and was a ladies man by Junior high. The resultant is that the opportunities for him were different than the opportunities for me based upon what doors our genetics and personality opened for us.

My oldest brother (OB) could get all the finest women in high school, although he never actually attended high school. He got the ones who would give it up and the ones who would to give it up. All that varied frequent fornication led to children out of wedlock at an early age. Now, any brother that would tell you they would not have “hit” all those fine sisters if they had a chance would be lying. Lord knows I wish I could have, but I did not have the looks or the “game” at that time. This kept me from having kids out of wedlock. The best chance I had was telling some of these sisters that OB was my brother and they might give me some just to get to him. When I did get some I almost had to beg for it and I always had to have protection. So this is what kept me from being trapped by kids out of wedlock early on. Not personal responsibility, but fewer opportunities.

The streets were another example of how my brother differed from me. He was dealing drugs in the 9th grade and had brand new ride before he even had his driving license. Sometimes he would be gone for weeks and my folks would be worried to death having the police looking for him. He would come back and face the beat down from my folks, so he eventually moved out the crib and dropped out of school. He would tell me about shoot outs he had been in with cats in some other cities and about a guy who had gotten his head blown off by a shotgun blast and stuff like that. One of the major reason I could go to school in peace was because people knew my OB and feared the retaliation if they did something to me. So even though I did have problems, they would have been a lot worse if not for my OB.

My personality type did not allow me to run the streets like that. It was not personal responsibility and being a good choice maker. It was fear plan and simple. I was in the streets but I was not in the game because of fear. I wanted the rewards of that life like a lot of other cats did but I did not have the personality for it. I also could not see having my folks worrying about me like that or them being disappointed in me like that. I was too nice a guy, until you ticked me off. The streets are not cut out for nice guys like me. I always had a lot of compassion for other people and being a compassionate hood will get you killed, aside from being an oxymoron. It was not that my OB was a bad guy, but he just understood the rules of the streets and played by them. I guess he figured that he did not make the rules but was compelled to enforce them if he was going to compete in the streets for ghetto prizes. It was just a “businesses”.

In light of this, my OB became a victim of his own strength, which allowed him ghetto success momentarily, which became a trap long term. My personality and fears at that time shaped my options and hence choices. I was able to therefore come out of high school without a record or kids and was able to make it into my twenties with nothing really holding me back. That allowed me time to mature and figure out what I wanted in life and how to get it. Even though I flunked the 11th grade, I eventually went on to college. I left Michigan and went to Georgia were I attended school for awhile in Atlanta. I eventually moved back to Michigan and earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Wayne State University. Had I been trapped by kids, child support, criminal record and other negatives at an early age like my OB, my life would be just like my OB.


It is very shallow for people to suggest that it is all about choices and that we all have the same pool of life choices. The choices people make are enable or disabled by their personality, genetics and circumstances outside their direct control. The ghetto has fruit trees for the hungry. The trees are tall, however, and not all have the natural strength or agility to climb. Some of the fruit is poison. Therefore, those who end up climbing the trees to eat are the strongest and the risk takers. Some climb the tree but cannot get down. Some eat the fruit and die. Some are lucky in that they climb up, eat the fruit and climb down. Those who can’t climb the trees or fear being trapped or eating a poisoned fruit also avoid the pitfalls and have the best chance of eventually finding good safe nourishment.

Personality traits go a long way in explaining why some black folks get trapped in the ghetto while others make it out. If my family had been reared in a environment that offered visible conduits to success that were more positive, my OB personality traits could have made him a Warren Buffet today, instead being a “has been” of the hood. The ghetto traps the strongest and bravest, which robs the black collective of its most promising alpha males and I don't think that it is by accident. In the past, from these alpha brothers came Malcom X, Marcus Garvey, Huey Newton, Stokely Carmicheal and the like. Society has given the alpha black males self destructive alternatives due to the revolution of the sixties. Now instead of fighting the power, they are figthing and destroying each other.

My OB is not a failure....at least not by natures metrics....nor mine!

DOS

No not the old archaic Disc Operating System (DOS). This acronym stands for Descendants of Slaves (DOS). I believe that given the assault on Black recovery from over 3 centuries of legalized racial oppression, DOS should become the legal term used, going forward, for targeted recovery assistance. The current efforts by whites to resist efforts to combat the legacy of black oppression, through government policies, require a new legal strategy. That strategy centers on using the proper legal terminology to protect our ability to hold the government to its responsibilities.

Whites and conservatives have improvised since the passage of the Civil Rights act some 40 years ago. They realized that they could no longer use racial laws to keep blacks down; therefore they developed a new strategy to twart the governments responsibility to help blacks get up. What they have discovered, by intent or accident, is that the language and terminology used to deny whites the legal ability to oppress black can be turned against blacks to keep the government from its responsibility in helping blacks to recover.

I term this technique “Racial Jujitsu”. Jujitsu being a martial art form in which the goal is to use an adversary’s strength and leverage against it. Whites and conservatives have thus taken the language of the civil rights movement, in regards to laws against racial discrimination, and turned it against programs aimed at helping blacks recover from 3 centuries of legal racial oppression. The conservative and white call for a color-blind society, at this juncture, is not for altruistic reasons as it appears at face value. Rather, it's an attempt to block efforts by the government to rectify its past wrongs hence preserving white privilege.

The reason that whites can successfully challenge these programs legally is due to the fact that programs, like Affirmative Action, use race as one of the targeting criteria. Its then argued successfully by lawyers before the Supreme Court that these programs violate laws against racial discrimination by giving preference to blacks. This is due to the fact that race is the explicit intent of the language used in the policy. However, targeting people for Affirmative Action based upon being DOS removes race from the explicit legal criteria preventing the policy from violating laws against racial discrimination.

We all know, for all intents and purposes, that DOS criteria will coincidentally result in all black beneficiaries, but whose fault is that? The University of Michigan gives preference to students applying for admission from obscure counties in Michigan. All these students are white, more than likely, because blacks do not live in these obscure counties in any significant numbers. Yet, this is not considered a racial set aside, despite the beneficiaries being white, because race is not used in the criteria. So it cannot be argued that this is racial discrimination against blacks. By the same logic, set-asides for DOS, even though it maps to black people, like the obscure counties map to whites, cannot be argued successfully as discrimination against whites.

DOS is actually a more accurate and efficient term for what America is attempting to fix. As much as I love my African Born Brothers and Sisters who come to America, they should not be part of the target pool due to the fact that their forefathers and mothers did not endure the assault here in America. Under the current methodology, Africans, I believe, can take advantage of racial set aside programs. The program should specifically target for repair the descendants of slavery or DOS. The DOS population is also the sufferers of Jim Crow, so in encompasses both the oppression of slavery and the oppression of Jim Crow. Moreover, it helps to define our condition as the product of being DOS and not the product of shared experiences of minorities.

Of course the million-dollar question that people will ask is how does one prove that they are descendants of slaves. I think that it will be a challenging thing to prove for individuals, but I do believe that given the will and modern means and agencies that over 90% of the people who are actually descendents of slaves can prove it via Court data, census data, DNA evidence and the like. It could create a whole new field of opportunities in providing service to track roots to slavery. Such would also, I believe, reconnect black people to a history that young people have forgotten or dismissed. I may be projecting but I do believe that such knowledge could possible change the enmity we have toward each other.

I am not suggesting that we stop calling ourselves African Americans or blacks and define ourselves as descendants of slaves (DOS). Rather, I am suggesting that for legal purposes that we hold government and institutions liable for repair not using the language of race but rather the language of the condition that caused the problem, which was enslavement. The fact that this nation choose to only enslave blacks does not make the intent of the current parties racially motivated, but rather, the intent of the enslavement racially motivated. It can be argued that the intent is to rectify the descendants of the enslaved, which can be identified by documents and DNA, and not by race.

Double Standard or just Bad Credit?

Double Standard? If a person applies for a mortgage and has an extensive history of not paying their bills on time, or at all, is it a double standard to deny that person a mortgage when others with no such history can get the same loan? This happens all the time in the lending business where risk and worthiness is assessed by way of an entities history. It’s not called “Double Standard” in the free market, but rather “Bad Credit” and its understood as the consequence of historical behavior.

To put it bluntly, as a collective entity, white folks have bad credit when it comes to issues of race and black folks. There is no double standard manifesting as people claim where whites cannot say things that blacks can say, as in the Imus controversy. White folks are going to have to learn to deal with and be responsible for the ramifications of the choices they have made over the last 300 years. Yet, they refuse this accountablity.

Derogatory commentary coming from white folks does not get the benefit of the doubt, precisely due to their history. For centuries white scholars and citizens have been propagandizing the inferiority of black people. All anyone has to do is to study history to see a long degrading physical, psychological and economical attack upon black people rationalized by verbal or written suggestion from whites that we are sub human and inferior. Why on earth would white people now feel that they could utter such words with impunity?

It seems that white folks have filed chapter 13 and have not told black folks about it. They have written off all their misdeeds of the past and not only want shielding from their creditors, but good credit standing restored. However, in this whole scheme, they once again have ignored or circumvented the losses of black folks from their historical behavior. Now they expect black folks to just “write-off” those losses and pretend with them that the last 300 years never happened. Now they EXPECT, yes, expect that black people trust them and give them the same benefit of the doubt that we give ourselves. When we don’t, we, and not their history, are at fault.

For the white folks who may read this, understand this. Until you make sincere efforts to clean up your history and come to terms with those you have wronged, you will remain the bad guy to black folks who don’t know you. You will be collectively held accountable for the transgression against blacks, even if you are a good white person. This is why good white people need to take control of the collective image of white people and clean it up via reconciling past wrongs.

I constantly hear white people complaining about being labeled or seen as racist when they say that they are not. Well, that is simply the consequence of the history of America. The reason you will continue to be seen as racist is because you choose not to be responsible or accountable for white history, while being the primary beneficiaries of it. Whites will continue to be tainted by an ugly racist white history until white people take the responsibility to reconcile damages. That is when and how you will stop being collectively punished and distrusted. It’s not enough to stop the bad behavior that you started; you need to fix what you broke.

So in conclusion, until white folks take responsibility for white history and cleaning up the racial aftermath of their bad behavior, whites will continue to have bad credit in the eyes of blacks. Don’t call it a double standard because it is not. It’s the trust and respect that whites have earned via your history. You dug yourselves into this whole of distrust and now you will have to take responsibility to dig yourselves out of it. Don’t blame black folks because we don’t trust you or let you say things we say to each other, blame yourselves…. because you earned the lack of respect.

Guilt

Guilt is clinically described as an emotional state produced when one feels that he or she has not lived up to their ideal selves via feelings that they could have or should have done more. It is one of many natural human emotions, some of which, via the brain, trigger a chemical reaction of pleasure and some of which, like guilt, produce the reaction of pain. Obviously, as intelligent pleasure seeking creatures, our rationalizations seek to maximize pleasure and reduce the pain in our lives.

One of the most powerful quotes of human nature that I have ever read, the author of which escapes my memory, was this: In order for one to truly be happy, they must first divorce themselves from the needs and concerns of others. Wow! When I first read that it just blew me away because it just rang so true from my personal experience as a human. For those with compassion, it is really hard to enjoy life when there is so much suffering going on around you. Why me or why you? Why should we have so much while others have so little? Could you enjoy a full meal in front of starving children? One would hope not.

Call me crazy, but I do believe that most humans are naturally compassionate. I also believe that most humans are most profoundly pleasure seeking, which produces the corollary of pain aversion. Consequently, our desire and drive to attain the natural high of pleasure conflicts with our natural tendency to feel compassion due to the fact that compassion often causes guilt and pain and hence inhibits pleasure. However, our rational minds, which is beholden to our strongest emotions, presents a case to the self on behalf of pleasure which convinces the self not to feel guilt.

In light of these natural tendancies, how do humans generally divorce themselves from the needs and concern of others? One method is the out of sight out of mind method. People simply avoid witnessing people in need. Others who may witness will rationalize that people in need chose their own fate via the choices they make. Another rationalization is that to help those in need only enables the continuation of bad behavior. Yet another rationalization is that the condition of need is natural because of innate shortcomings and any help would amount to a permanent subsidy as the condition will never improve.

These rationalizations work to convince the selfish self to continue seeking pleasure at the expense of compassion, which therefore impedes assistance to others. Its like the cartoon depiction of the good Angel in one ear and the bad angel in the other, seeking to control behavior. The elites, whether they are the elites by virtue of class or by virtue of race, or by both, are the masters of these rationalizations that are made palatable by minor grains of truth. However, their rationalization is not designed to do what is best for the people in need and suffering, but rather, to eliminate the feeling of guilt in their own lives and to continue the pleasure of enjoying so much while others have so little.

In America, whites and the rich, who are disproportionately white, propagandize these rationalizations to the nation. Their intent is designed to eliminate guilt and to conserve the pleasures born from their status over non-whites and the poor. White people and rich people must rationalize that black people and poor people are in their relative state of deprivation because that is the life that they choose. To rationalize otherwise would threaten the feeling of pleasure that they receive from their absolute and relative stature. Whites and the elite also want to conserve the physchological pleasure of feeling the sense of being better, superior, than others in a fair competition of life. They want to feel as if they won by virtue of working harder and or working smarter and that the resultant is the natural order of survival of the fittest. Hence, there is no reason to feel guilt.

You see the natural sequence is that compassion in humans should be followed by assistance. The natural way to deal with guilt is to do all that you can do to help others. However, in order to add something to another person’s life one has to subtract something from their own life, whether it is the subtraction of time and or financial resources that normally go for personal pleasure. Hence, one cannot subtract from their lives and maintain their level of pleasure unless their level of pleasure in life is born from helping others and not materialism and stature. In America, the whole economic structure and system is dependent upon the promotion of the latter, so that is how most people define themselves and why they don't want to sacrafice that definition.

Most white people think the way they do about black problems because they too are human. They are trying to avoid the sense of guilt and moral responsibility and they use all the rationalizations listed above and more. Race is such a painful topic for whites because deep down inside they know that as humans they are not living up to their ideal selves, especially as so called Christians. You see, compassion and guilt are the emotions that helps us be our Brothers keeper. Hence, Blacks must be rationalized as at fault in order for whites to not have compasion or guilt and hence not the keeper of their brother. If blacks were in their position, we would rationalize the same thing because its human nature to seek to rationalize the continuation of pleasure and the aversion of pain.

Many whites rationalize that a valid guilt, in terms of race, is having some responsibility for slavery or Jim Crow. Since no contemporary white person has owned black slaves, they rationalize that they should not feel compassion or guilt in regards to the black condition of inequality. Moreover, they rationalize that despite centuries of white privilege, via the corollary of black oppression, that the relative deprivation of blacks is self inflicted and natural. Moreover, they have evolved to rationalize away feelings of guilt about their own racism by believing and suggesting that blacks are just as racist as whites. However, one would be hard pressed to find empirical evidence that our acts against them are equal in degree and kind to their acts against us. There is no offsetting behavior in blacks towards whites that neutralizes the impact of past and present white racism upon blacks. Yet, these cognitions help whites to avoid guilt and compassion all so that they can continue to enjoy the pleasure of relative and absolute stature and privilege over blacks.

The problem for black and poor people throughout America and the world is that people who have the most power to make a difference will continue to rationalize reasons to not make a difference. The elites will continue to divorce themselves from the needs and concerns of others so that they can not only maintain the pleasure of the egregiously skewed allocation of wealth nationally and globally, but also increase it. I really see little evidence of this changing now that capitalism has spread to nearly every part of the globe.

The impact of Urbanization pon Black America.

What has been the affect of urbanization upon African Americans? In 1920, the vast majority of blacks were Southern and rural. The great migration, which lasted from around 1920 to around 1970, brought millions of blacks to Northern industrial cities seeking a better life. By 1980 80% of black people were living in urban, as opposed to rural, environs. Today, although most blacks are still southern, over 90% of blacks live in urban environments, with the majority in higher density central urban environments.

A question was recently presented to me, via the mind of a black conservative, concerning the debunking of the notion that problems of today’s blacks are linked to the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. The proposition was this: If racism is the origin of many black problems today, then why are many black problems, like crime and out of wedlock births, worse today than in the early 1900’s when racism was much worse a problem? It’s actually a very logical question for if there is a correlation and causation between black problems and white racism, then black problems should rise and fall with the level of white racism in the general society, right? Not exactly.

The flaw of this analysis and proposition is that it assumes all other things remain the same, when they don’t and did not. The reason why some conditions worsened for blacks, while overt white racism declined, is due to the fact that others things changed. One of the things that changed is that the nation, and particularly black America, became much more urban than it had been. The behavior and culture of blacks radically changed once they started moving from a rural personal existence to an impersonal and dense urban existence in ghettos. Moreover, the society as a whole was becoming more individualistic as it was transforming into the “Me” generation where individual expression ruled over traditional expectations. What was the impetus for this change? The push factor was to escape Southern oppression and poverty born from racism. So our migration was a reaction to the action of white racism, i.e. racism is correlation and causation.

It’s like a person who says that he or she steals bread because he or she is hungry then a critic disputes that rationalization by noting the time when the person was much hungrier, yet, did not steal to the same degree. However, the critic never thinks to consider that the opportunity to steal may have varied between the time when the person was much hungrier compared with now. Had there been the same opportunity to steal bread, as now, when the person was much hungrier, the person likely would have stolen more bread. Thus, the degree of hunger, like the degree of racism, is not the only factor in determining the resultant behavior. Rather, it’s the “push” factor relative to opportunity to succumb or give into the temptations created from the “push” factor successfully. Hence, the environment that black folks lived in, in 1920, did not offer the opportunities to behave in a manner that manifest in contemporary urban black communities.

If you talk with any black person over the age of 50, they can give you a chronology of the change. They will tell you about the era when they used to leave their doors unlocked at night. They will tell you about the era when everyone spoke to one and other when they passed in public. They will tell you about the era were children addressed adults with “sir” and “ma’am”. They will tell you about the era when the neighbor looked out for and could and would discipline another’s child who had transgressed from the expectations of normative behavior as defined by the community and culture. These were all the traditions and culture formed from a rural southern existence and they eroded as blacks became more urban and less rural, more impersonal and less personal, as a consequence of becoming more Northern and more urban.

One also must keep in mind that years of racial oppression left a deep psychological scare upon black people. The rural black existence, unlike the urban black existence, did not offer the triggers or opportunities for deviant behavior for a psychologically scared people. As a general rule, when people live in a low density area where everyone knows everyone and the people have all lived in the area for many years, people don’t transgress from expectations very often. People who wanted to transgress from traditions usually move to the “city” for that, where it’s more impersonal and they feel they can become anonymous. Hence, the “city” has always been the destination and incubator of vices and blacks migration to the city, looking to escape the racism and poverty of rural southern existence, exposed them to opportunities from many vices.

In light of this, the reason why black conditions, in some respects, are worse today, than when racism was much worse, is due to the fact that the glue of rural existence and traditions are no longer keeping us sane. Let us also not forget that white racism has never vacated the premises either, although the loss of legal foundation has greatly curtailed the ability to egregiously oppress blacks with impunity. When blacks moved into their new urban environments, whites moved away to a suburban existence and their jobs followed them, making the core urban environment that much more an incubator of vices and bad behavior for a psychological scared people due to a lack of opportunity. The psychological scaring manifest frustration, anger and hopelessness that resulted in misplaced aggression and irresponsible behavior inflicted upon the people closest to them, which were other black people.

So as our national society and culture slowly decays in pursuit of materialism and individualism, all to support commercialism that feeds capitalism hyper greed, the traditionally vulnerable will be disproportionately impacted. Humans are not a naturally dense living people, as opportunity and urbanization forces it upon us. It’s an incubator for all type of socially deviant behavior, as well as, providing income opportunities needed in the modern day and age for survival. Black people are likely the most urbanized group in America and we also receive the less opportunity from urbanization of any group. Thus, whe don’t enjoy the positive income opportunities born from Urban (because most of it is now suburban) living, to the same degree as others, while being exposed to the vices of downside of urban living.

Of course, the same ole people will see this analysis as fitting the pattern of excuse making, when it is not. Every action produces a reaction and that phenomenon is intellectually known as “cause and effect”. Every intellectual pursuit of knowledge and discovery must deal with the phenomenon of cause and effect. It’s only when people want to emotionalize a debate that the phenomenon of cause and effect is relabeled the blame game and excuse making. Every time an attempt is made to intellectually explain the black condition, emotional terms are superimposed over logical terms to obfuscate with the hope of discrediting the findings or conclusion.

Numbers

1619 - 1865, 1865 – 1965, 1619 – 1965, 1619 – 2007 = 388 years. 1619 - 1865 = 246. 246/388 = 63%. 1619 – 1965 = 346. 346/388 = 89%.

What do those non arbitrary dates and numbers represent? 1619 is the birth of the black collective in this land later called America. It is the date that 20 indentured black servants were brought to America and who later became the first black slaves in America. 1865 represents the freeing of the slaves marked by the end of the civil war, which by the way was not fought to free the slaves, but to preserve the union. 1865 – 1965 was the unofficial era of American Apartheid, which came to a legal end with the Civil Rights Act of 1965, although it carried on criminally long after. 2007, of course, represents the present.

What the numbers means is this. The black collective, i.e. black people, has been in this land 388 years. We, the collective, have spent 246 of those 388 years in a state of bondage. That represents 63% of the time the collective has existed in these lands. The collective has spent an additional 100 years in a state of racial apartheid which denied blacks equal opportunity and access, as well as, inflicted racial violence in the form of lynching’s, rape, castration and assaults with impunity. This period of Apartheid represented 26% of our collective existence in this land. Combined, the period of bondage and apartheid equals to 346 of legalized black oppression out of a total of 388 years of existence in this land. That represents 89% of our collective existence in this land under a legalized form of oppression and 42, out of 388, in theoretical, if not practical, legal equality. That’s 11%.

In light of this, does it makes sense that the black collective today is more greatly influenced by the state of oppression than from the state of theoretical legal equality? How could humans spend 346 out of 388 years under oppression and their present condition not be heavily influenced by that oppression? One could make that argument if and when our collective existence in this land under legalized oppression drops below the 50 percentile, but to make that argument near the 90 percentile (90% of our existence in the state of oppression) is absurd. Therefore, economically, culturally and psychologically, the contemporary black collective is immensely influenced by the aftermath of oppression. Every action creates a reaction and 346 out of 388 years under the act of economical, cultural and psychological racial degradation is reverberating strong reactions upon the contemporary black condition, notwithstanding legal freedom. Moreover, the degradation and discrimination did not end with laws, but even if it did, the damage to black people will naturally last for decades to come.

Life is a continuum. Each generation does not start anew independent of the condition of the previous generation. Each subsequent generation inherits the condition passed onto it from the previous generation. Life is also a competition, like a rely race. Where one gets handed the baton of life is dependent upon the previous runner. If they are behind in the competition, when they pass off the baton to the next generation the next generation will start off behind as well. The only way to make up the difference is for a runner in a leg to be extraordinary and superior to the competition, lest he or she be equal and never make up the difference. The reason that the black collective is so far behind others today is that we inherited a disadvantaged start passed to us from our oppressed previous generations. Now that we have not made up the difference people who are blind to the past only see us as inferior runners in the race of life, which makes them, as the corollary, seem like superior runners. Hence, the expectation for a solution rest upon the premise that black’s are or can be superior to other groups of humans and can therefore make up the difference, as the failure to be actually superior will mean that we can never make up the difference as a collective.

This brings us to the point of management of expectations. Who is to say that black people have not performed in a manner typical for humans in regards to the odds against us? Who are we being compared to and coming up short in our recovery from 346 of 388 years of oppression? Who are the other groups who have had the same experience in degree and kind? Unless one thinks that blacks are inferior, how can anyone conclude that a group has had a parallel experience in degree and kind yet not manifest the condition that blacks are in? What would be different about our humanity that we cannot recover from oppression like others supposedly have? The proof of a similar oppression as blacks is a similar contemporary condition as blacks, relative to the beginning and legal end of the oppression.

Life is about choices

It is often said that life is about personal choices, in explaining why some lives turn out successful and others as failures. I am sure you have heard this many times. Essentially, what this analysis implies is that an entity chooses its fate by virtue of the choices that it makes. However, should not the analysis go much deeper than that given the fact that the choices people make are based upon the perceived feasibility and or knowledge of options? Is everyone working from the same equal set of probabilities?

It’s too simplistic to suggest that it all comes down to a matter of choices. Of course that is part of it, but it’s not the root of it. People are not juxtaposing between becoming a doctor, lawyer, Engineer, Physicist vs. becoming a drug dealer, gang banger, pimp, hustler or the like, then choosing to be a gang banger. Generally speaking, the choices people make are born from the options revealed to them by their environment. That which is observable therefore naturally shapes the options which in turn shape the choices. Therefore, living in a bad environment exposes one to a lot of bad options. Hence, should it be at all surprising that people who live in bad environments manifest a greater propensity to make bad choices?

It must also be noted that no human or creature is programmed to make a choice that is not a calculation to be in its best interest. Beings are programmed to survive by biologically seeking what pleasures them. It’s a simple pattern. Things that promote and cause pain are the things that threaten survival and things that promote pleasure are things that promote our survival and biological directives. For example, two of the greatest pleasures of living creatures are sex and eating and that is so because pleasure is the biological incentive so that life will make choices that promote its survival.

In light of that, people will always choose the option that promotes the greatest pleasure. People are not intentionally trying to ruin their lives, but rather, attempting to bring or increase pleasure in their lives. The problem for many people is that they live in an environment where the opportunities for pleasure are reduced by poverty, so people over indulge in natural forms of pleasure like sex and eating. Others may seek drugs. Yet others may become inspired to seek artificial or material pleasures, gained via money, by way of illegal activities based upon how they see others acquiring it. Money may not buy happiness, but is certainly can and does increase ones access to pleasure. These short term pleasures often increase long term pain.

Options are also regulated by optimism or confidence in ones future. When one lives in an environment with much poverty it does not inspire much confidence and optimism. It might inspire dreams, but those dreams do not come with an observable road map provided by the environs, unless its sports, entertainment or illegal activities. Thus, when one is not confident about their future, they feel less as if they are throwing something away as a consequence of their present choices. Hence, the calculation of pleasure is based upon what it will bring for the moment and not what it will cost in the future. There is no deferring of gratification if one is not confident that their future will be gratifying. Deferring gratification is an exercise for people who are confident about their future, not for people who don’t feel they have one.

The above having been noted, success and failure of a life is not a simple matter of choices. The idea that it all comes down to choices makes the playing field seem even and as if everyone is choosing from the same pool of options. Even though an option may exist as a possibility for all, it varies widely in probability for many. Just because something is possible does not therefore imply that it is probable. It’s possible that the majority of kids growing up in Detroit or the South Side of Chicago can be Surgeons and scientist; however, it’s highly improbable due to the environment not offering such as an observable option to emulate, as well as other environmental impediments. Hence, people are not making those choices. Of course, I am not saying that exceptions to the rule do not exist, because they always do for the extraordinary. However, no solution to a problem should assume or depend upon extraordinary behavior.

We are all humans. We are not that fundamentally different to account for all the socioeconomic difference that exist between us in regards to race and class. It does not all come down to personal responsibility and choices. It goes much deeper than that. It’s linked profoundly to history and an environment created from the actions and reactions that manifest in and over time and evolves a temporal state or condition called the present. We are all striving to survive and bring pleasure into our lives. None of us are trying to purposely ruin our lives. We are all trying to maximize our lives the best way that we know how based upon the information made to us by our environments. If people truly had to walk in other shoes, they would more than likely end up in the same situation because we are not that different as humans.

The fundamental corruption of analysis is born from the human desire to maintain a sense of ranking. Few people want to believe that their stature is not the product of being better than other, whether “better” translates to smarter, harder working, more responsible or the like. People want to essentially preserve their sense of superiority over others and they cannot do that while accepting the proposition that they had some advantage over many who have achieved less than them. People are essentially competitive and want to conserve their sense of an honest victory in a fair competition. Many of us want to believe that we are were we are because we made the intelligent choices and made the responsible choices while others with less made the dumb and irresponsible choices. Its not that simple and its not that true, notwithstanding grains of truth.

Imus no longer in the Morning.

Why are so many European Americans so upset with the firing of Don Imus? The answer is because this is and has always been a country and land designed to be of the European people, by the European people and for the European people. If you don't believe me, just check recorded history. In other words, America is still Amerikkka. In light of this manifest the expectation of European Americans is that everything should always go in the favor of and to the benefit of European Americans first and foremost. When it does not, they feel they are loosing out.

The Imus incident, like the OJ incident, inspires fear in European Americans. What is the fear? The fear is that this nation and land is straying from its manifest of being the land of the European peoples, by the European peoples and for the European peoples. Historically, right or wrong, things nearly always worked out the way European Americans wanted them to work out. Today, however, as highlighted by the OJ case and now Imus, high profile incidents are not always going to the favor of European American interest and wishes, regardless of right and wrong.

The problem is that the whole mindset of European Americans is distorted by the historical manifest of this nation. In short, European Americans, as a collective, are spoiled brats who are used to having everything their way. This is not to say that there have not been sub groups within the collective, like the Irish, where what was true for the collective was not that true for them. However, as a collective, European Americans have always been granted preference over African Americans and Native Americans, the two largest historically oppressed groups in this nation. Consequently, like a spoiled child, European Americans really do not have a clue of what fairness actually feels or looks like.

European Americans, the collective, if not a particular individual who is such, see the loss of European American privilege as unfairness. You see, one cannot go from unfairness to fairness without the previous beneficiaries of unfairness loosing something that they once had. Think of any spoiled child and their reaction to attempts to no longer spoil them. They will feel as if they are being punished and wronged because something they once enjoyed is being taken away. Unfairness to them thus becomes any act or attempt that seeks to diminish the advantages and privileges that they once enjoyed. Hence, there is no way for America to become a more fair society without a dismantling of European American Privilege, which will create anger.

What European Americans need to understand is that fairness implies an equality of unfairness. European Americans fight to preserve or limit the debilitating affects of racial unfairness to African Americans. We all know that anti-black discrimination still exists, despite laws. We all know that African Americans are still impacted by the effects of 300 years of past discrimination and racism. These realities weigh negatively upon African American forward progress, while European Americans are not weighed down with such. Yet, when society tries to redistribute unfairness via programs like Affirmative Actions, European Americans fight to keep the burden of unfairness disproportionately upon African Americans. Again, it’s the spoiled brat syndrome. The brat will continue to resist threats and change to their status quo unless it’s to given them more.

The biggest enemy of current European Americans is past European Americans. Think about it. It works like this. European Americans do things to maximize and increase their standard of living, often at the expense of non Europeans. Think of racial slavery in America as an example. Every action reverberates into a future reaction, however. Consequently, those future reactions are often passed on to the next generation of European Americans, as well as the benefit of the original action. Present day European Americans thus respond aversely to the negative reactions created from their forefathers actions. Hence, what irk European Americans today are reactions that manifested from European Americans actions in the past. In other words, if it was not for the actions of Europeans Americans in the past, the reaction that they dislike would never exist.

The civil rights era leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are all the product and reaction to European Americans who denied civil rights to African Americans for several hundred years. Hence, there would be no civil rights leaders angering millions of European Americans if millions of European Americans in the past had not decided to benefit from denying the civil rights of millions of African Americans. One has to be intelligent enough to know that every present action creates a future reaction. Hence, its not African American leaders that are really ticking off present European Americans, rather, they are ticked off at the liabilities passed on to them by past European Americans. This is rather hypocritical though, because European Americans have no problem enjoying the benefits past to them from the acts of past Europeans, just the liabilities. The benefits, though, were created from the liabilities, but European Americans wants to keep the assets passed to them, but just not the bill for the liabilities.

This whole Imus incident has become more about Jesse Jackson and Al Shapton than about Imus. European Americans are most angered not about what Imus said, but their perception that it props up the stature, exposure and credibility of people like Jackson and Sharpton. That’s what ticks them off. European American, as a collective, is less concerned with the impact of white racism upon non whites than they are with the impact of white racism upon the reputation of whites. European American seems to have decided that they will henceforth see and promote America as being free from the scourge of white racism. They seek to decouple continued black problems from past or present white racism. Consequently, in this fantasy view, Jackson and Sharpton are the bad guys for falsely promoting the idea that white racism still exist. Then Don Imus comes along and uses the phrase “Nappy headed hoes” and gives legitimacy to Sharpton and Jackson and the corollary of illegitimacy of the fantasy that white racism is dead. This is what really angers European American, the legitimizing of Sharpton and Jackson and the de-legitimizing of their illusion or should I say the exposing of their deception.

What I have learned is that European Americans are really hurt by the label of racist. Racism has become their scarlet letter and they are highly uncomfortable and defensive about the accusation. You will not even find traditional hate groups who have members who will self describe themselves as racist. That is because calling someone a racist, to them, is like calling them Evil, while they want to see themselves and America as righteous. European Americans do not want to appear morally inferior in regards to race. Thus, they live in denial and manifest cognitive dissonance in regards to race. They also try to make everyone else equally racist, if not more, so that in the juxtaposition they will not seem like the morally inferior group. Yet, one would be hard pressed to find evidence of black people every doing to white people what white people have done to black people in degree and kind. Yet, European Americans like to paint African Americans as equally racist, when in fact, we are just reacting to what they did to us.

What do you KNOW?

Ask yourself this. How much do you really know? The first thing a person who sincerely seeks an answer to this question would do is secure a working definition of what it means "to know”. The dictionary gives one of many definitions that asserts that to "Know" is to observe facts and or truth. This, of course, begs the question of what is "fact" and what is "truth". However, when it comes down to it, for all intents and purposes, "to know" is to bare direct witness. Things that we cannot or have not bared direct witness to is “belief” or acceptance of what others assert. Hence, Bearing direct witness is the objective demarcation that separates knowledge from belief.

In this world, what we believe and or think we know is conditioned and programmed by who we trust. In the end those who we trust the most are those that we think have brought us the most benefit and least harm. This is because everything that everyone does is ultimately for a selfish reason and therefore whom and what we choose to trust is also an act of selfishness. All motives are selfish, the only distinction and difference between the various “self’s” in existence is what each places value in. For me, I may receive great personal satisfaction in giving to others, while another receives great personal satisfaction in having things that others don’t have. Both realities are selfish.

Initially, we learn to trust our parents and then other authority figures and institution that we believe demonstrate benefit to us. When a child is born unable to take care of itself, it learns to trust those who love, feed and nurture it the most. Eventually the programming and beliefs of the parents imprints a tremendous influence on what the child believes, from religion to politics. However, eventually, through personal experience and independence the child may drift away from the programming of the parents at it matures into adulthood. Consquently, through experience and or via socialization, people learn to trust the systems, institutions and ideologies based upon which brings them the most benefit.

In light of this, what we know is often simply what we believe and what we believe is the product of who we trust and who we trust is the product of who brings us benefit. Therefore, given that everything that everyone does is for a selfish reason, humans are reluctant to question those that we trust due to a fear of losing the benefits that those we trust provide or faciliate for us. If the benefit is unconditional there is little risk in questioning or challenging those we trust. However, if the benefit is perceived as conditional, then we are reluctant to question or challenge the authority figure or institution that brings the benefit.

That said, now ask the question of what do we KNOW about 911 and what do we believe and why? Certainly when the objective standards of crime solving are applied --(Motive, Means and Opportunity)-- there are entities in the US that meet all three criteria, yet, the vast majority of Americans will not entertain the notion of 911 being an “Inside Job”. Moreover, there is compelling evidence that refutes the “official” explanation from the US government, yet, people still refuse to entertain this notion of an “inside job”. Why? The answer to that question comes from the paragraphs above. It is because most Americans do not want to bite that hand that feeds it. They do not want to have an epiphany that forces them to make a moral choice that could threaten all the benefits provided or facilitated from the entity in question.

If 911 were indeed proven to be an inside job, the ramifications of it would tear the nation apart without question. This nation would go into political and economic upheaval, the likes of which have not been seen since the civil war. The international community would be in an outrage and loose even more faith and confidence in our system. Truth be told, confidence and trust is what is keeping our system afloat and if that is lost, the system will collapse. Hence, people fear the loss of their way of life, as they know it, and so they don’t want the moral dilemma of having to bite the hand that feeds it. Americans will thus simply look the other way and attack all those who dare question and threaten the system and their way of life.

The American people essentially do not care for "truth" when that truth potentially threatens their way of life. Truth may be a virtue but truth is not always a benefit. When truth is potentially harmful to the interest of millions of selves living in the USA, Americans we neither seek nor demand truth. In fact, not only will Americans not seek or demand such truths, they will attack anyone who does because such people pose a threat to their interest. Anyone who is willing to entertain America as a suspect is condemened and ostracized as unpatriotic and on the side of terrorist.

Race war in LA?

I don’t live in Los Angeles or the West Coast so I cannot bare direct witness to what is going on. That said, I have a problem with what I am reading about black and Latino gangs in LA engaging in a racial turf war. All the headlines I have read characterize an equality of intentions and actions to eliminate the other race from integrated or integrating neighborhoods. However, when I read the detailed accounts in these articles there is no evidence that blacks are trying to eliminate Hispanics from communities, but there is plenty of examples of Hispanic gangs attempting to do this.

Why is the media bent on making each side equally complicit in this phenomenon? From the information the media itself has provided and from interviews of blacks living in some of the affected communities, it’s some Latino gangs attempting to drive out or keep out blacks and not the other way around. I am sure that some black gang members have killed a Latino person, but no media has presented any evidence that any such killings are an attempt to ethnically cleanse or preserve the black community. If anything, battle for supremacy in the California Penal system, between black and Hispanic gangs, has carried over into the streets. I personally believe that Hispanics males may fear the strength and attraction of black males and see them as a threat to their ambitions, be it territory or women.

The white media is obviously averse to frame black people as “victims” because of their race. There seems to be a push in America to create a moral equivalency in regards to racism, as represented in the movie “Crash”. In other words, all groups are equally racist and damaging toward other races. It’s all offsetting in such rationalizations. Whites seem to find comfort in the belief and accusation that blacks are just as racist as whites. This belief or accusation helps to “normalize” the racist behavior of whites and makes them feel less guilty about their own racism. If all groups are guilty of this then why should white people feel guilty or be singled out? So now it seems that the white dominated media is pushing the idea that all racism works both ways and this is why the Hispanic assault on blacks in LA is being characterized in the headlines as an equal exchange of intentions and actions on behalf of black and Hispanic gangs.

The truth be told, black folks are far too busy cannibalizing their own people than they are focused on ethnically cleansing other groups. The greatest release of negative energy from black people is nearly always aimed at other black people. What ever our frustrations may be, and there are many, we physically release those frustrations upon other black people. The reason that is so comes from centuries of conditioning. Even though many groups deserve to be the physical target of the release of our frustrations, given that they helped to foster them, they surprisingly are not.

Immigration

The UN is projecting mass immigration to Western developed nations by the year 2050 as the earths population swells by another 2.5 billion people. If not for this mass immigration, nearly all developed Western nations would experience a population decline due to a continuing trend of birth rates below the 2.1 replacement threshold. Such changes will radically impact the demographic make up of Western developed nations in the years to come.

Why is this happening? Although it seems counter intuitive on the surface, nature promotes high birth rates when the odds against survival increases. Hence, this is why poor nations have high birth rates and wealthy nations have low birth rates as a general rule. Biologically the goal in nature is the perpetuation of the bloodline and given high rates of poverty and disease in poor nations, families instinctively have many offspring to ensure that some survive, as well as for economic reasons.

Children have a greater value in under developed nations as opposed to developed nations. I don't mean that children are loved any more or less, but that they have different economic value. Children also serve as a source of income and social security in poor nations. In countries with large rural populations, such as in Africa, the more children to work the land helps the household survive. Moreover, these poor workers don’t have pension and government social security so they are dependent upon their children to take care of them in old age. This creates a type of strong interdependency between the generations and helps to promote strong family constructs.

In the West, on the other hand, children seem to be more of a burden in developed nations, as they are not needed for income or for social security. Moreover, so many women in the Western world are chasing careers and money that having large families gets in the way of that objective. Through pensions, IRA’s, Social Security and the like, adults are expected to fund their own retirement and do not want to burden their children. The result of this is that there is little economic benefit in having children in developed nations and children are often more of a financial and time burden, even though they are loved.

Regardless of how much wealth has been created in the West, by the metrics of nature the West is the least successful. Here in the West life expectancy is long while birth rates are low. In undeveloped nations, life expectancy is short and birth rates are high. It seems intuitive then that the solution to the population problems of both the highly developed and undeveloped nations is a redistribution of wealth. Wealth is what has lowered the birth rates in highly Developed nations and the absence of wealth is what keeps birth rates so high in undeveloped nations.

The economies of the West must currently open the doors to immigration to keep their economies buoyant and help fund the retirement of an aging population. Many people curse immigration for the “diversity” and multiculturalism it brings that they feel threatens their way of life. However, if not for immigration that way of life would gradually become extinct anyway due to the low birth rates that such a way of life promotes. The only hope is for Western Nations to increase their birth rates, but most don’t want to deal with the added financial and time burden of raising more children.

There is bound to be a racial backlash from all of this as well. Whites will start to see their culture and existence under threat from growing diversity. Soon, as minorities become the majority in more areas, Euro centric curriculum and points of view will be augmented with other perspectives and points of views. There is already such a backlash-taking place in Europe as Immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and Asia is creating tensions in the white community. America is not in as bad a shape as Europe, but the same trends are taking place here as well.

Recession or Depression?

Our economy has really been on the decline for sometime now. The first obvious sign was when we reneged on our obligation to back our dollars with gold in response to foreign creditors seeking payment in gold as the value of the greenback was declining and our economy weakening. That was back in the early seventies during the Nixon administration. Since then the nation has been on a ‘fiat” system where the ability to print money and create electronic credit money through banks has masked the decline of America.

It should first be understood how America rose to economic preeminence in the world. Others misfortunes became America’s fortunes and that’s how America became an economic superpower. In particular, World War I and later WWII so decimated the infrastructure and economies of Western Europe, the primary economic powers of the world at that time, that it created a void filled by America. The US participated in these wars but the US homeland was never a theater of war, aside from Pearl Harbor. So after the wars the US economy was the only economy left standing and consequently our goods, services and finances were in demand the world over. The key phenomenon to note is that we had a monopoly.

Anyone who understands the nature of monopolies understands that the construct is very enriching for those who operate them. The absence of competition allows for a great accumulation of wealth. America’s monopoly created the highest standard of living the world has ever seen. However, our monopoly was unsustainable as the inevitable rise of the former economic powers that were decimated by wars was only a matter of time. The recovery of those economies presented the first impetus for our decline by turning our virtual global monopoly into a more competitive oligopoly. Prior to this period, our nation ran tremendous trade surpluses and was the largest creditor nation in the world as many nations were indebt to us.

Fast forward to today and a world that has been at peace for over 50 years, aside from a few skirmishes with small nations, the oligopoly is being dismantled. The addition of China and India into global capitalism has added over 2 billion potential new workers, consumers and owners to the game. Hence, the high standard of living that resulted from monopoly and to a lesser degree under the oligopoly, is now severely being eroded by a truly competitive world were once marginalized undeveloped nations are now becoming major competition. The current resultant and or evidence of our decline manifest from the fact that our nation has been running large trade deficits for the last 25 years and we are now the largest debtor nation in the world owing several trillions of dollars.

Credit or borrowing from future earnings is what has allowed Americans to maintain their standard of living. Oh, and lets not forget that back in 1950, during our zenith, a single income earning male could and did provide a solid middle class living for a nuclear family composed of spouse and children. Today, it takes two incomes in the same household to achieve the same standard. Consequently, we have sacrificed child rearing to maintain our materialism and material standard of living, as well as, borrowing from our future earnings. Were do we go from here? This model is totally unsustainable unless we put children in the household to work next and or become virtual indentured servants to lending institutions who extend our credit to promote our profligate consumption even more.

American consumption is hyper inflated via credit. Our consumption needs to contract by about 1/3 so that our purchasing falls in line with our real earnings. However, given that our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is derived mainly (2/3) from domestic consumer consumption, a 1/3 contraction of consumption would create a severe depression. Politicians do not want recessions during their rein because it will ensure their party will lose the next election so leaders are not making the responsible decisions so that our nation can have a gradual descent as opposed to a disastrous crash. Moreover, the nation will soon have to deal with a growing geriatric population and the unfunded entitlement payments of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, which will have to come out the pockets of working adults, which means much higher taxes.

The last Depression in America, known as the Great Depression, was the result of a banking crisis and not the stock market as people erroneously believe. Low interest rate and reduced lending standards flooded the economy with money and people invested much of that money in the stock market because the returns were much greater than the interest they had to pay on the loans. People borrowed money, because it was so cheap, just to buy stocks and hence the demand pushed up stock value. It was easy money until the stock market tanked and people defaulted on loans and banks went under. The same thing is happening today, interest rates are low, lending standards have been compromised and a lot of money had been invested in real estate because it offered the greatest returns. The demand has severely overvalued home prices. It’s the same scenario but with a different investment vehicle, real estate instead of stocks.

I mean, come on, how counter intuitive can you get. Mortgage companies and their “sub prime” lending were driven by rapid appreciation of home values. The counter intuitive act is the idea of charging people, who you think is a bad risk of being able to make their payments, more via high interest rates. If a person is a bad risk for paying back 500 dollar a month mortgage, he or she is even less likely to pay the 600 dollar mortgage that result from the higher interest rate you charged. If anything, lowering the monthly payment will increase the probability that it will be paid on time, not increasing monthly payments. However, lending institution figured that since home prices were rising so fast, they would have a house that was worth more than when the mortgage was taken out, plus they would have earnings from interest payments made up until foreclosure. However, now that home values have declined, the greedy plan is all mucked up. Now lending institution are stuck with properties with declining value as they foreclose which threatens their solvency.

I don’t know what to tell you folks other than to start getting prepared for a depression. I don’t want to sound overly dramatic or pessimistic but our decline is inevitable. The only question is whether it will be a crash/depression or prolonged and frequent deep recessions. Certainly the latter is preferable but the policy of our leaders is promoting the former due to politics. No party will make the tough decision while they are in charge because they will be universally unpopular and ensure the party will not be reelected. Everything in America is short term oriented dealing with GDP, reelection and quarterly profit reports to woo investors to purchase stocks. We have masked and borrowed and put all hands on deck. We have lowered taxes and interest rates and flooded the economy with money….now the whole thing is primed to go “POP” at any minute now.

Acting White

Many leaders, including Barak Obama, have accepted and propagated the idea that black youths are not doing well in school because it is considered “acting white”. Now, every time the issue of black underperformance is mentioned, it is not attributed to failures of the system or to failures of the society as a whole to promote the recovery of blacks for centuries of racism, it is attributed to the fear of “acting white”. Do black youth truly associate doing well in school with being white like, "acting white" or selling out? Is this myth or reality? Here is what I think.

I believe that the phenomenon called "acting white" derived from the period of integration. When black kids lived in predominately black communities, as many still do, and attended predominately black schools, how did they know how white kids acted or what kind of grades they earned? In an all black environment getting good grades has no racial juxtapostion. The only way that such a saying could manifest in an all black environment is if those blacks believed that to be smart is to be white like. It would be akin to a white guy who could jump high being black like. In other words, abnormal for the race.

What happened is that black kids who studied hard and did their work, in an integrated setting, had a pattern of behavior like many white kids who studied hard and did their work. These black kids eventually found more in common educationally with the white kids and often started studying and spending more time around them as opposed to around blacks. Some black youth then interpreted this behavior as selling out, acting or wanting to be white. It was more associated with who the kids hung around and how they sounded than it was associated with good grades. Hence, many black youth who hung around whites and sounded like whites but who earned poor grades were still considered "acting white".

I don’t really believe that black youth see doing well in school as being white like as leaders and pundits have alluded. What that would then imply underneath is that black youth associate intelligence with being white and the lack there of with being black. So if its true, this society has done major damage to the phyche of blacks. Hence, any black person trying to be intelligent is trying to be like whites. I don’t buy that at all, but if true it is an indictment against this society. Acting white really has little or nothing to do with doing well in school, but is more so rooted in black youth who start hanging around and talking like whites. One can speak intelligently while sounding black. If you sound like Bryant Gumbel that is sounding "white". Micheal Eric Dyson and Cornell West sound very black as well as intellectual.

Don’t get me wrong, for I am not denouncing integration. What I am saying is that when blacks were in black school environments the concept of getting good grades was never associated with whiteness. Now, however, given how rapidly slang spreads, acting white may indeed be a term used to characterize black youth who do well in school. However, slang is often used because it is popular and not because it accurately describes what a person is thinking or feeling. Now leaders are literally interpreting slang thinking that black youth actually feel that to be smart is to be white. One cannot take slang at face value, but everyone seems to be jumping on this bandwagon.

The truth of the matter is that all groups of youths have derogatory terms and ostracize those who are not popular or manifesting normative behavior for the group. The term “Nerd” did not derive from the black community. White kids popularized the term and it was applied to smart white kids who did not fit in or socially interact with the other youth. Kids have always been cruel in their ability to ostracize other youths. Such things happen in the black community as well as the white community. However, when it happens in the black community it is used to explain why blacks do poorly. Well, why don't white youths do poorly like blacks given that smart white youths are also often they ostracized?

I think that the issue of white supremacy must be looked at here. Why is the idea of getting good grades associated with acting white? Why is it not considered acting Asian, as Asians tend to do better than whites? Why don’t white youth who do extremely well in school get ostracized as “acting Asian”? Why is the benchmark for intelligence the behavior of whites? If black youth actually do believe that being smart is "acting white" is this part of the legacy effect of centuries of the doctrine and mantra of white supremacy? Is it incidental that black youth just happen to see the bench mark for intelligence as white people? How did they become the template for that which is good?

I can only imagine that whites find it flattering just like black men are flattered by some of the myths associated with us. In fact, many black men even promote the myth because they benefit from it. In the same way, I don't doubt that whites like promoting the myths that are to their benefit as well.

Barak Obama

The American media, via the power of suggestion, has made Barak Obama a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States of America. His rise to stardom emenated from a speech he delivered at the Democratic national convention a few years back. His commentary resonated with liberal white America so much so that white America found their new black leader and spokesperson. He has become the "good cop" while traditional black leaders have become the "bad cop" that white America no longer wants to promote.

Let’s be honest, if he were white, Obama would totally fall of the radar screen. No one would be talking about how well spoken he is or how smart he is, because such is believed to be standard equipment for white male college graduates, regardless if they are running for a political office or not. Obama stands out for two reasons only. One he is black and two he is a counter weight against other blacks.

Obama is the intra-liberal version of Clarence Thomas to white America. We all know that Clarence Thomas sits on the Supreme Court only because he is a black counter weight to the mainstream interest of black America. Thomas promotes mainstream white interest and beliefs that are antithetical to black mainstream interest and belief in regards to socioeconomic issues such as Affirmative Action. What he provides white America is a shield against the charges of racism by having a black person do the dirty work. He is the hired hit man against black aspirations.

This is not to say that Obama is like Clarence Thomas in his politics. Clarence Thomas represents the extreme right of the political spectrum in regards to social issues. Obama, on the other hand, represents the extreme right of the Democratic Party on the issue of race. You see, most white democrats don’t like hearing about white racism any more than white republicans do. Barak Obama, unlike traditional mainstream black leadership, does not talk about white racism but alludes to black irresponsibility and poor choice making as the culprit of black social ills. Whites like that because it falls in line with their long held beliefs of black laziness and cognitive inferiority.

White people are sick and tired of being linked to black problems and being labeled or associated as racist. By putting Obama in the spotlight and suggesting that he is a leading candidate for president, via the polls, it suggest that white racism is no longer a major problem in America. That is what whites want to believe and that is what they want black people to believe. However, that is not true. The fact is that whites are promoting Obama because he is black and not in deference to the fact that he is black. It’s kind of like thinking about not thinking about something that you don’t want to think about. Trying not to appear racist is still racist. One does not have to try not to be something that they are not.

All this media attention and notoriety Obama is getting is all due to race. Whites are tired of hearing about white racism and the immoral stain its history has left upon them. However, being tired of hearing about something does not make that something any less valid. Whites today are much more concerned about not being seen as racist and protecting the reputation of whites than they are about blacks being the victims of racism and the aftermath of historical racial oppression. This is why and how they promote some blacks whom, if they were white, would not have been promoted. It’s a form of "OK"affirmative action whose goal is help defeat the image of whites as racist while also working against the mainstream interest of black America. Its really rather insidious in its efficaciousness.

Many whites will argue that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, in regards to the promotion and acceptance of blacks. The confusion is that whites continue to behave as is they know what is best for black people better than do black people. Any leadership that the black mainstream chooses is attacked and discredited systematically by white power who feels threatened by them. Thus, they systematically promote black people they feel are non-threatening to white beliefs and interest and then use them as counterpunch to mainstream black leadership.

This is not to suggest that Barak Obama is in anyway unqualified to be running for the president of the United States of America. What I am saying is that the Barak Obama is being used by liberal white America in a way that is indeed racially motivated. As I said before, if Barak Obama were white he would not stand out in anyway in the eyes of white voters. It’s his blackness that has elevated him. Think of it this way so that you may better understand. Often time whites, under the suspicion or accusation of being racist, have long replied in defense that some of their best freinds are black. Barak Obama is like that black friend for white America. He gives many of them comfort that they are not racist by virtue of saying they would vote for him. They can point to him and say that America is not racist anymore because a leading presidential canidate is black. However, racism has never been about how one feels about an individual, rather, its how one feels about the group.

Until white people are willing to support Blacks who are the choice of blacks before the influences of white media, they are still being racist in this one Black mans opinion.