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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 9, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
