Another way to look at the issue of semantics and how words are the building blocks and/or, shackles of our people…

Excerpt from Yurugu

Hypocrisy As A Way of Life

By Marimba Ani

“Within the nature of European culture there exists a statement of value or of “moral” behavior that has no meaning for the members of that culture. I call this the “rhetorical ethic;” it is of great importance for the understanding of the dynamics of the culture. The concepts of traditional European anthropology are inadequate to explain the phenomenon to which I am referring here, as it has no counterpart in the types of cultures to which anthropologists have generally directed their attention in the past. But with the concept of asili, which facilitates an ideological approach to the study of culture, the rhetorical ethic becomes visible; even compelling. It fits the logic of the European asili, assisting the culture in the achievement and maintenance of power. Without this interpretation certain manifestations within the verbal iconography of the culture appear to be inconsistent with its underlying ideological thrust. And that simply would not make sense. Let us see how the mechanism of the rhetorical ethic works.

The related distinction used traditionally in anthropology is stated in terms of “ideal culture” and “actual behavior” and is said to be characteristic of all cultures, thereby helping to confuse the issue of the uniqueness and problematical nature of European culture. The conventional distinction is illustrated in the following manner by the authors of a recently published anthropology textbook.

For example, an idealized belief, long cherished in America, is that all doctors are selfless, friendly people who chose medicine as their profession because they felt themselves “called” to serve humanity, and who have little interest in either the money or the prestige of their position. Of course, many physicians do not measure up to this ideal. Nevertheless, the continued success of television programs that portray the average American M.D. as a paragon of virtue indicates how deeply rooted in our collective psyche the ideal of the noble physician is.

This is a common misconception that has led to a mistaken view and superficial understanding of the nature of European (Euro- American) society. To refer to the images offered above as “ideal” is a misuse or at least a misleading use of the term “ideal.” The projection and success of the image of the committed, altruistic doctor do not indicate that it is a “deeply rooted” ideal in the American psyche.

It is rather an indication of the fact that this is how Americans want to appear to others, most often to non-European peoples-their “objects.” In this case it is the way that the doctor wants to appear to his patients, or ”objects,” because this appearance works to his advantage. On the other hand, an image that projects him as a potential exploiter can lead to the possibility of malpractice suits and to the institutionalization of socialized medicine-neither of which is lucrative for him.

An ”ideal” should be understood to be some thing that functions normatively and something that is emulated; that which has meaning for those who share it. It is the European experience that encourages the confounding of meaning and commitment with mere verbal expression. (It was within the incipient European experience that “rhetoric” came to be regarded as art.) In African culture words have power. The European mind is a political one and for this reason constantly aware of the political effect of words and images as they are used for the purposes of manipulation. By “political” I mean to indicate an ego that consistently experiences people as others; as representatives of interests defined differently and, therefore, as conflicting with this “ego.” The individual is concerned, therefore, with the way in which his verbal expression and the image he projects can influence the behavior of those to whom he relates, be they patients (would-be consumers), neocolonial subjects, an opposing candidate for office, or an African selfdeterminist/nationalist. This is what is “deeply rooted” in the American mind-the psychology of “public relations,” “salesmanship,” and political strategy. It is in the Euro-American vernacular that the word “image” is used so frequently. To be concerned with one’s image as opposed to one’s self is a European characteristic.

To be aware of the strategical advantage of appearing to be aItru- istic when one is operating out of self-interest does not mean that altruism is a meaningful “ideal” in terms of one’s value-system. It is, instead, an outgrowth of the propaganda that the Europeans have fed “non-European” peoples since they first sought to conquer them. Because they exported (”sold”) this altruistic image so successfully, they have had to project themselves as adhering to this “ideal”; similarly, the projection of themselves or their motives in this way has been essential to the successful imposition of this “ethic” on others.

The basic principle to be kept in mind in order to understand this dynamic of European culture is that the major contributing factor to the success of European nationalism has been its projection as disinterested internationalism,

The use of “ideal” in the passage quoted above is simply an inad- equate concept for the ethnological analysis of European culture. Hoebel, in an earlier textbook, offers his version, which is similarly inadequate: “Ideal Culture consists of a people’s verbally expressed standards and behavior.” The examples that these anthropologists offer from other cultures to explicate the distinction between “ideal” and “actual” in no way represent the phenomenon in Western culture under consideration.

Hoebel describes “normative postulates or values” as “deep- lying assumptions about whether things or acts are good and to be sought after, or bad and to be rejected.”s This is precisely what the “rhetorical ethic” is not. Hoebel’s definition can be used to get at the converse of the phenomenon I wish to describe. A “rhetorical ethic” is not a “deep-lying assumption.” It is a superficial verbal expression that is not intended for assimilation by the members of the culture that produced it. The “rhetorical ethic,” a European phenomenon, has been neglected in conventional ethnological theory, which has consistently offered concepts devoid of political significance.

Anthropologists talk about the gap in all cultures between thought and deed, between ideas and actions. The gap to which I am referring, however, is between verbal expression and belief or commitment; between what people say and what they do. Nowhere other than in European culture do words mean so little as indices of belief. It is this characteristic that is of concern here and this characteristic for which the concepts of traditional anthropology are inadequate to explain.

As a cultural trait it has, however, been described by others, par- ticularly those who have been made victims of European cunning. Below an indigenous American describes European behavior:

They would make slaves of us if they could; but as they cannot, they kill us. There is no faith to be placed in their words.

They will say to an Indian, “My friend; my brother!” They will take him by the hand and, at the same moment destroy him…. Remember that this day I warned you to beware of such friends as these. I know the Long-Knives. They are not to be trusted.

It is an inherent characteristic of the culture that it prepares members of the culture to be able to act like friends toward those they regard as enemies; to be able to convince others that they have come to help when they, in fact, have come to destroy the others and their culture. That some may “believe” that they are actually doing good only makes them more dangerous, for they have swallowed their own rhetoric-perhaps a convenient self-delusion. Hypocritical behavior is sanctioned and rewarded in European culture. The rhetorical ethic helps to sanction it. European culture cannot be understood in terms of the dynamics of other cultures alone. It is a culture that breeds hypocrisy-in which hypocrisy is a supportive theme a standard of behavior. Its hypocritical nature is linked to the Platonic abstraction, to objectification, to the compartmentalization of the person and the denial of the emotional self. Below Havelock characteristically understands the case:

Another thing noticeable about them [pre-Platonic" Greeks] in this period is their capacity for direct action and sincere action and for direct and sincere expression of motive and desire. They almost entirely lack those slight hypocrisies without which our civiliza- tion does not seem to work.

The distinction and definitions that can lead to a better under- standing of the Europeans and their culture can only come from a perspective that is not one of European chauvinism; for it is the method of European chauvinism or cultural nationalism to conceal European interest. As I use it, “value” is only meaningful value; it is that which motivates behavior and is the origin of human commitment. Value determines what is imitated and preserved, what is selected for and encouraged. “Avowed values” on the other hand, which are merely professed, which find expression only verbally, which are not indicative of behavior, belong to what I have called the “rhetorical ethic.”

The European rhetorical ethic is precisely that-purely rhetorical- and, as such, has its own origins as a creation for export; i.e., for the political, intercultural activity of the European. It is designed to create an image that will prevent others from successfully anticipating European behavior, and its objective is to encourage nonstrategic (i.e., naive, rather than successful) political behavior on the part of others. This is the same as “nonpolitical” behavior.) It is designed to sell, to dupe, to promote European nationalistic objectives. It “packages” European cultural imperialism in a wrapping that makes it appear more attractive, less harmful. None of these features represents what can culturally be referred to as an “ideal” in any sense. The rhetorical ethic is, therefore, not dysfunctional in European culture.

It does not generate nor reflect conflict in European ideology or belief-system; but it is, rather, necessary to the maintenance and projection of the utamaroho and performs a vital function in sustaining European cultural nationalism in the pursuit of its international objectives.

The rhetorical ethic is made possible by the fact that hypocrisy as a mode of behavior is a valued theme in European life; the same hypocritical behavior that its presence sanctions. Again, “value” refers to that which is encouraged and approved in a culture. European culture is constructed in such a way that successful sur- vival within it discourages honesty and directness and encourages dishonesty and deceit-the ability to appear to be something other than what one is; to hide one’s “self,” one’s motives and intent.

People who are duped by others and relate to a projected image are considered fools or “country bumpkins.” Hypocrisy in this way becomes not a negative personality trait, not immoral or abnormal behavior, but it is both expected and cultivated. It is considered to be a crucial ingredient of “sophistication,” a European goal. European intracultural, political behavior is based on hypocrisy-as are business relations, the advertising media, and most other areas of public, and social interaction. It is merely a manifestation of this theme when Americans claim that politicians are basically honest. The claim itself is hypocritical, and the public expects it to be so. We all know that the objective of commercial advertising is to convince us to buy products so that manufacturers can make large profits, but the slogans attempt to persuade us that the product is beneficial to our well being, as though the producer has our welfare at heart.

This hypocrisy touches the lives of every member of the culture in their dealings with one another, and yet it originates in part in the nature of their intercultural relationships. It is a part of the mechanism of European expansionism, All of these factors must go into the understanding of the rhetorical ethic and not an overly simplistic distinction between “ideal” and “actual” culture…”

Perhaps this conversation on race/racism and language needs to take some of this into account.

More wisdom on racism. My friend, Cecelia, sent me this email. Can you all get to this…

Hi! I’ve been think about the discussion you had going about the term “race”. I could see many very passionate opinions coming up… and it was a wonderful discussion, intellectually.

Here’s my two cents… just to share with you a bit of where I stand on what is obviously a passion for you.

I find the term “race” has many aspects for me. At it’s worst, it is a concept that perpetuates power and control over others. It is one of many, many, words/concepts that do that. (And really, my inclination is to just lump them all together and look for a solution that solves them all… you see as I go along. It just seems like we could move on more quickly that way…) At it’s best, it is a way to celebrate individuality. It is a tool for classification, which is a neutral concept for me. Classification is a way of gathering information… It’s what we do, (or don’t do) with the information that has potential for problems as far as I’m concerned.

The big issue is when it is a source of misuse of power and control. But I equate making the term “race” the issue with our current practice in schools of making “bullies” a problem…

I think nationally, now… we have adopted a zero tolerance policy toward bullies… there are curriculums in which children are taught that bullies are bad. They are taught to identify them, manage them and there may even be a small blip about trying to understand them in some of the more compassionate curriculums. I disagree with this path. Bullies aren’t the issue. The issue is that we as a culture refuse to talk openly about power and control. And for me the cure to this issue is compassion, an embracing of humanness, humanity.

And then the Einstein quote about not being able to solve a problem from the same consciousness comes to mind… only in this case, you can’t solve an issue of the heart, which leads to compassion-less ways of thinking and seeing the world with the intellect. The intellect, on its own, lacks the resources to engage the heart which is where healing could occur.

In general, I think the intellect needs weigh in with heart.

I don’t know that I value finding another way to describe the issues, another word conveying the inequities of having brown skin. We have enough words… and introducing yet another word or phrase diverts energy away from trying to engage the heart. For myself, I wouldn’t use the term racism or the phrase extreme color arousal to convey the profound dis-empowerment, devaluing, inability to be seen as who I am, and lack of connection and compassion that I have experienced when I’ve encountered racism. I try to describe the hopelessness I felt then, but I’d do so from my currently empowered state, not as a victim. I’d trust that if I share my heart, they’d get it on the heart level… and I don’t really care about the intellect… it’ll come on it’s own. But I recognize and respect the power of words… how they deeply color communication… and that’s exactly why I’d tend to avoid racism and extreme color arousal… both are likely to make people more guarded and what I want is an open door to let my experience touch their hearts.

The intellect has it’s rigid shades of black and white… the heart knows gray is really the more common color of Life… there’s an acceptance of both in gray. So there’s not so much to fight against… and then to add more white or more black to the mix is a matter of preference.. but you can understand both. And in that understanding there’s room for power to be shared and the needs of everyone to be met. There’s connection.

The heart knows things the mind never will…

To complete the thought on bullies… I feel the same way about it. Teach children it is natural to want power and control in one’s reality. It is. Do you know anyone that doesn’t want that from birth on up? It’s ok to want that. And teach them how to get it… to look at those needs and find ways to accomplish them without needing power over someone else. Find ways to let children be empowered with at least some choices… and let them explore the idea that there are some choices that can not be taken away, along with ones that can be given and taken away based on their behavior/choices. Teach them compassion and they will become confused at the idea of bullying, it will become naturally repulsive and unthinkable. So many things are non-issues if we ever thought to teach compassion as a priority in living. Racism would be a non-issue if people ever got around to living compassion.

So that’s my two cents… for what it’s worth.

Now, there are those who would view this as pie in the sky. I would say, where does staying grounded in the paradigms we’ve been grandfathered get us? I want to challenge all of us to think Pie-in-the-Sky. After all freedom is Pie-in-the-Sky; should we not think thoughts and feel feelings that will lead us towards a Utopian life? Or should we just stride towards a more comfortable slavery?

Not that we have it but, once upon a time, democracy was a utopian ideal.  If we aren’t proposing an alternative to the madness we’re living, then we are complicit in the madness we are living.  We must go deeper.  As Charles Mingus put it, “You Better Git It in Your Soul.”

Go over to the AfroSpear to continue this important discussion on the existence/non-existence of race, finding more accurate terminology and forging new understandings of what we’re up against…

Stolen from Field’s briar patch:

I think it would behoove us to stop using the word “racism” entirely, if only because the word presupposes the existence of “race,” which is a delusional “scientific racism” concept. There’s just as much evidence that the world is flat as there is that race exists. “Race” is based almost entirely on visual cues and similarly we can “see with our own eyes” that the earth is flat, not round.

Fortunately for science, we have integrated other information that tells us that the world is NOT flat, even if it seems to be. We have also integrated scientific information that contradicts the “different species” theory, like the fact that our blood and organs are interchangeable regardless of skin color and depending more on other factors that have nothing to do with skin color.

But obviously there are a lot of people who are very invested in pepetuating our believe in the fallacy of race. Even worse, every time we use the word “racism” we enable those liars by conceding that “race” exists and that we are from a different “race.”

If I say, “You hate me because I am a vampire, then I am implicitly asserting and conceding both that vampires exist and that I am a vampire. Likewise, if I say, “You hate me because of my Black “race,” then I am conceding both that Black “race” exists and that I am an example of that different “race.” Once you concede that you are of a difference race/species from white people, you will find it impossible to convince them that our species is anything similar to or as good as theirs. And you also invite endless comparisons of one “race” to the other. And that is the merry-go-round on which we find ourselves, with even Black people insisting that the delusional concept of “race” is central to our reality.

Unfortunately, that means we’re just as sick as are the “racist” because we, too, are “racists,” by my definition. I believe that a “racist” is simply a person who believes, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary, that “race” exists in the first place.

My skin color, facial morphology and hair are different from that of many other people, just like I am taller and shorter than some, fatter and skinnier than some, more muscular and less muscular than some, regardless of skin color. But that’s ALL color is biologically: one of many physical characteristics.

I will NEVER, EVER concede again that “race” exists, because to do so facilitates and enables that which we most hate - that which we incorrectly and misguidedly call “racism.”

The English language is certainly variable enough that we can describe that phenomenon with a word or phrase - ANY OTHER WORD OR PHRASE - that does not concede a priori that we are from a different species than white people. As much as we might want to disown them, the similarity of our biologies and our common origins in the Fertile Crescent simply do not allow us to disown whites (or them us) any more than we can disown our own parents.

As a matter of biology, when we are born into the human species, we must accept our shared familyhood with all others who share our species, regardless of color, like it or not.

This makes too much sense…So what the hell am I arguing a bankrupt concept for?

Andrew Hill: Playing inside/out

Most of us who blog mean well, just as most activists who try to fight the good fight - mean well.

However, in my limited experience, people who are do-gooders, or have an agenda, often haven’t done much - if any -inner work. The road less traveled ain’t a road at all - it’s US! It appears that some use (consciously or unconsciously) their outer work to mask inner deficiencies. I’ve seen and/or experienced people who are extremely intelligent, conscious and savvy in many ways…and yet, because they haven’t healed or even acknowledged their “issues,” use them as a bludgeon against the very people they are trying to “help.”

Something is wrong when people fail to, first, heal themselves (which truly is a lifelong process), check themselves constantly, see the disease of racism/white supremacy in themselves and work on it. You can’t help, when you don’t get help, when you haven’t dealt with your trunk full of baggage. Lord knows, we need lots of help and all of us should assume, if we are wise, that we have a lot of work to do. ALL OF US. Not some, all.

No philosophy, belief system or book can counter what has been done to us. We need THERAPY!! If we don’t take our spiritual and emotional healing seriously, we will continue to be crabs in the barrel, continue to act like Benedict Arnold’s all the while claiming to be race warriors, continue to become defacto Willie and Wilhemina Lynches.

Whenever I try to live up to Mos Def’s powerful words: “Speech is my hammer bang the world into shape, now let it fall,” I need to bring the hammer of truth down on myself, put the skillet of self-examination on the front burner. If I’m not willing to do that, then I ain’t growing and if I’m not growing, what good am I to anyone else?

BY JUAN SANTOS
http://www.networkaztlan.com/juansantos.html

You hear it everywhere. Even from Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, author of the vicious anti-migrant legislation that has polarized the US. “We are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,” he says.

And like almost everyone else, he’s got it wrong. The original Europeans in what is now the US were not immigrants, but colonists. And the US is not a nation of immigrants - it is a white colonial settler state, like South Africa under Apartheid, the former Rhodesia, Australia and Israel.

And like those states the US has always operated on a sometimes hidden, sometimes overt system of Apartheid. Like those places, the US is a nation of colonists – and race laws. It is a place where white colonists arrived, seized the land, and dispossessed, exterminated or attempted to exclude the original “non-white” peoples – all of them.

They did so at the point of a gun - by open terror and genocide, which was the precursor and the necessary pre-condition of European “immigration.” And, of course, they didn’t only use guns and overt terror. Where “necessary,” they operated by “law.”

Let me prove the point. It’s simple. We all know the facts. In the US, Native Americans were dispossessed, subjected to mass murder, and locked on separate, Apartheid-style “reservations.” So it stands today.

Africans were enslaved, and once “freed,” they were subjected first to Jim Crow, then, when that proved no
longer advisable, Jim Crow was transformed into the mass terror of mass incarceration and permanent
Apartheid-style ghetto-ization. So it stands today.

The Indian nation of Mexico was conquered in a racist war of aggression by the US in 1848. The only debate
in the days of “Manifest Destiny” was not whether to seize Mexican / Indian land, only how much of it to
seize, and what to do to keep the Mexicans out of what had been stolen. Two choices were before them. These were the terms of the debate: take the whole nation and lock the people on reservations, or take as much land – with as few
Mexicans – as possible. Thus the border was established through a race war, through brute and overtly racist violence. The border is an Apartheid Wall. So it stands today.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States.

The Act claimed that “the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory” of the US – the same racist rhetoric used today against other Brown people. Like HR4377, the current notorious immigration bill, the Chinese Exclusion Act made it illegal for “any Chinese laborer to come, or…to remain within the United States.”

So it stands today. Only the immediate target of the law has changed. Every group the US has sought to eliminate or exclude has been a people of color.

The logic is simple. Allow entry or citizenship for those who can be “assimilated” into the colonists’ culture – those who can become loyal colonists themselves – and exclude the “Other” - those who are the targets of colonialism – those whose land, cultures, bodies and souls must be sacrificed for the colonists to remain dominant and for their system to function.

Immigration law has always been race law in the US. As far back as 1790 the Federal government ruled that the right to become a naturalized citizen was reserved to “free white persons.”

So it remained until 1952. Until then the Supreme Court repeatedly determined exactly which migrants might be considered “free” and “white,” as applicants of various ethnic backgrounds sought to becomecitizens.

Today, “The Nation of Immigrants” theme is struck to avoid the historical and cultural truth. Europeans – who could be assimilated to colonial culture – were allowed entrance en masse. But there was a “stark division,” as Haney Lopez reminds us, based on skincolor. “This stark division necessarily also carried important connotations regarding, for example, agency,
moral authority, intelligence, and belonging,” he writes. “To be unfit for naturalization–that is, to be non-White–implied a certain degeneracy ofintellect, morals, self-restraint, and political values; to be suited for citizenship–to be White–suggested moral maturity, self assurance, personal independence, and political sophistication.” In other words, those “unfit” for citizenship were the colonized.

The description Lopez offers for the “unfit” matches precisely the characteristics ascribed to colonized peoples by European imperialists and settlers for hundreds of years. It also matches the racist stereotypes offered today of immigrants from areas
south of the US border with Mexico, who Congressman Sensenbrenner has referred to as degenerate “alien gang members terrorizing communities.” But the racialsubtext around immigration is not a subtext. It is the text itself.

Before Europe could “immigrate,” someone else had to be removed. Before there was land to settle it must be stolen. Before anyone could be “free and white”someone else had to be “non-white” – and enslaved. Before “Americans” could become “Americans,” “LatinAmericans” – who are overwhelmingly Original Americans – had to become something else –“Latinos,” “Hispanic,”the not-Native – the Alien.

The Illegal Alien. In a stunning bit of triple think the Natives, who knew no borders, became “Aliens,” while Europeans became “Americans,” and “Americans” became “Natives,” while the Original Americans became “foreign” infiltrators and lawbreakers bent on who-knows-what brand of “terrorism” against “innocent” colonists, or if you prefer, “Americans.” Or
“Settlers.” Or is it “Afrikaners.” Take your pick.

The Six Nations Confederation - the Iroquois, or Hau De No Sau Nee - wrote in their classic Basic Call to Consciousness that colonialism means “to be controlled from afar,” that “colonialism is the process by which we are systematically confused,” and that confusion is “an agent of control.”

Like this. “We are a nation of immigrants, and laws.” But sometimes someone slips, forgets the double talk, and makes the agenda clear. They don’t mean for us to overhear, but they can’t help themselves. In his mercilessly racist article Are We Really a Nation of Immigrants?, Lawrence Auster slips. He writes, “…throughout its history the United States has been a member of Western civilization—in religion overwhelmingly Christian… in race… overwhelmingly white, in language English. Why shouldn’t those little historical facts be at least as important in determining our immigration policy as the pseudo-fact
that we’re all ‘descended from immigrants?’” (FrontPagemagazine.com).

Auster, and David Horowitz’ Front Page Magazine, want one thing; they know what it is, and they’re willing to tell you. They want a white nation. They slipped. The many who write diatribes and hate mail on the theme of “What part of ILLEGAL don’t you UNDERSTAND?!” also slip. We understand “illegal” perfectly well. Conquest of territory in wars of aggression is illegal under international law. The US occupation of most Native land and all of the occupied sections of Mexico is illegal. The presence of the conquering people, the usurpation of the land itself is illegal. The colonists themselves are illegal aliens. But, for the Right, it’s not really about some imaginary adherence to a just, neutral system of “law.” It’s about race law and white privilege. And race law, codified on paper or not, is deeply codified in white people’s expectations about their place in society, and some of them are getting dangerously edgy about having “their” land – their turf – stepped on by Brown people.

On the web site of the anti-Mexican hate group Save Our State, a correspondent calling themselves “USA Today” writes: “To be honest we are heading for a Balkinization and a racial cleansing “I know its not politicly correct to say so but I think lots of folks see it coming and I’ll bet the vast majority of Americans would have no problem with genocide as a last resort to save this country , Usually when you back somebody into a corner they will defend themselves by any means ……..get it ? “Does this sound like something you would hear the nazis say? sure it is but I spend lots of time scanning the forums and blogs and its coming from normal , everyday people that are just about fed up with the whole mess. “I know a large number of Germans didn’t agree with hitler but they didn’t exactly act against him either. “Just keep pushing and pretty soon you’ll find the American people in a corner. “On that day, Beware.”

People who think like this are the social, cultural and political base of politicians like Jim Sensenbrenner. They are classic colonists, with the colonizer’s outlook. For them, mere “immigration” is impossible. Their “forefathers” conquered the land, so those coming here must be out to “re-conquer” the land – to take it back from them.

These are the true inheritors of the American Dream, a dream which, for the colonized, has been nothing but a nightmare. They intend to defend that nightmare – no matter what it takes. That’s what “immigration reform” and “immigration control” are really all about.

Colonialism.

And the race laws that defend it.

So, I’m not black enough again.

When are we going to stop?!

Because the AfroSpear collective did not respond quickly enough to a ‘problem’ Michael of “Assault on Black Sanity” had with the inclusion of a ‘hateful’ person of color in our blogroll; because our response was “niggardly” in his estimation, out came the lye, followed by the verbal conking. My ‘do stripped of kink, the claim that I ain’t black or Mau Mau enough was easily made. I now stand before you sporting my “Tutti-Fruitti,” shocked. How did it come to this? Ain’t nothin’ new under the covers or the sun.

Willie Lynch lives indeed, not just in some of us - but in all of us. Even in the “Black Cognescenti” who know the way and will direct all of us from their rotating penthouse above Lake Merritt. This is exactly why we formed an AfroSpear circle and encouraged others to do the same. Let’s keep it real: its hard for us to work together. Willie has implanted a self-destruct chip within us; anytime we get close to progressing, we all experience that ole time religion, the feverish, viral communication straight from the plantation in our minds. “TORPEDO, UNDERMINE, SABOTAGE ANY endeavor that might move the black race forward. The art of disagreeing while working together is African to us, meaning, you know, something known before we had our minds kidnapped.

That someone said something disparaging about black men on a website linked to us means, what, send her to Siberia?? Out of site out of mind?  We’re down with her ignorance?  De-link her or me, we are told, or else we are nothing but minstrels?!   I understood and supported all of your arguments, Michael, though there was somthing in your tone that caused me to hang back just a bit and observe. Glad I did. I read your post today which reads, to me, like what you were warning us against, sounded Evia-n in tone.

“The site I’m talking about is the Afrospear (a clever derivative of Afro-Sphere) run by six anonymous avatars claiming to be folks of African descent.

Now, I’m not so sure.”

Awesome! Sadly, the black love ejaculate dripping from this para ain’t superglue. Ain’t even halfway sticky, not to us anyway.

It would be REVOLUTIONARY to have a space open to misguided Negroes of all political stripes since most, if not all of us, are that.  It would be revolutionary if we could differ and not completely disparage each other. But sometimes it feels too damn good.

If we could only learn to see our complicity in maintaining our disunity and give each other a break.

This AfroSpear seed, this thing, at the outset is not what it will be in the end. I have faith in the people who have helped form it, faith that we will nurture it to the best of our abilities. I believe we have the humility to seek assistance from those who know better. As my friend, Sylvia recently stated, we want to collaborate and stick together. In spite of our differences. We WANT other to create their own AfroSpear collectives that reflect their value systems, that produce analysis, question, strategy, etc. I believe the larger AfroSpear will be stronger if it is a quilt of different, smaller constellations. We could make this work - if we weren’t so invested as a race in proving Willie Lynch right.

As black people, we don’t have much history in long term collaboration. Our best efforts are sabotaged from within and without. Only one of these we can control. Why don’t we try?

I think it is worth mentioning what AfroSpear is.

This website is a collaboration of 6 individual on three continents.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the idea was to create a think tank among the six of us and to link to/interact with other like minded folks who were doing the same thing: forming their collaborative circles. Ours was not an attempt to be all things to all people. In our humble constellation, we would discuss, suggest, brainstorm, propose, learn from, interact with each other and other people of African descent in the Diaspora. And encourage others to do the same.

Other people, forming their own cellular structures, would interact with us and each other and hopefully move us out of Babylon - figuratively and perhaps, literally. Like bees, we are engaged in the process of creating a giant honeycomb of freedom fighters, combinations that will create a stronger connection amongst us.

We - in this little honeycomb, are not a panacea. WE are! And all of us who are organizing ourselves to foment change! Working together in our affinity groups. Together, as we build, we will invoke the spirits of Nat Turner, Touissant, Sojouner, Malcolm, Martin and Fannie Lou, without being required to be them, without the burden of the race resting on our slim shoulders. This is all our job.

It is critical that we “pace ourselves,” and not get ahead of ourselves. In building the foundation, one should make sure that the cement has been aired out thoroughly; only a fool would begin adding floors before the cement has dried. Let’s not push so hard on this entity that we forget that it is small and that it is under construction. And that it is one layer amongst many to be formed.

Kwame Nkrumah is quoted as saying that “organization presupposes unity.” Let us organize, refine the structure of what we are creating, to ensure that we don’t bring the structure down on our heads.

PS:

We don’t feel the need to square off and flash our resumes to prove how right/black or down we are; nor do we need to publicize our good works in order to deride what others aren’t doing. All we have to be is black, conscious and striving to grow and change ourselves and help our people.

PPS:

I could be totally wrong. Please show me the error of my ways.

Aboriginal Women Deserve our Compassion and Protection…Indigenous Liberation Movements…Where Are You?

American history being what it is, the fact that the legacy of genocidal abuse, an abuse that began 500 years ago in the Americas, can continue without letup is nothing less than a scandal of the American mythological illusion presented as reality. In a stunningly sober report, Amnesty International has finally exposed one of the ugliest secrets of its long and dark history. American aboriginal women from Canada through the southern Americas are the targets of sexual abuse and virtually no one outside of the communities in question seem to care enough to make it stop.

This damming report pretty much sums up the totality of U.S. / Aboriginal relations as it has always existed in regards to how Indigenous women are seen and ultimately treated by the colonialist conundrum known as America. This is not in any way to suggest that Aboriginal males are not practitioners of sexual abuse. On the contrary, many published papers and studies have linked the post-trumatic stress disorder many if not all self-aware Aboriginals suffer from to some degree to the reality of Indigenous domestic abuse and how such “circles of violence” lend themselves to sexual abuse. But Aboriginal females are at particular risk for such abuse and it seems to exist for our women in every corner of American society. In a nation that employs rape as a torture tactic, why should anyone really be surprised by what this report by AA tells us? More, why are we allowing it to happen?

Mnemosyne added some additional evidence to the “Mind Control” aspects of not only advertising, but the culture.  YOU are the lab rat, the monkey in the cage that is being tweaked, pawed, stimulated, triggered.

She points out the concept of “the manufacture of consent.” In layman’s terms, it means to make you THINK the way THEY want you to think and ACT the way they want you to act.

Mind control.  What if your mind isn’t entirely your own?  Chomsky has talked about it in “Manufacturing Consent.”