Waterstar

Fists of Freedom: An Olympic Story Not Taught in School Dave Zirin on July 25, 2012 - 11:16 AM ET Nation readers —Over the next several weeks, I’ll be writing about the 2012 London Olympics. I’m going to try to write about the stories not just on the field but off: the Counter Olympics demonstrators, the workers behind the scenes, the athletes with personal stories that speak less to their desire for athletic success than a desire for human rights. It seemed fitting to start by looking back at perhaps the most political, controversial, inspiring moment in Olympics, if not sports, history: the medal stand black gloved salute of 200 meter runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos. I origincally wrote this article for GOOD magazine online (July 23, 2012) as part of the Zinn Education Project series called “If We Knew Our History.” * * * It has been almost 44 years since Tommie Smith and John Carlos took the medal stand following the 200-meter dash at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City and created what must be considered the most enduring, riveting image in the history of either sports or protest. But while the image has stood the test of time, the struggle that led to that moment has been cast aside. When mentioned at all in U.S. history textbooks, the famous photo appears with almost no context. For example, Pearson/Prentice Hall’s United States History places the photo opposite a short three-paragraph section, “Young Leaders Call for Black Power.” The photo’s caption says simply that “…U.S. athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised gloved fists in protest against discrimination.” The media—and school curricula—fail to address the context that produced Smith and Carlos’ famous gesture of resistance: It was the product of what was called “The Revolt of the Black Athlete.” Amateur black athletes formed OPHR, the Olympic Project for Human Rights, to organize an African American boycott of the 1968 Olympic Games. OPHR, its lead organizer, Dr. Harry Edwards, and its primary athletic spokespeople, Smith and the 400-meter sprinter Lee Evans, were deeply influenced by the black freedom struggle. Their goal was nothing less than to expose how the United States used black athletes to project a lie about race relations both at home and internationally. OPHR had four central demands: restore Muhammad Ali’s heavyweight boxing title, remove Avery Brundage as head of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), hire more African American coaches, and disinvite South Africa and Rhodesia from the Olympics. Ali’s belt had been taken by boxing’s powers that be earlier in the year for his resistance to the Vietnam draft. By standing with Ali, OPHR was expressing its opposition to the war. By calling for the hiring of more African American coaches as well as the ouster of Brundage, they were dragging out of the shadows a part of Olympic history those in power wanted to bury. Brundage was an anti-Semite and a white supremacist, best remembered today for sealing the deal on Hitler’s hosting the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. By demanding the exclusion of South Africa and Rhodesia, they aimed to convey their internationalism and solidarity with the black freedom struggles against apartheid in Africa. The wind went out of the sails of a broader boycott for many reasons, partly because the IOC re-committed to banning apartheid countries from the Games. The more pressing reason the boycott failed was that athletes who had spent their whole lives preparing for their Olympic moment simply couldn’t bring themselves to give it up. There also emerged accusations of a campaign of harassment and intimidation orchestrated by people supportive of Brundage. Despite all of these pressures, a handful of Olympians was still determined to make a stand. In communities across the globe, they were hardly alone. The lead-up to the Olympics in Mexico City was electric with struggle. Already in 1968, the world had seen the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, demonstrating that the United States was nowhere near “winning the war”; the Prague Spring, during which Czech students challenged tanks from the Stalinist Soviet Union, demonstrating that dissent was crackling on both sides of the Iron Curtain; and the April 4 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the urban uprisings that followed—along with the exponential growth of the Black Panther Party in the United States—that revealed an African American freedom struggle unassuaged by the civil rights reforms that had transformed the Jim Crow South. Then, on October 2, 10 days before the opening ceremonies of the 1968 Olympic Games, Mexican security forces massacred hundreds of students and workers in Mexico City’s Tlatelolco Square. Although the harassment and intimidation of the OPHR athletes cannot be compared to this slaughter, the intention was the same—to stifle protest and make sure that the Olympics were “suitable” for visiting dignitaries, heads of state, and an international audience. It was not successful. On the second day of the Games, Smith and Carlos took their stand. Smith set a world record, winning the 200-meter gold, and Carlos captured the bronze. Smith then took out the black gloves. The silver medalist, a runner from Australia named Peter Norman, attached an Olympic Project for Human Rights patch onto his chest to show his solidarity on the medal stand. As the stars and stripes ran up the flagpole and the national anthem played, Smith and Carlos bowed their heads and raised their fists in what was described across the globe as a “Black Power salute,” creating a moment that would define the rest of their lives. But there was far more to their actions on the medal stand than just the gloves. The two men wore no shoes, to protest black poverty as well as beads and scarves to protest lynching. Within hours, the IOC planted a rumor that Smith and Carlos had been stripped of their medals (although this was not in fact true) and expelled from the Olympic Village. Brundage wanted to send a message to every athlete that there would be punishment for any political demonstrations on the field of play. But Brundage was not alone in his furious reaction. The Los Angeles Times accused Smith and Carlos of a “Nazi-like salute.” Time had a distorted version of the Olympic logo on its cover but instead of the motto “Faster, Higher, Stronger,” it blared “Angrier, Nastier, Uglier.” The Chicago Tribune called the act “an embarrassment visited upon the country,” an “act contemptuous of the United States,” and “an insult to their countrymen.” Smith and Carlos were “renegades” who would come home to be “greeted as heroes by fellow extremists,” lamented the paper. But the coup de grâce was by a young reporter for the Chicago American named Brent Musburger who called them “a pair of black-skinned storm troopers.” But if Smith and Carlos were attacked from a multitude of directions, they also received many expressions of support, including from some unlikely sources. For example, the U.S. Olympic crew team, all white and entirely from Harvard, issued the following statement: “We—as individuals—have been concerned about the place of the black man in American society in their struggle for equal rights. As members of the U.S. Olympic team, each of us has come to feel a moral commitment to support our black teammates in their efforts to dramatize the injustices and inequities which permeate our society.” Smith and Carlos sacrificed privilege and glory, fame and fortune, for a larger cause—civil rights. As Carlos says, “A lot of the [black] athletes thought that winning [Olympic] medals would supersede or protect them from racism. But even if you won a medal, it ain’t going to save your momma. It ain’t going to save your sister or children. It might give you 15 minutes of fame, but what about the rest of your life?” The story of Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics deserves more than a visual sound bite in a quickie textbook section on “Black Power.” As the Zinn Education Project points out in its “If We Knew Our History” series, this is one of many examples of the missing and distorted history in school, which turns the curriculum into a checklist of famous names and dates. When we introduce students to the story of Smith and Carlos’ defiant gesture, we can offer a rich context of activism, courage, and solidarity that breathes life into the study of history—and the long struggle for racial equality.

..and some to keep in our minds...

Nana always said if you can't find nothing nice to say, maybe it's cause there is nothing nice to say. Mums said there's always something good somewhere, even when we have to look really hard to find it. :-) Actually, I thought that the instrument selection was particularly interesting, especially when I reflect on how school systems are gutting music ed. programs along with other programs that help students to develop creatively. This video just helps to reinforce the argument that it does not always take loads of money to save such programs. I know this was supposed to be "Fun Monday", but fun is relative To some, standing in the gap for our children is not boring at all.. Can't you see younger children on these, for the most part, simple instruments having fun while learning this song (and learning to improvise)? Could be donated or second hand or even student-made made instruments. Clips of this video should be paid to support keeping music ed. My goodness, too. It has been so long since I've even seen a kazoo. I dig the creativity. You know when you got The Roots involved creatively, you are going to see the ordinary become extraordinary. Surely they proceed...and continue...even if they rockin mostly through toy instruments.

HAVANA, July 26 (Reuters) - Cuban President Raul Castro accused the United States on Thursday of seeking an overthrow of the Cuban government similar to Arab Spring countries, while reiterating his government's willingness to negotiate with its decades old foe. "“The day they want (to talk) the table is served," Castro said in a nationally televised address on one of the biggest days in Cuba's political calendar. “"I have already informed them through diplomatic channels. If they want to talk, we will talk ... but as equals ... We are going to talk about the same themes (democracy and human rights) in the United States," he said. The communist-ruled island was marking the anniversary of the 1953 attack led by Fidel Castro on the Moncada army barracks in the city of Santiago de Cuba that started the Cuban Revolution. Raul Castro, dressed in military uniform, spoke in eastern Guantanamo province after the official celebration marking the date concluded. Castro, who took over for his ailing brother in 2008 after serving as defense minister for decades, charged that government opponents on the island, supported by the United States and other western countries, "were “creating the conditions and aspiring to one day have happen here, what happened in Libya and what they want to happen in Syria." Libya's long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi was toppled after a bloody conflict, and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar a-Assad are trying to crush a rebellion seeking to oust him. Castro's comments followed the death on Sunday of the country's most prominent dissident and civil rights activist, Oswaldo Paya, who was killed in an apparent car accident. Paya led a 2002 petition drive to reform the country's one-party political system, but was also highly critical of U.S. policy toward Cuba, including the 50-year-old economic embargo against the island. Cuba is undergoing a major economic reform process to shrink its inefficient public administration and state-run business sectors, but has staunchly rejected any suggestions of reform to its political system. U.S.-Cuban relations have warmed slightly since President Barack Obama took office but progress has come to a virtual halt since American contractor Alan Gross was arrested in Havana in December 2009 and sentenced to 15 years in prison for setting up Internet networks under a semi-covert U.S. program aimed at promoting political change. Hostile rhetoric between the two governments has heated up in recent months as election cycles in both countries take place, with the White House criticizing Havana for its repression of dissent. "“If they want a confrontation with us let it be only in baseball or some other sport," Castro quipped. "“In other areas no. We have no interest in harming anyone, but we will defend our people," he said. Hmm...

(From NACLA ) The Impact of the Cuban Revolution on Activism, Human and Civil Rights in North America, Africa, and the African Diaspora in General: On July 26, 1953, Castro and other Cuban rebels launched the popular movement that would topple the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Earlier this week, Ike Nahem, one of the coordinators of the coalition, discussed with NACLA the significance of the anniversary, and its relevance to American activists in the United States. What is the significance of the anniversary of the attack on the Moncada Barracks? The anniversary ...celebrated... on July 23, is an annual event now that has been taking place since 2003, and it commemorates the July 26, 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks that became the spark for the revolutionary struggle that defeated and overthrew the U.S.-backed Batista government in 1959. It is a national holiday in Cuba, and supporters of the Revolution celebrate it in the United States. The July 26 Coalition brings together a lot of people every year, in spite of their political differences, to show their solidarity for Cuba, and their opposition to current U.S. policy. What can activists in the United States learn from the July 26 anniversary? Cuban revolutionaries were fighting against a military dictatorship that had destroyed the Cuban Constitution. There was no political space for a legal struggle because democratic rights had been abolished in Cuba by the Batista regime, which was backed by the United States, so they launched an armed attack. That would not be tactically relevant to activists in the United States. But leaving that aside, the fact that a group of young people—students and workers—came together and went to action against a regime is very inspiring. The most important example of activism shown by Cuban revolutionaries is the way they maintain that revolutionary perspective and solidarity with global causes in spite of the hostility of the U.S. government. What connection can you make for Americans between Civil Rights and the Cuban Revolution? The Cuban Revolution was a gigantic blow against racism and other injustices inside Cuba, and it had a big impact in the United States. This is part of the history that has not been publicized in the mainstream media. In fact, when Fidel Castro came to the United Nations in 1960, and stayed at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem, he made statements in solidarity with the Black struggle in the United States, and most importantly he explained what the Cuban revolution did, which smashed the Jim Crow system that existed in Cuba. He demonstrated his support later for African independence and liberation, as well as many activists like Malcolm X—who was a strong supporter of the Cuban revolution, Robert F. Williams, Leroy Jones, and many others. Many of the spokespeople against the beginning of U.S. hostility and aggression against Cuba in the early 1960s were Black activists. There has been an intimate connection between the Cuban Revolution and the struggle for Black rights since the beginning. What do you think it is like in the United States today for supporters of the Cuban Revolution? There has always been a layer of people in the United States who were sympathetic and supported the Cuban Revolution despite the huge demonization and propaganda against Cuba that dominated Washington and the media. In recent years, both in the overall population, and particularly amongst Cuban-Americans, the support for the end of U.S. sanctions, the freedom for U.S. citizens to travel to Cuba without going through government restrictions has grown tremendously. We have found through our own experiences that the overwhelming majority of working people have no hostility towards Cuba; especially among my black co-workers, who are largely sympathetic for the role that Cuba played in helping defeat apartheid in South Africa. There is a clear contradiction now between the sentiment of the U.S. population on this question, and the overwhelming majority of politicians—both Republicans and Democrats—who support a U.S. policy that is aimed at destroying the Cuban Revolution and its government.

Dr. J.H. Clarke (on Prince Hall and, in general) West Indians in the Afro-American Struggle: Prior to the Civil War, West Indian contribution to the progress of Afro-American life was one of the main contributing factors in the fight for freedom and full citizenship in the northern United States. West Indians had come to the United States during the 18th and 19th centuries and the most outstanding of them saw their plight and that of the Afro-American as being one and the same. In the 18th century America, two of the most outstanding fighters for liberty and justice were the West Indians, Prince Hall and John B. Russwurm. When Prince Hall came to the United States the nation was in turmoil. The colonies were ablaze with indignation. Britain, with a series of revenue acts, had stoked the fires of colonial discontent. In Virginia, Patrick Henry was speaking of liberty or death. The cry "No Taxation Without Representation" played on the nerve-strings of the nation. Prince Hall, then a delicate-looking teenager, often walked through the turbulent streets of Boston, an observer unobserved. A few months before these hectic scenes, he had arrived in the United States from his home in Barbados, where he had been born about 1748, the son of an Englishman and a free African woman. He was, in theory, a free man, but he knew that neither in Boston nor in Barbados were persons of African descent free in fact. At once, he questioned the sincerity of the vocal white patriots of Boston. It never seemed to have occurred to them that the announced principles motivating their action made stronger argument in favor of destroying the system of slavery. The colonists held in servitude more than a half million human beings, some of them white; yet they engaged in the contradiction of going to war to support the theory that all men were created equal. When Prince Hall arrived in Boston that city was the center of the American slave trade. Most of the major leaders of the revolutionary movement, in fact, were slaveholders or investors in slave-supported businesses. Hall, like many other Americans, wondered: what did these men mean by freedom? The condition of the free Black men, as Prince Hall found them, was not an enviable one. Emancipation brought neither freedom nor relief from the stigma of color. They were free in name only. They were still included in slave codes with slaves, indentured servants, and Indians. Discriminatory Laws severely circumscribed their freedom of movement. By 1765, through diligence and frugality, Hall became a property owner, thus establishing himself in the eyes of white as well as Black people. But the ownership of property was not enough. He still had to endure sneers and insults. He decided then to prepare himself for a role of leadership among his people. To this end he went to school at night and later became a Methodist preacher. His church became the forum for his people's grievances. Ten years after his arrival in Boston, Massachusetts, he was the accepted leader of the Black community. In 1788 Hall petitioned the Massachusetts Legislature, protesting the kidnapping of free Negroes. This was a time when American patriots were engaged in a constitutional struggle for freedom. They had proclaimed the inherent rights of all mankind to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hall dared to remind them that the Black men in the United States were human beings, and as such were entitled to freedom and respect for their human personality. It was racial prejudice that made Hall the father of African secret societies in the United States what is now known as the "Negro Masonry." Hall first sought initiation into the white Masonic Lodge in Boston, but was turned down because of his color. He then applied to the Army Lodge of an Irish Regiment. His petition was favorably received. On March 6, 1775, Hall and fourteen other Black Americans were initiated in Lodge Number 441. When, on March 17, the British were forced to evacuate Boston, the Army Lodge gave Prince Hall and his colleagues a license to meet and function as a Lodge. Thus, on July 3, 1776, African Lodge No. 1 came into being. This was the first Lodge in Massachusetts established in America for men of African descent. Later, in 1843, a Jamaican, Peter Ogden, organized in New York City the first Odd Fellows Lodge for Negroes. The founding of the African Lodge was one of Prince Hall's greatest achievements. It afforded Africans in the New England area of the United States a greater sense of security and contributed to a new spirit of unity among them. Hall's interest did not end with the Lodge. He was deeply concerned with improving the lot of his people in other ways. He sought to have schools established for the children of free Africans in Massachusetts. Of prime importance is the fact that Prince Hall worked to secure respect for his people and that he played a significant role in the downfall of the Massachusetts slave trade. He helped to prepare the ground-work for those freedom fighters of the 18th and 20th centuries whose continuing efforts have brought the Black American closer to the goal of full citizenship. In his book Souls of Black Folk, Dr. W.E.B. DuBois points to the role of West Indians in the Afro-American struggle. They, he says, were mainly responsible for the manhood program launched by the race in the early decades of the last century. An eminent instance of such drive and self-assurance can be seen in the achievement of John W. A. Shaw of Antigua, who, later in that century, in the early 1890's passed the Civil Service tests and became Deputy Commissioner of Taxes for the County of Queens in New York State.

Dr. J.H. Clarke, also with excerpts from Lerone Bennet's tribute, on the significance of John B.Russwurm and Samuel E. Cornish, pioneers of African American journalism:

Your perspective is an interesting one, too.

Always an eyebrow raiser, Madonna, during her latest tour, has reportedly been flashing naked body parts, guns, and swatskias oh my. (By the way, I wonder if people have compared the criticism from the public that Madonna received for flashing her nakedness to the criticism from the public that Janet Jackson received after flashing her nakedness.) She's really been pissing a lot of people (including some officials from other countries) off lately, though. Anyway, bell hooks wrote this way before Madonna's recent tour. Many thought that bell hooks was being too harsh on Madonna while some did not, while others did not care one way or the other. At any rate, I found hooks' particular perspective to be interesting then and for those who have not read this, perhaps now they might find it interesting, too. Madonna: Plantation Mistress or Soul Sister? bell hooks From 'Black Looks: Race and Representation' Subversion is contextual, historical, and above all social. No matter how exciting the "destabitizing" potential of texts, bodily or otherwise, whether those texts are subversive or recuperative or both or neither cannot be determined by abstraction from actual social practice. --Susan Bordo White women "stars" like Madonna, Sandra Bernhard, and many others publicly name their interest in, and appropriation of, black culture as yet another sign of their radical chic. Intimacy with that "nasty" blackness good white girls stay away from is what they seek. To white and other nonblack consumers, this gives them a special flavor, an added spice. After all it is a very recent historical phenomenon for any white girl to be able to get some mileage out of flaunting her fascination and envy of blackness. The thing about envy is that it is always ready to destroy, erase, take over, and consume the desired object. That's exactly what Madonna attempts to do when she appropriates and commodifies aspects of black culture. Needless to say this kind of fascination is a threat. It endangers. Perhaps that is why so many of the grown black women I spoke with about Madonna had no interest in her as a cultural icon and said things like, "The bitch can't even sing." It was only among young black females that I could find die-hard Madonna fans. Though I often admire and, yes at times, even envy Madonna because she has created a cultural space where she can invent and reinvent herself and receive public affirmation and material reward, I do not consider myself a Madonna fan. Once I read an interview with Madonna where she talked about her envy of black culture, where she stated that she wanted to be black as a child. It is a sign of white privilege to be able to "see" blackness and black culture from a standpoint where only the rich culture of opposition black people have created in resistance marks and defines us. Such a perspective enables one to ignore white supremacist domination and the hurt it inflicts via oppression, exploitation, and everyday wounds and pains. White folks who do not see black pain never really understand the complexity of black pleasure. And it is no wonder then that when they attempt to imitate the joy in living which they see as the "essence" of soul and blackness, their cultural productions may have an air of sham and falseness that may titillate and even move white audiences yet leave many black folks cold. Needless to say, if Madonna had to depend on masses of black women to maintain her status as cultural icon she would have been dethroned some time ago. Many of the black women I spoke with expressed intense disgust and hatred of Madonna. Most did not respond to my cautious attempts to suggest that underlying those negative feelings might lurk feelings of envy, and dare I say it, desire. No black woman I talked to declared that she wanted to "be Madonna." Yet we have only to look at the number of black women entertainers/stars (Tina Turner, Aretha Franklin, Donna Summer, Vanessa Williams, Yo-Yo, etc.) who gain greater crossover recognition when they demonstrate that, like Madonna, they too, have a healthy dose of "blonde ambition." Clearly their careers have been influenced by Madonna's choices and strategies. For masses of black women, the political reality that underlies Madonna's and our recognition that this is a society where "blondes" not only "have more fun" but where they are more likely to succeed in any endeavor is white supremacy and racism. We cannot see Madonna's change in hair color as being merely a question of aesthetic choice. I agree with Julie Burchill in her critical work Girls on Film, when she reminds us: "What does it say about racial purity that the best blondes have all been brunettes (Harlow, Monroe, Bardot)? I think it says that we are not as white as we think. I think it says that Pure is a Bore." I also know that it is the expressed desire of the nonblonde Other for those characteristics that are seen as the quintessential markers of racial aesthetic superiority that perpetuate and uphold white supremacy. In this sense Madonna has much in common with the masses of black women who suffer from internalized racism and are forever terrorized by a standard of beauty they feel they can never truly embody. Like many black women who have stood outside the culture's fascination with the blonde beauty and who have only been able to reach it through imitation and artifice, Madonna often recalls that she was a working-class white girl who saw herself as ugly, as outside the mainstream beauty standard. And indeed what some of us like about her is the way she deconstructs the myth of "natural" white girl beauty by exposing the extent to which it can be and is usually artificially constructed and maintained. She mocks the conventional racist-defined beauty ideal even as she rigorously strives to embody it. Given her obsession with exposing the reality that the ideal female beauty in this society can be attained by artifice and social construction, it should come as no surprise that many of her fans are gay men, and that the majority of nonwhite men, particularly black men, are among that group. Jennie Livingston's film Paris Is Burning suggests that many black gay men, especially queens/divas, are as equally driven as Madonna by "blonde ambition." Madonna never lets her audience forget that whatever "look" she acquires is attained by hard work--"it ain't natural." And as Burchill comments in her chapter "Homosexual Girls": I have a friend who drives a cab and looks like a Marlboro Man but at night is the second best Jean Harlow I have ever seen. He summed up the kind of film star he adores, brutally and brilliantly, when he said, "I like actresses who look as if they've spent hours putting themselves together--and even then they don't look right." Certainly no one, not even die-hard Madonna fans, ever insists that her beauty is not attained by skillful artifice. And indeed, a major point of the documentary film Truth or Dare: In Bed With Madonna was to demonstrate the amount of work that goes into the construction of her image. Yet when the chips are down, the image Madonna most exploits is that of the quintessential "white girl." To maintain that image she must always position herself as an outsider in relation to black culture. It is that position of outsider that enables her to colonize and appropriate black experience for her own opportunistic ends even as she attempts to mask her acts of racist aggression as affirmation. And no other group sees that as clearly as black females in this society. For we have always known that the socially constructed image of innocent white womanhood relies on the continued production of the racist/sexist sexual myth that black women are not innocent and never can be. Since we are coded always as "fallen" women in the racist cultural iconography we can never, as can Madonna, publicly "work" the image of ourselves as innocent female daring to be bad. Mainstream culture always reads the black female body as sign of sexual experience. In part, many black women who are disgusted by Madonna's flaunting of sexual experience are enraged because the very image of sexual agency that she is able to project and affirm with material gain has been the stick this society has used to justify its continued beating and assault on the black female body. The vast majority of black women in the United States, more concerned with projecting images of respectability than with the idea of female sexual agency and transgression, do not often feel we have the "freedom" to act in rebellious ways in regards to sexuality without being punished. We have only to contrast the life story of Tina Tumer with that of Madonna to see the different connotations "wild" sexual agency has when it is asserted by a black female. Being represented publicly as an active sexual being has only recently enabled Turner to gain control over her life and career. For years the public image of aggressive sexual agency Turner projected belied the degree to which she was sexually abused and exploited privately. She was also materially exploited. Madonna's career could not be all that it is if there were no Tina Turner and yet, unlike her cohort Sandra Bernhard, Madonna never articulates the cultural debt she owes black females. In her most recent appropriations of blackness, Madonna almost always imitates phallic black masculinity. Although I read many articles which talked about her appropriating male codes, no critic seems to have noticed her emphasis on black male experience. In his Playboy profile, "Playgirl of the Western World," Michael Kelly describes Madonna's crotch grabbing as "an eloquent visual put-down of male phallic pride." He points out that she worked with choreographer Vince Paterson to perfect the gesture. Even though Kelly tells readers that Madonna was consciously imitating Michael Jackson, he does not contextualize his interpretation of the gesture to include this act of appropriation from black male culture. And in that specific context the groin grabbing gesture is an assertion of pride and phallic domination that usually takes place in an all-male context. Madonna's imitation of this gesture could just as easily be read as an expression of envy. Throughout [many] of her autobiographical interviews runs a thread of expressed desire to possess the power she perceives men have. Madonna may hate the phallus, but she longs to possess its power. She is always first and foremost in competition with men to see who has the biggest penis. She longs to assert phallic power, and like every other group in this white supremacist society, she clearly sees black men as embodying a quality of maleness that eludes white men. Hence they are often the group of men she most seeks to imitate, taunting white males with her own version of"black masculinity." When it comes to entertainment rivals, Madonna clearly perceives black male stars like Prince and Michael Jackson to be the standard against which she must measure herself and that she ultimately hopes to transcend. Fascinated yet envious of black style, Madonna appropriates black culture in ways that mock and undermine, making her presentation one that upstages. This is most evident in the video "Like a Prayer." Though I read numerous articles that discussed public outrage at this video, none focused on the issue of race. No article called attention to the fact that Madonna flaunts her sexual agency by suggesting that she is breaking the ties that bind her as a white girl to white patriarchy, and establishing ties with black men. She, however, and not black men, does the choosing. The message is directed at white men. It suggests that they only labeled black men rapists for fear that white girls would choose black partners over them. Cultural critics commenting on the video did not seem at all interested in exploring the reasons Madonna chooses a black cultural backdrop for this ~video, i.e., black church and religious experience. Clearly, it was this backdrop that added to the video's controversy. In her commentary in the Washington Post, "Madonna: Yuppie Goddess," Brooke Masters writes: "Most descriptions of the controversial video focus on its Catholic imagery: Madonna kisses a black saint, and develops Christ-like markings on her hands. However, the video is also a feminist fairy tale. Sleeping Beauty and Snow White waited for their princes to come along, Madonna finds her own man and wakes him up." Notice that this writer completely overlooks the issue of race and gender. That Madonna's chosen prince was a black man is in part what made the representation potentially shocking and provocative to a white supremacist audience. Yet her attempt to exploit and transgress traditional racial taboos was rarely commented on. Instead critics concentrated on whether or not she was violating taboos regarding religion and representation. In the United States, Catholicism is most often seen as a religion that has [few] or no black followers and Madonna's video certainly perpetuates this stereotype with its juxtaposition of images of black nonCatholic representations with the image of the black saint. Given the importance of religious experience and liberation theology in black life, Madonna's use of this imagery seemed particularly offensive. For she made black characters act in complicity with her as she aggressively flaunted her critique of Catholic manners, her attack on organized religion. Yet, no black voices that I know of came forward in print calling attention to the fact that the realm of the sacred that is mocked in this film is black religious experience, or that this appropriative "use" of that experience was offensive to many black folk. Looking at the video with a group of students in my class on the politics of sexuality where we critically analyze the way race and representations of blackness are used to sell products, we discussed the way in which black people in the video are caricatures reflecting stereotypes. They appear grotesque. The only role black females have in this video is to catch (i.e., rescue) the "angelic" Madonna when she is "falling." This is just a contemporary casting of the black female as Mammy. Made to serve as supportive backdrop for Madonna's drama, black characters in "Like a Prayer" remind one of those early Hollywood depictions of singing black slaves in the great plantation movies or those Shirley Temple films where Bojangles was trotted out to dance with Miss Shirley and spice up her act. Audiences were not supposed to be enamored of Bojangles, they were supposed to see just what a special little old white girl Shirley really was. In her own way Madonna is a modern day Shirley Temple. Certainly her expressed affinity with black culture enhances her value. Eager to see the documentary Truth ar Dare because it promised to focus on Madonna's transgressive sexual persona, which I find interesting, I was angered by her visual representations of her domination over not white men (certainly not over Warren Beatty or Alek Keshishian), but people of color and white working-class women. I was too angered by this to appreciate other aspects of the film I might have enjoyed. In Truth or Dare Madonna clearly revealed that she can only think of exerting power along very traditional, white supremacist, capitalistic, patriarchal lines. That she made people who were dependent on her for their immediate livelihood submit to her will was neither charming nor seductive to me or the other black folks that I spoke with who saw the film. We thought it tragically ironic that Madonna would choose as her dance partner a black male with dyed blonde hair. Perhaps had he appeared less like a white-identified black male consumed by "blonde ambition" he might have upstaged her. Instead he was positioned as a mirror, into which Madonna and her audience could look and see only a reflection of herself and the worship of "whiteness" she embodies-- that white supremacist culture wants everyone to embody. Madonna used her power to ensure that he and the other nonwhite women and men who worked for her, as well as some of the white subordinates, would all serve as the backdrop to her white-girl-makes-good-drama. Joking about the film with other black folks, we commented that Madonna must have searched long and hard to find a black female that was not a good dancer, one who would not deflect attention away from her. And it is telling that when the film directly reflects something other than a positive image of Madonna, the camera highlights the rage this black female dancer was suppressing. It surfaces when the "subordinates" have time off and are "relaxing." As with most Madonna videos, when critics talk about this film they tend to ignore race. Yet no viewer can look at this film and not think about race and representation without engaging in forms of denial. After choosing a cast of characters from marginalized groups--nonwhite folks, heterosexual and gay, and gay white folks--Madonna publicly describes them as "emotional cripples." And of course in the context of the film this description seems borne out by the way they allow her to dominate, exploit, and humiliate them. Those Madonna fans who are determined to see her as politically progressive might ask themselves why it is she completely endorses those racist/sexist/classist stereotypes that almost always attempt to portray marginalized groups as "defective" Let's face it, by doing this, Madonna is not breaking with any white supremacist, patriarchal status quo; she is endorsing and perpetuating it. Some of us do not find it hip or cute for Madonna to brag that she has a "fascistic side," a side well documented in the film. Well, we did not see any of her cute little fascism in action when it was Warren Beatty calling her out in the film. No, there the image of Madonna was the little woman who grins and bears it. No, her "somebody's got to be in charge side," as she names it, was most expressed in her interaction with those representatives from marginalized groups who are most often victimized by the powerful. Why is it there is little or no discussion of Madonna as racist or sexist in her relation to other women? Would audiences be charmed by some rich white male entertainer telling us he must "play father" and oversee the actions of the less powerful, especially women and men of color? So why did so many people find it cute when Madonna asserted that she dominates the interracial casts of gay and heterosexual folks in her film because they are crippled and she "like to play mother" No, this was not a display of feminist power, this was the same old phallic nonsense with white pussy at the center. And many of us watching were not simply unmoved--we were outraged. Perhaps it is a sign of a collective feeling of powerlessness that many black, nonwhite, and white viewers of this film who were disturbed by the display of racism, sexism, and heterosexism (yes, it's possible to hire gay people, support AIDS projects, and still be biased in the direction of phallic patriarchal heterosexuality) in Truth or Dare have said so little. Sometimes it is difficult to find words to make a critique when we find ourselves attracted by some aspect of a performer's act and disturbed by others, or when a performer shows more interest in promoting progressive social causes than is customary. We may see that performer as above critique. Or we may feel our critique will in no way intervene on the worship of them as a cultural icon. To say nothing, however, is to be complicit with the very forces of domination that make "blonde ambition" necessary to Madonna's success. Tragically, all that is transgressive and potentially empowering to feminist women and men about Madonna's work may be undermined by all that it contains that is reactionary and in no way unconventional or new. It is often the conservative elements in her work converging with the status quo that have the most powerful impact. For example: Given the rampant homophobia in this society and the concomitant heterosexist voyeuristic obsession with gay life-styles, to what extent does Madonna progressively seek to challenge this if she insists on primarily representing gays as in some way emotionally handicapped or defective? Or when Madonna responds to the critique that she exploits gay men by cavalierly stating: "What does exploitation mean? . . . In a revolution, some people have to get hurt. To get people to change, you have to turn the table over. Some dishes get broken." I can only say this doesn't sound like liberation to me. Perhaps when Madonna explores those memories of her white working-class childhood in a troubled family in a way that enables her to understand intimately the politics of exploitation, domination, and submission, she will have a deeper connection with oppositional black culture. If and when this radical critical self-interrogation takes place, she will have the power to create new and different cultural productions, work that will be truly transgressive--acts of resistance that transform rather than simply seduce.

Your tax dollars at work - the FBI's psychological warfare effort against Martin Luther King (1964) A break-in to end all break-ins In 1971, stolen FBI files exposed the government's domestic spying program. By Allan M. Jalon ALLAN M. JALON is a longtime contributor to The Times and other publications on issues of culture and media. March 8, 2006 THIRTY-FIVE YEARS ago today, a group of anonymous activists broke into the small, two-man office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pa., and stole more than 1,000 FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent. The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI, as the group called itself, forced its way in at night with a crowbar while much of the country was watching the Muhammad Ali-Joe Frazier fight. When agents arrived for work the next morning, they found the file cabinets virtually emptied. Within a few weeks, the documents began to show up mailed anonymously in manila envelopes with no return address in the newsrooms of major American newspapers. When the Washington Post received copies, Atty. Gen. John N. Mitchell asked Executive Editor Ben Bradlee not to publish them because disclosure, he said, could "endanger the lives" of people involved in investigations on behalf of the United States. Ward Churchill and Jim VanderWall, "The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States," South End Press: 1990.

The FBI's Vendetta Against Martin Luther King, Jr. excerpted from the book The Lawless State The crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies by Morton Halperin, Jerry Berman, Robert Borosage, Christine Marwick Penguin Books, 1976 p63 For the FBI, an organization seeking to register blacks in the South was clearly suspicious. Until 1962, the bureau would monitor King and SCLC under the "racial matters" category, which required agents to collect "all pertinent information" about the "proposed or actual activities of individuals and organizations in the racial field." According to the Senate Select Committee, the FBI information on King was "extensive." The unfolding story of the civil rights protest movement and the leadership role of Martin Luther King, Jr., is a most ignoble chapter in the history of FBI spying and manipulation. As the civil rights movement grew and expanded, the FBI pinpointed every group and emergent leader for intensive investigation and most for harassment and disruption, the FBl's domestic version of CIA covert action abroad. The NAACP was the subject of a COMINFIL investigation. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were listed by the FBI as "Black-Hate" type organizations and selected for covert disruption of their political activities. But the most vicious FBI attack was reserved for King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. All of the arbitrary power and lawless tactics that had accumulated in the bureau over the years were marshaled to destroy King's reputation and the movement he led. The FBI relied on its vague authority to investigate "subversives" to spy on King and SCLC; its vague authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping and microphonic surveillance to tap and bug him; its secrecy to conduct covert operations against him. The campaign began with his rise to leadership and grew more vicious as he reached the height of his power; it continued even after his assassination in 1968. p77 On August 28, 250,000 persons marched on Washing- 1, ton. The march, sponsored by a cross-section of civil rights, labor, and church organizations, was designed to support the enactment of civil rights legislation. That day, The speech brought the crowd to its feet, applauding, echoing the "Amens" that greet evangelical preaching, and shouting "Freedom Now!" The FBI reacted differently. In memoranda to the director, King's speech was characterized as "demagogic," and the presence of "200" Communists among the 250,000 marchers caused the Intelligence Division to state that it had underestimated Communist efforts and influence on American Negroes and the civil rights movement. King was singled out: He stands head and shoulders over all other Negro leaders put together when it comes to influencing great masses of Negroes. We must mark him now . . . as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of Communism the Negro and national security. More ominously, the FBI suggested that "legal" efforts to deal with King might not be enough. "It may be unrealistic," the memorandum went on, to limit ourselves as we have been doing to legalistic proofs or definitely conclusive evidence that would stand up in testimony in court or before Congressional Committees.... It was up to the FBI to "mark" King and bring him down on its own-to take the law into its own hands. On October 1, 1963, Hoover received and then approved a combined COMINFIL-COINTELPRO plan against the civil rights movement. The approved plan called for intensifying "coverage of Communist influence on the Negro." It recommended the "use of all possible investigative techniques" and stated an "urgent need for imaginative and aggressive tactics . . . to neutralize or disrupt the Party's activities in the Negro field." On October 10 and 21, Attorney General Kennedy gave the FBI one of those "investigative techniques" by approving the wiretaps on King. On October 18, 1963, the FBI distributed a different kind of memorandum on King, not only to the Justice Department, but to officials at the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Defense Department, and Defense Department intelligence agencies. It summarized the bureau's Communist party charges against King and went much further. According to - Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, it was a personal diatribe . . . a personal attack without evidentiary support on the character, the moral character and person of Dr. Martin Luther King, and it was only peripherally related to anything substantive, like whether or not there was Communist infiltration or influence on the civil rights movement.... It was a personal attack on the man and went far afield from the charges [of possible Communist influence]. The attorney general was outraged and demanded that Hoover seek the return of the report. By October 28, all copies were returned. This was the first-and last-official action to deter Hoover's vendetta against King. In November, John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Lyndon Johnson became president and the Justice Department was in a state of confusion with the attorney general preoccupied with his personal grief. King viewed the assassination as a tragedy, and hoped it would spawn a new public concern for peace and reconciliation. While the nation mourned, the FBI held a conference at the beginning of December to plan its campaign to destroy King and the civil rights movement. At that all-day meeting FBI officials put forward proposals that make G. Gordon Liddy's Watergate plan seem pale by comparison. Officials of the nation's number-one law enforcement agency agreed to use "all available investigative techniques" to develop information for use "to discredit" King. Proposals discussed included using ministers, "disgruntled" acquaintances, "aggressive" newsmen, "colored" agents, Dr. King's housekeeper, and even Dr. King's wife or "placing a good looking female plant in King's office" to develop discrediting information and to take action that would lead to his disgrace. From the nature of Burke Marshall's description of the October 18 report, it is obvious that the FBI was on to something it viewed as unsavory about King's private life. The report made the charges, but as Marshall said, there was no "evidentiary" support. Now the FBI was out to get the proof. By January, the FBI had initiated physical and photographic surveillance of King, deploying its most experienced personnel to gather information, and had placed the first of many illegal bugs in Dr. King's room at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. According to Justice Department regulations at the time, microphonic surveillance, although it necessitated a physical trespass and was more intrusive than a phone tap, did not require the approval of the attorney general. Even under its own regulations, however, the FBI could only use this technique to gather "important intelligence or evidence relating to matters connected with national security." In this case the FBI planned to use "bugs" to learn about "the [private] activities of Dr. King and his associates" so that King could be "completely discredited." It was clearly illegal. The Willard Hotel "bug" yielded "19 reels" of tape. The FBI, at least in its own opinion, had struck pay dirt. The bug apparently picked up information about King's private extramarital and perhaps "inter-racial" sexual activities. This opened up the possibility of discrediting King as a Communist who engaged in "moral improprieties." For J. Edgar Hoover, "immoral" behavior was a crime comparable to "subversive" activity-and of equal utility. Hoover gathered such information on prominent persons to use for political and blackmail purposes. Often he would share such "official and confidential" information with presidents when his surveillance uncovered "obscene matters" on the president's opponents or aides. Sometimes he would let people know he had such information on them, and that list includes Presidents John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. In this case, however, Hoover did not plan to let King know he had the information to gain a "political" power advantage over him; he planned to use it to destroy him politically. With the Willard Hotel tapes, the FBI campaign moved into high gear. With Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson pressing action on civil rights legislation and calling for a "War on Poverty," Martin Luther King was a man the country and the world thought worthy of honor. In December 1963, Time magazine named him "Man of the Year." In 1964, while continuing his "nonviolent" activities on behalf of civil rights in St. Augustine, Florida, and other cities, King was awarded honorary degrees by universities; he was invited by Willy Brandt, the mayor of West Berlin, to speak at a ceremony honoring the memory of President Kennedy; he had an audience with Pope Paul VI in Rome; and, in October, he was named by the Nobel Prize Committee to receive the Peace Prize in December. If for King 1964 was a year of honors and increasing public recognition, for the FBI it was a year of concerted effort to dishonor him. Learning that King had been named Man of the Year by Time, Hoover wrote across a memorandum, "They had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." p85 In April, Hoover was quoted in the press as having testified that "Communist influence does exist in the civil rights movement." King reacted sharply: It is very unfortunate that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, in his claims of alleged Communist infiltration in the civil rights movement, has allowed himself to aid and abet the salacious claims of Southern racists and the extreme right-wing elements. We challenge all who raise the "red" issue, whether they be newspaper columnists or the head of the FBI himself-to come forward and provide real evidence which contradicts this stand of the SCLC. We are confident that this cannot be done. Going further, King repeated the charge of FBI inaction in the South that had provoked the anti-King campaign: It is difficult to accept the word of the FBI on Communist infiltration in the civil rights movement, when they have been so completely ineffectual in resolving the continued mayhem and brutality inflicted upon the Negro in the deep south. Hoover's first response was to say that it was incumbent on the civil rights movement to prove that there was no Communist influence. Then, in November, Hoover held a press briefing. Asked to respond to King's charges, Hoover, off the record, called King "one of the lowest characters in the country." On the record, he called King the most "notorious liar" in the country. Hoover's comments were widely publicized. King's response this time was designed to dampen the controversy. "I cannot conceive of Mr. Hoover making a statement like this," King said, "without being under extreme pressure. He has apparently faltered under the awesome burden, complexities, and responsibilities of his office." King also sent Hoover a telegram stating that while he had criticized the bureau, the director's response was "a mystery to me" and expressed a desire "to discuss this question with you at length." On November 27, Roy Wilkins was told by Cartha DeLoach that if King wanted "war" the FBI was prepared to engage in one, and the two of them discussed the FBI's "derogatory" material. Wilkins told DeLoach that if the FBI made it public, it could ruin the civil rights movement. Obviously Wilkins reported this back to King, and a number of leaders, including King, agreed to take steps to set up a meeting with the director. Hoover agreed to meet with King on December 1. According to all accounts, the meeting was exceedingly cordial. Hoover expressed support for the civil rights movement and then turned to what was on his mind criticism of the bureau. The meeting consisted of a long monologue by Hoover on the FBI's efforts to protect civil rights demonstrators, enforce the laws in the South, and prevent terrorism. At the end of the meeting, King and Hoover agreed to a public truce. Only now do we know how close the FBI came to an all-out confrontation. Unknown to King or SCLC until later, the FBI, at the height of the public controversy, took its most distressing step. It mailed the "tapes" to the SCLC office in Atlanta with a covering letter urging King to commit suicide or face public revelation of the information on the tapes on the eve of the award ceremonies in Sweden. The letter said in part: It was thirty-four days before the Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies. Although public scandal was averted at the last moment, the FBI's campaign continued. From 1965 until King's death, the covert effort of the FBI to destroy King and to topple him from "his pedestal" continued. Aside from the suicide note, there is no more graphic illustration of the mind-set and nature of this political police operation than the realization that while the campaign went on, the FBI had a parallel plan to find a "suitable replacement" for King. The plan was simple. William Sullivan, the head of the Intelligence Division, had given it some thought and, in a January 1964 memorandum to Hoover, proposed that the FBI conduct a search to find a "suitable" successor to King. Hoover agreed. Sullivan, when asked about the memorandum by the Senate Intelligence Committee, responded in a way that speaks for itself: "I'm very proud of this memorandum, one of the best memoranda I ever wrote. I think here I was showing some concern for the country." While King was alive, the concern was shown again and p89 The FBI had turned its arsenal of surveillance and disruption techniques on Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. It was concerned not with Soviet agents nor with criminal activity, but with the political and personal activities of a man and a movement committed to nonviolence and democracy. King was not the first such target, nor the last. In the end we are all victims, as our political life is distorted and constricted by the FBI, a law enforcement agency now policing politics.

Thomas Drake, a former top NSA official, went from being considered an American patriot to being considered an Enemy of the State when he became a whistleblower about the violation of citizens' privacy and other civil liberties as well as govn't wasteful spending. Though Drake considered his actions to be in accordance with integrity as well as in the defense of the American people and the Constitution, both which he says, that he had been sworn in to protect. He and others were targeted, harassed, had their homes raided, and were brought up on charges via The Espionage Act. The message from the govn't, to him and to any such whistleblower Drake says, was "Do not tell truth to power; we'll hammer you." The first link is of Drake's interview on 60 minutes. The second link is a show with Drake and others on Democracy Now in which the NSA's domestic surveillance is discussed. Thomas Drake on 60 Minutes http://www.democracy...nsa_is_lying_us Tom Drake, claiming that the government is spying on Americans. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NSA whistleblowers: Government spying on every single American RT July, 2012, 01:55 Edited: 25 July, 2012, 18:41 The TSA, DHS and countless other security agencies have been established to keep America safe from terrorist attacks in post-9/11 America. How far beyond that does the feds’ reach really go, though? The attacks September 11, 2001, were instrumental in enabling the US government to establish counterterrorism agencies to prevent future tragedies. Some officials say that they haven’t stopped there, though, and are spying on everyone in America — all in the name of national security. Testimonies delivered in recent weeks by former employees of the National Security Agency suggest that the US government is granting itself surveillance powers far beyond what most Americans consider the proper role of the federal government. In an interview broadcast on Current TV’s “Viewpoint” program on Monday, former NSA Technical Director William Binney commented on the government’s policy of blanket surveillance, alongside colleagues Thomas Drake and Kirk Wiebe, the agency's respective former Senior Official and Senior Analyst. The interview comes on the heels of a series of speeches given by Binney, who has quickly become better known for his whistleblowing than his work with the NSA. In their latest appearance this week, though, the three former staffers suggested that America’s spy program is much more dangerous than it seems. In an interview with “Viewpoint” host Eliot Spitzer, Drake said there was a “key decision made shortly after 9/11, which began to rapidly turn the United States of America into the equivalent of a foreign nation for dragnet blanket electronic surveillance.” These powers have previously defended by claims of national security necessity, but Drake says that it doesn’t stop there. He warns that the government is giving itself the power to gather intel on every American that could be used in future prosecutions unrelated to terrorism. “When you open up the Pandora’s Box of just getting access to incredible amounts of data, for people that have no reason to be put under suspicion, no reason to have done anything wrong, and just collect all that for potential future use or even current use, it opens up a real danger — and to what else what they could use that data for, particularly when it’s all being hidden behind the mantle of national security,” Drake said. Although Drake’s accusations seem astounding, they corroborate allegations made by Binney only a week earlier. Speaking at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in New York City earlier this month, Binney addressed a room of thousands about the NSA’s domestic spying efforts. But in a candid interview with journalist Geoff Shively during HOPE, the ex-NSA official candidly revealed the full extent of the surveillance program. “Domestically, they're pulling together all the data about virtually every U.S. citizen in the country and assembling that information, building communities that you have relationships with, and knowledge about you; what your activities are; what you're doing. So the government is accumulating that kind of information about every individual person and it's a very dangerous process,” Binney said. Drake and Binney’s statements follow the revelation that law enforcement officers collected cell phone records on 1.3 million Americans in 2011. More news articles are emerging every day suggesting that the surveillance of Americans — off-the-radar and under wraps — is growing at an exponential rate.

Each interaction teaches us something. Thank you for your wisdom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0PAMOvnfw

A luta continua indeed, indeed, Brother. However, thanks to those such as yourself with the will to actually give a darn, the vision to build coalitions/encourage alliances, and the love and dedication to keep showing love and support in spite of the odds, maybe the younger ones will have some type of model to reverse the cycle. That article was wonderful. It is very telling not only about the state of an industry but also about the state of a people. The concept of Huria is refreshingly innovative.

Done? lol You must think that I am into subliminal mind control forreal, because for some reason you are saying that this dead horse is beyond being beaten to death as if I keep asking you to click in the threads that I post and give your perceptions about my perceptions. Of course you are welcome to do this in any thread on any public forum, but keep in mind that I don't force you to do what you do. The "mind control Garveyites" who raised me always told me to take responsibility for my own actions. I would like to think that, even if you were not raised by the "mind control Garveyite people" like I was, you were raised to take responsibility for your own actions to and that your growing older/departing from those who raised you has not caused you to stray from this principle. I tend to think you do it to moreso to amuse yourself than to drive me to suicide... or am I wrong? You don't have to admit it, but I am almost certain that you would not have as much fun doing this with Boitumelo, because Boitumelo would never ever respond to you (and don't feel too special because Boitumelo is like that with everyone). At least our conversations help you to feel that the perceptions- that you've probably worked hard for the bulk of your life to maintain- are more valid than mine. I bet you don't want to stop, either. I am not that easily fooled. You would sacrifice the sanctity of that dead horse so long as it meant that you had the opportunity to have the last word and by-golly, even if that last word is based upon a passionate battle against arguments that I don't even make, you're gonna have it even if that dead horse's head falls off his neck and rolls into the woods. By-golly even if that last word is based on something as desperate as my being painted as a black neo-nazi, you're gonna have it even if you and the maggots have to fight over who will finish that dead horse off.... so tag...you're it. hehe

Dang, Troy! lol Wut oh, maybe I should've viewed it first. Most of the things that I post are things that I have seen. I just previewed this one and shared it. I'm not too much on the celebrity side. What's up with Kevin Cosner? Yes though, Kevin Costner is narrating. When I previewed it, I heard him on the film speaking about how much of what he had learned in terms of history was not accurate and that the stories of the indigenous people of America are those which have yet to really be told. I didn't want to really call it a documentary (just to be on the safer side..but this is coming from someone who refuses to refer to "The Boys of Baraka" or 'Jesus Camp' as a 'documentary'), that's why I called it a film.

Of course you are welcome to type what you assume to be true about me and of course I am free to be indifferent toward your perceptions or to commit suicide over them. At any rate one pragmatist's pragmatism is another pragmatist's abandoned hope in all things outside the present's given. The future is gonna do what it does much like a locked door- to which a person has the key yet does not insert and turn- is going to do what it does. It's hot and everyone's thirsty. The optimist affirms that the glass is half full. The pessimist argues that the glass is clearly half empty. The realist tells them both that the glass is actually empty because she drank the water while they were arguing over whose perception was right. (Then the two start arguing with the realist not because it is hot and she drank the water but because they do not agree with her perception about them re: optimist/pessimist.)

A film about the indigenous people of America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EedWZ_jaTiE&feature=related

(from wearerespectablenegroes blogspot) What James Holmes and the Colorado Movie Massacre Tell Us About White (Male) Privilege The Colorado "Batman Movie" Shooting Massacre will generate many narratives among the public and media. This tragedy will be one more opportunity to reflect on the United States' gun laws. The relationship between popular culture and violence will be a hot topic as well. Others will focus on questions surrounding access to mental healthcare, and what if anything could have been done to prevent James Holmes from committing his murder rampage during the debut of The Dark Knight Rises. However, there are several conversations that will likely not occur. It is unlikely that the aftermath of the Colorado shooting rampage will be a moment when we as a country reflect upon the relationship between masculinity and violence. There most certainly will not be a "beer summit" about how accused shooter James Holmes is one more entry in a long list of mass killers who are white, male, and young. When viewed through the white racial frame, there is nothing in his deeds on last Friday night that reflects upon the behavior of white people, generally, or white men in particular. From this perspective, his dressing up as The Joker, and killing more than a dozen people, and wounding many more, are the actions of one sick person. As folks have worked through many times before in the common "what if?" game of race in America, if James Holmes were black or brown this would be one more signal to the existence of a "pathological culture" among said group. If James Holmes were Muslim American the Colorado shooting would be a clear act of "terrorism," and an example of the Islamic bogeyman next door who has occupied the dreams and nightmares of the "heartland" since September 11th. These narratives would be accepted as common sense; few qualifiers or critical interventions would be offered by the mass media, the pundit classes, or the general public. Consider the following list for a moment: with a few exceptions, most of those men who have committed mass shootings in the United States have been white. July 12, 1976: Edward Charles Allaway, a custodian in the library of California State University, Fullerton, fatally shot seven fellow employees and wounded two others. Aug. 20, 1986: Pat Sherrill, 44, a postal worker who was about to be fired, shoots 14 people at a post office in Edmond, Okla. He then kills himself. July 18, 1984: James Oliver Huberty, an out-of-work security guard, kills 21 people in a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, Calif. A police sharpshooter kills Huberty. Aug. 1, 1966: Charles Whitman opened fire from the clock tower at the University of Texas at Austin, killing 16 people and wounding 31. Oct. 16, 1991: A deadly shooting rampage took place in Killeen, Texas, as George Hennard opened fire at a Luby's Cafeteria, killing 23 people before taking his own life. 20 others were wounded in the attack. April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing themselves in the school's library. March 10, 2009: Michael McLendon, 28, killed 10 people – including his mother, four other relatives, and the wife and child of a local sheriff's deputy – across two rural Alabama counties. He then killed himself. The freedom to kill, maim, commit wanton acts of violence, and to be anti-social (as well as pathological) without having your actions reflect on your own racial group, is one of the ultimate, if not in fact most potent, examples of White Privilege in post civil rights era America. Instead of a national conversation where we reflect on what has gone wrong with young white men in our society--a group which apparently possesses a high propensity for committing acts of mass violence--James Holmes will be framed as an outlier. That is a mighty comfort to have--all of one's deficiencies are ignored as those of an individual; all of one's abilities and gifts are taken as positive attributes and credits to one's race. As comedian it sure as hell is good to be white and male in America! If given a choice to re-up every year, who the hell wouldn't sign up to be white again? In America, folks often ask, "what the hell is wrong with black people?" In the aftermath of the Colorado Movie Massacre, Columbine, and many other incidents, we need to ask, "what the hell is wrong with young white men? Sadly, that question will not be asked on a national stage. White privilege is blinding. In the case of James Holmes, it also mutes a much needed national conversation about the ties between (white) masculinity and violence.

Ethan Casey: The Colorado Killer Is Not a Muslim As I write this on Friday morning, safe (or am I?) at home in Seattle, we don't know much about the mass shooting incident overnight at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. No doubt by the time you read this, we'll know more. I don't need to know more, though, in order to say what I have to say, because I know one essential fact: the killer is not a Muslim. Because he's not a Muslim, over the coming days excuses and caveats will be incorporated into our national "narrative" about the incident, etcetera, etcetera. We've seen this movie before. The President of the United States has already said something suitably solemn. No doubt he'll fly into Denver, as he flew into Tucson last year, and speak eloquently at a memorial service. But we need more and better than that - not only or primarily from the president, but from ourselves and each other. Some readers surely will object to my pointing out what the alleged killer is not. But the fact that James Holmes is not a Muslim - indeed that, as a former San Diego neighbor put it, he "seemed to be a normal kid" - is all too relevant. Not that Muslims aren't normal; they're no less normal than you or me or James Holmes. What the Aurora rampage should bring home to normal Americans is that the clear and present danger to American society is not only among us, it is us. Not to put too fine a point on it, but in Michael Moore's film Bowling for Columbine one of the makers of the show South Park (I forget which one) describes the Denver suburb of Littleton, site of the infamous Columbine massacre and not far from Aurora, as "painfully normal". I've been to both towns, and I concur. After Jared Loughner killed six people and almost killed Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson on January 8, 2011, I wrote an article asking "Is America Any Different from Pakistan?" The article drew parallels between the Giffords shooting and the then-recent assassination of the liberal Pakistani politician Salmaan Taseer. It also drew predictable rhetorical fire, such as this: Yawn yet another typical leftie more than willing to jump on the bandwagon of blaming the right, America, and any other group he/she opposes for the actions of a mentally insane person. Jared Loughner appears to have been a psychotic, I suspect a schizophrenic. I might be accused again now of politicizing a tragedy. So be it. The insistence that something is not political is itself a political gambit, in fact a bullying tactic. And, as a free American, I'm sick and tired of being bullied and told to live in fear. If I'm sick and tired of it, I can only imagine how my Muslim friends must feel, after more than a decade of being made to feel less than American. This is very relevant at a time when prominent right-wing politicians are getting away with making McCarthyist insinuations about who gets to count as American and who doesn't. Jared Loughner was dismissed (as above) as a lone nut; no doubt James Holmes will be too. When a troubled young U.S. citizen named Faisal Shahzad tried to blow up Times Square, TV coverage ran provocative taglines like MADE IN PAKISTAN. (I felt compelled at the time to write an article titled "Some of My Best Friends Are Pakistanis".) It's not fair. And it's past time we acknowledged that troubled young men like Loughner and Holmes are made in America. This particular incident may not be directly political, but it certainly is symptomatic. In terms of the news cycle, it will have its day, then America will, as we say, move on. Americans are good at moving on, the way Mr. Magoo used to move on through mayhem of his own making. Before we do, we might want to reflect on what the phenomenon of lines around the block for midnight screenings of a film like The Dark Knight Rises says about our society. Much was made in the pre-release hype of the film's 9/11-esque scenario. And then the real-life gunman who kills at least twelve and terrorizes an entire movie audience and a nation beyond turns out to be a normal American. Hmm.

I definitely concur, Boitomelo. Plus, if he were muslim, we would even seeing house committee meetings and hearings on the "radicalization of islam" (yup and they might even deem it necessary to get pap smears before entering movie cinemas or airplanes, all in the interest of national security, of course). If he were a black man? Oh my gosh. Let me tell you, his public lynching would already be in the media, not show after show of "What went wrong? Let's get inside the mind of this organized, well mannered student turned killer". Especially because he was wearing black, the media would really take the opportunity to highlight the 'evils' associated with blackness. However, because he is white, the media is highlighting the fact that he "was" a quiet, intelligent, mannerable student BEFORE. They seem to be setting the stage for people to assume that something happened to make him snap or that at some point, some "negative influences" got to him. lol How comical and predictable, however, it would be for them to "find" a qur'an (right next to the bible that they don't seem to find equally suspicious. Woop, here comes the "radicalizatin of islam" committee)! lol Now he's in the courts tryna look crazy for the camera. lol Kind of like an out of towner would be trying to look if walking through the alley at night. Bout mentally ill. The prisons are FILLED with people who are mentally ill forreal, so if they have to go in spite of that, why should he not? He sure knew how to plan. Had al types of traps in his place. He wasn't too out of his mind to make elaborate plans. If the Colorado Killer were black, he would be a lot of things in the media, but human would not be one of them. The media is being careful to help this guy maintain his humanity in the minds of the public. If he were black, he would be a monster, a methodical monstrous murderer....and let him even THINK about pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity". America would be like, "Boiiiiiii stopppppp." However, those of us who tend to think such things are "racializing" the issue. Just the same way that those of us who think that the situation would be totally different if the races were switched in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation are "racializing" the issue.

That's the motivation behind jihad, bringing down a historical enemy in revenge for the past? I've never heard of that, but then again, I certainly don't know all there is about life. If "whitey" is a foe of black people, he sure isn't the biggest foe as the biggest foe lies in our own mindset to keep our backs bent, building for everyone except for ourselves. Our biggest foe is our own disunity and the lack of desire to build for ourselves. It seems that we are fine with the sheep mentality so long as we are following the shepherd of "Don't rock the boat." "Action, self-reliance, the vision of self and the future have been the only means by which the oppressed have seen and realized the light of their own freedom." Is rallying behind the philosophy of self-reliance having a "sheep mentality"? You and others might think so, yet if we are going to have to work anyway, sacrifice anyway, plan anyway, then why not work, sacrifice, and plan with the building of our own enterprise? I absolutely agree that one person's truth can be another person's falsehood. As for dissidents, even Martin Luther King Jr. was considered a "dissident" by Hoover and plenty others who did not want the system of exploitation to be disturbed. Dissent will remain so long as people have their own opinions. Yet who is being more ridiculous,they who rise up against their oppression or they who rises up against those who rise up against their oppression and exploitation? In the latter situation is where most of our people can be found right along with those who continue benefit from our oppression and exploitation. Again, the sheep mentality seems to be fine so long as we are following the "Don't rock the boat" shepherd.

Revenge for the past? Where did that come from? Perhaps some equate a people emphasizing greater autonomy and solidarity with seeking revenge for the past. One man's freedom is another man's jail. One woman's amenities is another woman's chains. Surely tunnel vision is in the eyes of the beholder.

No, there are better things to pout about like why you don't see things exactly the way that I see them. It's actually making me suicidal, you know. :-( Of course white people don't really care about black people shooting each other up, but white people do care about black people shooting white people up. They also know very well that as it stands now, more black people kill black people over nonsense than black people kill white people over injustices done.