Cynique

Actually, the stands were not full of people howling "nigger" at Wrigley Field. Just like today, drunken loud mouths yelled out cat-calls at sports events. And back then they, like black fans, were scattered throughout the thousands of people in attendance, so these things were just kind of shrugged off. My reaction was to roll my eyes at the name-callers. I was having fun, but they were obviously not. From all reports, the opposing benches were brutal in their attacks on Robinson, and Pee Wee Reese, the great Dodger Shortstop was one of the few of Robinson's white teammates who stood by him.

All I know is that it has been nearly 50 years, which amounts to 2 generations, since Malcolm was assassinated. and older people like me actually remember this event. Farrakhan may not have pulled the trigger. But at that time, it was strongly believed that, as the arch enemy of Malcolm, once Malcolm had left Elijah Muhammad's organization after becoming disillusioned with the revelations that Elijah impregnated a bunch of young Muslims girls, Farrakhan in his leadelrship role was responsible for Malcolm's death. I also remember him saying years later that it saddened him to have to be involved with Malcolm's death but it was his duty as a loyal Muslim. Many don't also realize that Martin Luther King did not enjoy total support from his people, especially certain ministers. When King brought his crusdae to Chicago for a few week stay, there was an undercurrent of resentment by all the black ministers who enjoyed the clout that came with being a part of the plantation politics of the Democratic machine headed up by the infamous Mayor Richard Daily, senior. These clergymen felt King was infringing on their territory and stirring up trouble that they would have to deal with after King left town. A lot of southern leaders felt this way also. Those historically black colleges were not so anxious for integration, because it would mean an exodus of students leaving their campuses and enrolling in white ones. In the southern black culture, teachers and preachers were the pillars of their communities and integration was acutally a threat to the power of these leaders who preferred not to rock the boat. The good thing about growing old is that you get to see revisionist history in action on both sides of the racial bar. The truth is an elusive animal. Everybody wants to anoint their own heroes, and nobody hesitates to twist the facts.

Cecelski, huh? Once again other nationalities are telling "our" stories. Whatever. Better someone than noone.

Chicago is 2 cities. The trendy midwestern metropolis full of skyscrapers and luxury hotels and expensive condos, upscale entertainment venus, lake front tourist attractions, Michigan avenue high fashion shops, famous museums and reputable universities and colleges. Then there's the inner city, full of black and hispanic gangs, unsafe streets, bad schools, and a rampant "baby mama", drug-infested, welfare lifestyle. Everybody bemoans this ghetto culture but there doesn't seem to be anything that works. More cops don't help, and highly-paid school superintendants are ineffective. Professionals attribute this turmoil to a disregard for human life triggered by a lack of home training due to the breakdown of the family. There seems to be an element of the younger generation, who are raised in unstable single parent homes, and who are out of control, running wild, making it bad for everybody else. Even older veteran gang leaders are troubled by what's going on among the younger wanna-be thugs, many of whom don't even have "legitimate" gang affiliations, just "beefs" and an intense adherence to the no-snitch street code.. I seems so hopeless.

Chicago is all abuzz with the Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. piccadillos, a scandal having to do with how he and his alderman wife, Sandi, used campaign funds to finance their lavish lifestyle which included the purchase of a 40-thousand-dollar Rolex watch bought as a gift for a white female acquaintance of "Junior" who is now under indictment by the Feds. Claiming to be hampered by bipolar illness, he had to resign from office and is now facing significant jail time, as is his wife who he illegally put on his payroll. They never learn... Just another day in the political contretemps of Chi-Town, as the city awaits the arrival of first lady Michelle Obama coming to town to attend the funeral of a 15-year-old female black honor student, the 40th-something shooting victim caught in gang crossfire and, who as a member of a marching band, had gone to Washington to participate in the inauguration parade. This tragedy has so outraged everyone that all the big wig politicos issued demands for the President to show the same concern for his hometown as he did for the Sandyhook children. The whole thing has turned into an event with everybody who is anybody in the local scene jockeying for publicity, the victim all but forgotten in the hoopla. SMH.

I remember quite well, when Jackie Robinson broke into major league baseball, back before the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to LA. This historic event really created excitement in the black community during those days when we were more into baseball than basketball. On one of the Dodgers' visits to play the Chicago Cubs, my parents took me to Wrigley Field and I got a chance to see the legendary Robinson. I was 13 years old, and I don't remember the outcome of the game but I do recall really being thrilled to see Jackie in action, especially the way he would taunt the opposing team. He was a good hitter and when he got on base, he would crouch down and jump up and down, making pitchers so anxious to catch him off base that they would throw the ball wildly and Robinson would be able to steal a base. The same way with the infielders; they couldn't concentrate on the other runners because they were so distracted by Robinson that they would make errors allowing him to advance and often slide home safe. The stands would be full of black fans cheering Robinson on while getting a big kick out of what fools he made of the opposing players. And all the white hecklers making liberal use of the word "nigger" could do, was react with red-faced frustration. It was quite an era in sports as one-by-one each team acquired a token black player, all of whom were great athletes who went on to make names for themselves, eventually acquiring the begrudging respect of their white teammates. Now, you can count on one hand the number of home grown black players in major league baseball. All the ones of color are Hispanics from other countries. It's unfortunate that black athletes have abandoned the "great American passtime". Jackie Robinson was a trail blazer on a level with Joe Louis and was a man of great character who really made his race proud!

I did not address you by name, Nah-whoever. As I said, I used the universal "you". If you, specifically, will notice, Troy "liked" the post containing your time line, and since this implied that he was open to focusing on influential women, I suggested that Toni Morrison and Oprah also be included. But you are so self-absorbed and thin-skinned that it doesn't take much to set you off and send you into your routine of specious arguments in defense of your imagined infalliblity. Now you can take or leave this clarification. I really don't care because I don't owe you an explanation and arguing with you is a waste of time. Just go on back to your pouting, and give us grown-ups a rest. Incidentally, the word is spelled "accolades", and anybody who is not aware that the well-deserved awards Ms. Morrison received were the culmination of a black literary "movement" originated to gain this recognition, needs to stop talking about what he does and does not "study", and go sit his pedantic ass down. And this means YOU.

Why would I stop being a troublemaker to audition to be in the harem of an oversexed looney toon?????

Are you hoping for a huge firm or a huge cult?

Jeeze watta crybaby! Actually, I wasn't talking to you, specifically, NahSun. Troy was who I had in mind since he was who asked for suggestions. Why would you consider my comments to him a critique of your timeline??? Even more astounding is that you'd admit that there was something about a famous black author that you didn't know.

I focus on black men, Pioneer, because that's what you focus on, with all of your mumbo jumbo about how much more lustful they are than white ones. (Wonder if black female slaves felt this way?) As for femme fatales being he-shes, au contraire. They are very feminine and seductive. The game they're playing is gaining power by mesmerizing a man with their charms, flattering him with their wiles, deceiving him into believing that he as great as he thinks he is.That's why they're super, as opposed to the guillible women who allow self-absorbed men to exploit them. Agreed that everybody sees things through their own personal lenses. The problem arises when there is a clash between fact and opinion. Also, some people are more open-minded when it comes to tolerating opposing views. Others think their way is the only way and surround themselves with like-minded people to avoid having to face the possibility that their personal beliefs may be flawed. Men and woman don't think alike and the battle of the sexes is ongoing. Saying they are from 2 different planets is a apt simile.

If you're going to take note of Sistah Souljah, you might also want to pay homage to Toni Morrison's winning a Pulitzer prize for literature in the 90s, a milestone achievement for a brilliant black author. Also the introduction of Oprah's book is noteworthy by virtue of the fact that she was a black woman who exerted her power and wielded a great impact on the publishing industry, as white authors curried her favor. Her reluctance to use her influence to further the careers of black authors also had an effect, albeit a negative one..

What inspires me about your latest retort, Pioneer, is the realization that, where you are concerned, there is the world as it actually exists, and then there's "the world according to Pioneer" - a little universe where anecdotal evidence and personal impresssions and wishful thinking are the rule. It's like you've sat down and mulled things over and decided that this is the way it is, and everybody else just doesn't "get it". What you don't understand is that there are other people who are just as adept at putting their spin on things.( And, ni-t picking spectator that I am, I do have to question the observation powers of a man who goes through life never noticing the correct spelling of a simple everyday word; it's "their" not thier", and while I'm at it , it's "definitely" not 'definately") Now, let us begin. Except for ancient biblical times when everything was male-dominated, I'm not convinced that polygamy was such a success story throughout history. Great rulers may have had a succession of mistresses, but they slept with one woman at a time while going through the motions of being faithful to the one wife they had entered into a marriage with, a woman who traditionally would have as much to offer as her husband when it came to power and wealth. BTW, the main reason Mormons have been looked down upon over the years is because of their tolerance of polygamy. So, practice makes perfect when it comes to being a good lover, huh. Not necessarily. Horny men are more concerned about instant gratification, and they can be gross and overbearing. Parched pussies? Not only glands but desire are what determine lubrication, and there is no set rule about who gets dry and at what age. Plus, there are over-the-counter preparations to remedy problems in this area. Any woman adventurous enough to deal with a "boy toy" is someone who is not shy about being in charge. Forget the missionary position. These bed room equestrians take the top position where their thighs and knees and hips are in control. And, boy toys looking for compensation, "get with their program". And gimme a break. I wouldn't call it a "fact" that women gladly share a good man with other women. In the first place, a "good womanizer" is an oxymoron, and women are notoriously good at giving ultimatums when it comes to their being the only one. Why do you think the divorce rate is so high? Or does the fact that they have sex with a guy, convey the message that they "love him just the way he is". Get real. Just because a woman sleeps with a man doesn't mean she's madly in love with him. She may simply be in the mood for a good lay. Ya think? It seems to me, Pioneer, that you have drawn your conclusions from your personal encounters, and you focus on vulnerable woman who are easy to manipulate. You tend to romanticize and dramatize scenarios where men are in control. You probably steer clear of super bitch femme fatales who are just as good at running games as men are. My conclusions are drawn from sharing conversations with 3 generations of females from a broad spectrum of life styles. Obviously, this is a subject that doesn't lend itself to generalizing because women are fickle and men have roving eyes, so it is literally different strokes for different folks. Troy, I really don't know what would be a successful alternative to the present conventional family structure which is no longer working out that great. Hippies tried living in communes where a group of couples would move in together and mates were interchangeable and females took turns caring for the children and doing household chores while the men worked. But this didn't really catch on. Maybe children should be raised by the State, living together in large centers where professionals would teach and tend to them during the week, leaving their parents free to pursue other interests without feeling guilty. Week ends would be reserved for quality time between children and parents who would both appreciate each other more. Actually, I don't think the family as we know it is going to disappear any time soon. Everybody will just muddle through.

I guess you didn't notice all of the emoticons I included in my posts or that I referred to my response as a "spoof", Pioneer. Instead you, in all of your benign paternalism, proceed to portray me as a belligerant, high-strung female, intimidated by the male posters, and ill-informed about the sex habits of not only men, but women. Puleeze. Believe me, my reaction to what you men sputter about is aways tempered with amusement. What your dissertation on polygamy inspired in me was drawn from my participation in a half century of "girl talk" centered around how elusive Mr. Right is. Why? I say again, it's because it's hard for a gal to find everything she is looking for in one guy. It seems like the bad boys who are often the best lovers are losers in other areas. So wouldn't it be great to have a different mate for every need; one for hot sex, one for good companionship, one for fixing things around the house and maintaining the car, one for helping with your bills... In the meantime, while black men are pulsating with testosterone, diabetic prone and on the descent as they age, women are ascending to their peak, coming into their own as their hormones kick in, reinforcing their ability to" look up" much longer than men can "look down". No wonder boy toy studs are in increasing demand, as worries about pregnancy decrease what with the availability of birth control pills and the morning-after ones. I wouldn't dispute that most females would opt for just one mate in order to avoid a hassel, but I disagree that being a member of a harem is something that women would consent to once their men have patiently explained to them the "advantages" of this arrangment. Advantage? It's not like screwing a lot of different women enhances a man's sexual prowess. Horniness is not synonymous with being good in bed. (I was married for 50 years to my late husband. What got us through was that we were both multi-faceted.)

My response was "inspired" by Pioneer's ridiculous male chauvanistic assertions, Troy. And It is a reaction that I would consider as being unique to my core personality because I am a skeptic and inclined to spoof that which others are serious about. I was also reminding Pioneer and others that females like variety, too. I wasn't suggesting or recommending anything, except maybe that women should indulge their fantasies when it comes to multiple partners, thus avoiding being labeled a slut by a hypocritical society. And my remarks about women being "sensitive" and "responsible" were not in reference to unwed mothers, but ones who had been practical enough to "settle" for ordinary husbands.

What you are suggesting, Troy, is that everything is all laid out, and we are just moving toward a goal that already exists. Unless you can concede that this made-up story involves an entity who has plotted this scenario and you can prove this, then your insisting that we don't control our destinities could also be an illusion. Yes, it is a compex situation, so to assert that something is an illusion is just as presumptive as to say it is not a illusion. It would be more prudent to simply say, we don't know one way or another.

Why is polygamy always assumed to be the domain of men? Since we aren't bothering to prove brash statements like men around the world having multiple wives who are satisfied with this set-up, let's make some other brash statements. If they could avoid society relegating them to the ranks of sluts, there are just as many women who would also like multiple mates, because rare is the man who can satisfy all of her needs. The practice of women fakin it, and the consensus among them that size matters are testaments to that. What woman wouldn't like the complete package; a smart, good lookin, gainfully employed guy with an interesting personality, a handy man, a stud, an affectionate, understanding person with a good sense of humor. The chances of finding the single embodiment of all of these traits among the pseudo intellectual, egotistical, pimpin, shiftless, dumb playas who are more prevelant in black men are slim. A sista would have better luck with a roster of dudes to fufill each one of her desires, because Mr. Right doesn't exist. In this age of hookin up, and "friends with benefits", women are losing their inhibitions and are just as inclined to polygamy as men. if she could have a husband for every need, don't think a woman wouldn't appreciate variety being the spice of life, especially when it comes to sex. With the emotional fulfillment that comes from a menu of satisfying relationships, a woman would have no problem with a smorsgasbord of men.. But children do, indeed, throw a monkey wrench into everything. And because they are more sensitive and responsible than the backsliding womanizers who are more prevelant among black men, their women defer to the obligations that come with motherhood. They tolerate the clods they have settled for, and find consolation in fantasizing about being polygamous. Just some thoughts that jumped into my head when I sat down in front of my computer monitor and placed my hands on my keyboard.

That's what I mean when I say "primitive instinct", Troy. That can be ascribed to ourselves. But, all that I say in these resposes, are the result of me just sitting down in front of the computer screen, placing my hands on the keyboard, and letting thoughts come to me. What you and Pioneer and Delano say, inspires my feedback. I am not necessarily disputing y'all. I'm just saying what I think, what pops in my head........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Yet, how chemical and hormones affect someone, differs from person to person because of one's indivdual biological makeup. All pills and medical procedures come with a list of side effects that can occur depending on your intrinsic physiology. Different drugs have a different effect of different people. The dosage frequently has to be adjusted because what is too strong for one person may not be strong enough for another. For every woman whose personality drastically changes after a hysterectomy, there's another whose doesn't. For every man who becomes an aggressive drunk, there's another who alcohol mellows out. What one person is allergic to, another has no problem with. What's too salty to one person is bland to another, too sweet to one, not sweet enough to another.. Why? Because what we are is just as innate as who we are. Physically or mentally no 2 people are the same. It's not whether chemicals affect the personality, but to what degree they do, something that is dependent on our natural physicality.......zzzzzzzzzzzzz The "stories" you speak of, Troy, serve as coping mechanisms. Reality can be challenging to deal with and can be elusive because, as you say, everybody has their own conception of what is real. Life is a exercise in adapting. Sanity and survival depend how we manage to adjust to what we are confronted with. Scientist don't control this. Our primitive instincts do. They are what got us this far. You endow scientists with too much power. Who is controlling them?? Are they taking credit for what they have programmed themselves to believe......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How can you say you don't get the gold and silver coin analogy and then proceed to give an anaology that involves a black woman and a white one and the inevitability of what accrues to their decisions, Pioneer? We are all individuals, and what makes us unique is what comprises our intrinsic make-up. So just because the decisions we make can change our lives, doesn't mean that it changes who we innately are. A decision may lead to a new scenario but it won't transform a person into something he isn't naturally capable of becoming. You can't turn a crunchy apple into a pulpy orange. Yes. plastic surgery can initiate superficial physical change, but choosing one option over another won't change a person of average intelligence into a genius. ...that's how I see it.......zzzzzzz..... I should've made a distinction between dead and death, because I do co-sign to your idea that what we refer to as being dead may be a matter of shifting into another dimension and that, indeed, death does not exist.

Here we go again, beatin a dead dog to death. I question whether anybody other than you thinks I was crediting James Patterson with something comparable to inventing the wheel, But that seems to be an expression you love to use. I didn't invent the idea that James Patterson is a powerhouse in the publishing business. It's common knowledge. And you apparently don't pay attention, because I said twice that his super star status earns him all the perks from his publisher that others don't command because they don't generate his kind of sales. I also suggested that where black authors are concerned, racism is a factor in this situation. I didn't say that black authors were "incapable" of having a strategy for success. I think if we'd check Forbes we could conclude that James Patterson is a lot wealthier than Walter Moseley and Zane,too, for that matter. So who is the richer is not a moot point. Not all of anything sells. But sex is a better commodity than murder mysteries. So "all you're saying" adds up to "all you're misconstruing".

Yeah, here we are pondering the hypothetical explanations for the mystery of life, and the country is about to fragment over the question of gun control. The NRA and the POTUS are on the verge of a duel and hopefully "Quick draw Obama" doesn't shoot himself in the foot!

Well, Pioneer, Delano, and Troy, maybe in other universes we are all dead because of decisions we made and perhaps that is what death is; the ultimate result of a decision we made someplace somewhere at some time. The idea of my future being a part of your past is really intriguing, Delano, along the lines of the idea that a person who is unable to fall asleep, is awake in somebody else's dream. I really relate to the quote by Emerson, Pioneer. But me being a bread baking nun in another universe would raise the question about our core personalities and the idea that who we innately are determines the decisions we would have to make. something comparable to the idea that a silver coin could never exist as a gold one in another universe, no matter what decision is made. Predestination does imply that there is order to the universe, Troy. Who or what do you think does the predetermining, and do you think you are predestined to vascillate about what you simultaneously believe and don't believe, a story you have created to make yourself feel comfortable. Then there's reincarnation, a whole other ball game...

Well, you did go dig this post up from way last year, NAH. Whatever. But I stand by what I said about James Patterson. Is Moseley a zillionaire and has he amassed a white reading audience by writing about a white detective? Furthermoe, Walter Moseley whose writing I really like, writes in a lot different genres. Patterson pretty much limits his output to thrillers and half of those he collaborates on. He's a franchise. James Patterson is in a class by himself whether you like it or not. His success begets success. That's why his publishers do for him what they won't do for black writers who are left to wish things could be different. And who are these black authors who you suggest have gotten rich from crossover success? If it's so doable why hasn't a dedicated self-assured author ike you done it? I hesitate to assume that you are on your way. Zane's passport to success is sex not race. It doesn't take any great amount of savvy to figure out that sex sells. and it's a hell a lot more easy to peddle than stories about black detectives. Yes, there is a starving artist syndrome which is why if your black colleagues aren't sweating the prospects of increasing their income through crossover success, then they should be if they like to eat well.

Hummm. How strange is this, Pioneer? I thought I had included a paragraph on parallel universes in the post I made last night. But I guess I decided to delete it - or somebody or something decided it for me.......Some time I feel like cyber gremlins mess with me... A couple of times I have written irate e-mails to people, -letters that could've had some undesired consequences. When I was finished with them they would disappear as if I had highlighted them in preparation for backspacing and deleting them. Which could've happened by accident. Anyway, they would just be gone. I'm sure you'll be amused that one of the e-mails was to a deacon board of the church where my grandson's funeral services were held. I was particuarly upset because he was a 20-year-old victim of a drive-by shooting. I was furious because of the way they interfered with how we wanted the services to be conducted. If the caustic letter had arrived, my daughter may have been ostracized by the congregation of which she was a member. I thought then, that maybe from another dimension, the spirit of my adored and beloved grandson might not have wanted this to happen to his mother who he was so close to, even if he was more like me in temperment, and that because of this, he aligned his energy with cyber waves and caused the letter to vanish. A couple of months later, I had his named tattooed on my wrist, a gesture inspired by a desire to thumb my nose at stodgy people. But I digress... When it comes to parallel universes, I went a little further considering the multi-verse theory, which holds that our earthly personas are constantly shifting into different spheres, each one the location of the resulting scenario that comes with the decisions you make. There was once a Twilight Zone episode based on this idea. All of this is so mind-boggling that I'm beginning to relate more and more to Edgar Allen Poe's suggestion that "all that we see or seem, is just a dream within a dream".