Search the Community

I'm kinda thinking that obesity is more common in the present than it was in the 50s, Troy. The average woman nowadays is a size 14. Back then I’d say this figure was closer to a size 11. Of course there were always fat people around who had to endure being teased about their size. But skinniness was not necessarily considered an asset, either, - unless you were rich. And - your question jogs my memory more… In the 50s decade, not only were we not as overweight as we are now but we were also not as preoccupied with losing weight, and there were no fad diets flooding the market every few months, - no micro-wave ovens to enable quick snacking. What possibly contributed to keeping our weight lower then, was the lack of fast food outlets. Of course, if you went looking, you could always find a little hot dog stand or a hamburger joint and in black neighborhoods there were fish and chicken shacks and greasy spoon diners but in those days there were no big franchises like McDonalds or KFC gracing every corner, or chain restaurants like Olive Garden and Applebees. Drive-up eating facilities serviced by car-hops were just starting to appear. Oh-oh. Here I gooooo. The 50s era was also when drive-in outdoor movie venues became popular, their concept allowing the whole family to enjoy a night out together where they could view the latest releases from the comfort of their cars. These places served as lovers lanes, too, for those who didn’t mind making out in the cramped back seat of a Ford... Motels hadn’t come into widespread existence then, either. The alternate to drive-ins were the neighborhood movie palaces where a double feature would be appearing. Yes, TWO full-length movies! There were no multi-plexes or such things as “starting times” or “reserved” seats. You bought your ticket, and were allowed to go right in, many times arriving in the middle of a picture which necessitated your sitting tight until you got to the part where you came in. If you wanted to, you could actually stay and watch the pictures over and over again because patrons didn’t have to vacate the premises until closing time. The big movie stars of the 1950s were such luminaries as Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe and Paul Newman. Black faces on the silver screen were few and far between. Dorothy Dandridge, and Harry Belafonte were one-hit wonders. Sidney Poitier was lucky enough to do a little better. And did I mention that air conditioning was not standard equipment in either a house or a car back then? It was a luxury pretty much limited to public places like movie houses, which in the summer time advertised it as an extra added attraction. Well, Troy, I got carried away again. But these are opportunities I take advantage of - since nobody else does. I realize that this reminiscing may only be fun to people like me, who observe life as much as they participate in it. I am assuming that anyone who finds my reminiscences boring will bypass them, which is why their titles give a hint that they will be nostalgic in content. I understand any indifference to my recollections because I have contemporaries who have no interest in re-visiting the past or who even remember much about what went on “back in the day“. I recently talked to an old friend in California, and she expressed no wish to stir up memories and was just grateful for every day the Lord sent, wanting to spend her time praising His name and doting on her grandchildren. Age obviously dealt differently with us. As Lil Wayne sez: “Throw dirt on me and grow a wild flower. Fuck the earth and get a child out of her.”

Where is Xeon? There is such a paucity of posters on the board, we couldn't afford to lose one of our main men! But Xeon has gone missing! Although we agreed to disagree from time to time, Xeon, I appreciated your well-articulated views. Did you desert us for another site? I feel slighted. Where else can you pick a better fight than here? I'm getting rusty. I don't have anyone to argue with. Chrishayden has deserted me for Troy. carey-carey has apparently retreated into the never-never land of non-sequitors, undoubtedly commiserating with a downcast ABM, glum because he is "sans" a "myriad" of booties to salivate over - which further reminds me; what ever happened to our wanna-be this-or-that Serenasailor??? And while I'm at it, this shout-out goes for my "gurls" Yvettep and Ferocious Kitty who have been swallowed up by the ubiquitous Facebook, busily making readers privy to their every move as only a doting mother and aspiring author can do. >>wink-wink<<. Even Kola has given Nafisa Goma time off for good behavior. Oh well, we still have those keepers of the literary flame, Thumper, Crystal and Linda as well as our faithful Nubian poet laureate And, of course, bookfan, our resident white guy. This is enough to make me consider writing another self-indulgent essay about some other phase of the panorama that has been my life! Let's see. Hummm. Here, here, settle down, people! Just a passing thought. Wait. What's that you say? Oh. OK. Summertiiiiiiiime and the livin is eeeeeeeeasy.

I been checking out this DVD. A scene from it as follows http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=5036 Enjoyed this performance more than the one by Blatherin Sir Larry (Ole Blackface) even though it was later in Marshall's life, he had an inferior cast, and he was wearing a lavender costume that made him look like Maya Angelou with a mustache (I think the costumer went for "classical" costuming. I think here William Marshall, being black, did not have to act black and just had to sit back and blow. Them lines by the way are ridiculous and reduced several members of the cast to chewing the scenery. Face it--nobody talks like that anymore (and they did not then--imagine making a five minute speech in beautiful Elizabethan blank verse while bleeding your guts out) Shakespeare may be through. All his recent movies ain't done nothing at the box office. Go to a play, and you got a bunch of couch potatoes pretending they understand it. Ha!

Chris Hayden and Tom Burrell, the author of a new book challenging the myth of black inferiority, apparently think they are among the enlightened few obligated to spread the word that - "Negroes are brain-washed!" So what else is new? I have been hearing this and the arguments that accompany it for almost 50 years, and it's a declaration that is always imparted in the form of a scold. "You poor clueless negroes are just tryin to be like white folks!" As if white folks have a monopoly on the desire to live the American dream; as if any black person who strives for this is - trying to look white, trying to talk white, trying to act white, trying to deny their African Heritage. Brainwashed! Screw the fact that the Jews who are the most successful ethnic group in this country also Anglo-sized themselves before they made inroads into the dominant society, and if black people are going to move up, they damn sure better avoid being brainwashed by the "detergent" of semantics. Yes, black folks are influenced by the dominant culture which is white. But is this "brainwashing". Or is this the pragmatism that spawns far more success than the lectures from malcontents who spout simple solutions for complicated problems, - who try to sanitize a "misery loves company" doctrine with a "united we stand" spin. Brainwashing, indeed. Black women catch a lot of the flak from pontificating black men. Yes, many of them get perms and hair extensions. And so do others! The big rage among white women nowadays is tanning, and breast implants, and plastic surgery. They pay to lie in booths, exposing themselves to the danger of skin cancer just so they can transform their white skin into a golden hue. They undergo other procedures to plump up their lips to make them fuller. They do all manner of things to acquire the money to have their A-cup breasts expanded into D-cups. Even Asian women have eyelid surgery to change their slanted eyes. Puleeze. Are they any different from black women? Or are ALL women slaves to vanity? And of course, all of that flak enables the "black hate" argument. "Black people hate themselves," the naysayers drone. Gimme a break. There's nobody who loves herself more than a fat sista backin up that booty down at the club. And why do other black females look down their noses at any brotha who doesn't have a car and a job? Because they hate themselves? Hell no. Because they love themselves too much to "settle". And WHO has more swagger than a self-satisfied black man? Who ridicules square white people who don't act like they do any more than smirking black people? Self-hate is hardly the phrase to describe those who, through all of the adversity, still enjoy each other, still know how to laugh and have fun and roll with the punches. I don't agree that we hate ourselves. We just resent white people who don't recognize our ABILITIES. I'd be the first to admit that materialism ranks right up there with racism when it comes to black progress, but we live a society brainwashed by consumerism. Blacks, like the rest of the population, reject a Spartan lifestyle, preferring to indulge themselves. Blame capitalism. And, yes, Blacks should organize and pool our money and assets for the common good. Yes, we should stress education and aspire to many different professions. Who disputes this? And can anybody dispute the breakdown of the black family as the root cause of most black problems? Yet, anybody who tries to brainwash black folks into adjusting their breeding habits is shouted down with cries of "genocide", and being "a part of the problem instead of part of the solution" is always the rationale directed at those who want to give the race a makeover. Oooh, don't hurt the feelings of those poor ghetto folk who perpetuate their "unique" culture, and black-on-black crime is no more prevelant that white-on-white crime. It's the media, the media, always the MEDIA. The media influences how white people perceive black folks! This can be true. But how powerful is the media? Are Blacks stupid enough to believe that all white people act the way they do in the media? Has the media simply become a convenient scapegoat? Whatever. In any case, it would seem that what Brainwash Accusers desire is for Blacks to not physicaly emulate the white race but simply mimic what it does to achieve success. This is an admirable goal. Only problem is we'd have to regress to "square one". But - go for it. Me and my brainwashed self, however, have been around since 1933, and I know that not only is black inferiority a myth, but so is Utopia. And, so it goes...

First of all, NPR stands for Natural Poobutt Radio. They are as racist as Rush Limbaugh, but hide behind a facade of genteel liberality, exposed when they do all them "In the Bush" African stories. Listen to that crappy station and you'd think all Africans lived like they do in Tarzan movies. She probably wouldn't lick their pale asses Is she a McBragg, or a Munchausen. And how do you know--exclusive of what they say on Natural Poobut Radio?

Chris I'm not a woman, and I don't have the data, but I don't believe that all the women who wear perms, extensions, weaves ad wigs are trying to be white. I've been married almost 20 years I was raised by a woman and I raised two women myself. I don't see these women trying to be white. I doubt you have sufficient evidence to provide otherwise. While YOUR experience may be different, the plural of your anecdotes is not data... Negroes [men] processing their hair was generations ago, move on Brother, let it go and move on, the rest of the world has. Chris you were never enslaved, nor was your father or was his father before him... How much longer do you want to use this as an excuse or a reason for not going to school or doing the work required to succeed? We did it right after slavery ended, why are we stopping now? Spend less time watching the "Black Klansman"; it seems to have poisoned your mind.

Look at that monkey-see-monkey-do-negro [ picture of negro in blackface playing a banjo not included here]. He's a smart nigga too. But what's he playing on that banjo? Well, if you listen real good, he's playing Mr Charlie's favorite tune, stomp that colored fella. Let me cut to the chase. Some negro political blogs should change their names to BootyForSell. That's right, flash a red sign and adorn it with purple lips and a fat ass. You know, them big booty lips that compliment deep ass kissing. But wait, dez some smart Negros that may not know the errs of their ways. I mean, they have great writing skills that most would die for, but they ain't talking about a gawd damn thang except what Obama has done wrong. Listen, I am a ride or die Obama supporter that.... "HOLD UP CAREY, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP HERO WORSHIPING?" No, you hold up and you can blow that outcha ass. I mean, you should define hero worshiping. I know you may believe that's a clever phrase, but it's nothing more than a tired and trite remark that allows you to run from the truth. Get back to me with your definition of a hero worshiper. But first, tell me, who would you rather have in office, Obama or Mr Charlie? I know the Banjo Man (or Lady) will have a hard time answering that question. Well, since they claim to be supporting Obama's mission, they can't say Mr Charlie. On the other hand, if they say Mr Charlie, I'd say "give me his name" who would his replacement? And, since these are smart Negros, they wouldn't say anybody except President Obama. I mean, that reply would instantly discredit them. And lord knows what that would do to their egos. That reminds me, I believe much of their whimsical hater-aid is rooted in an ego that's in grave need of constant stroking. What else could justify their negative rants about our presidents? "But Carey, we can't give him a pass just because he's black" Who said anything about a pass you knuckle head? And again, if not Obama than who?! See, some folks wish to run from that question. Really, that's the big elephant in this house. If you can't stop the elephant, then your house will become very raggedy. Malcolm said, "if your kitchen is dirty, your house is dirty" So, would it be right to invite someone to a nasty home? Remember, the elephant is still there. He ain't going to disappear because the question is side stepped. Consequently, until the chicken head naysayers can tell me the purpose behind their eloquent dissing of President Obama, I can't help but believe they are unconsciously soothing a soul that needs to sound intelligent. More importantly, they have to know their words are a cheap cloned edition of Mr Charlie. I wish they would just speak the truth and come out of the closet. I wish they would change their blog names to Black Booty For Sale: The place of intelligent BIG BOOTY for your Disposal. "But again carey, we can't give Obama a pass because he is black, we have to make him accounting" Okay, one mo gin for all the circle jerks. Do you really think you are making him accountable by mimmicking the words of his arch rivals?! I mean, really? Even if you say yes(some fool would say that), what's the payoff? Would your words move people toward Obama or away from him? Don't duck now, but the Big Ass Elephant is still in the house. If not Obama than who? I know this post will not get me invited to soft music and satin sheets, but as Martin Luther King said, "Many people fear nothing more terrible than to take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion. The tendency of most is to adopt a view that is so ambiguous that it will include everything and so popular that it will include everybody" So do me baby, cuz I ain't scared. Use me to do the thangs you do, because I sho am using you for the thangs YOU do. Picture here .....>>>http://careycarey-carrymehome.blogspot.com/2010/06/nigg-please-your-choice-obama-or-mr.html

People around Chicago are taken aback over remarks Steadman Graham made during a recent interview on a local TV station. In regard to the subject of Oprah's impending exit from our fair city, anxious to secure his future as her lap dog, Steadman blubbered about how Chicago didn't appreciate all that Oprah has done for it. He even elevated her to biblical status, making reference to how the Good Book states a prophet is never appreciated in their own land, - or some such nonsense. Prophet?? I don't know what the ol girl has ever foreseen with any accuracy other than if you give people cars they'll go crazy even as they calculate the taxes that come with such generosity. Anyhoo, it didn't take long for a couple of fearless newspaper columnists to risk their careers and put this puppet in his place. And I totally agreed with their pointing out how Oprah snubbed Chicago to build a girls school in South Africa, or how she is just one of many super-rich home-grown philanthropists who have made Chicago the beneficiary of their charitable contributions, and how she can't take any more credit than The Bulls, The Bears, The Blackhawks, The White Sox and Cubs when it comes to bringing glory to this city. Certain people in Oprah's entourage apparently think that promoting books and movies and providing an ample bosom for celebrity airheads to cry on somehow contributes to the prestiege of this toddlin town. Not. Somebody needs to tap "O" on her shoulder and remind her that Chicago was a great place before she arrived and will remain a great place when she leaves. We survived Michael Jordan's departure and nobody will really miss Oprah when she's gone because, aside from her show, she has never been a very visible presence here. You had a good run here, Oprah, but your time is up. See ya later, alligator.

I don't win anything. But see, that attitude(win or lose) is exactly why many people refuse to move off their opinion. Don't get me wrong, that's a natural human reaction, but it's nevertheless a response that impedes progress and/or positive solutions. Heck, who wants to be wrong? However, if we face every situation with a win or lose approach (especially when we don't agree with someone) opting instead to take a cynical view, then, on this issue (the presidency) we WILL be left with any old Tom, Dick or Harry. If a person is not concerned with "a replacement" or who will be the replacement, they are in essence telling me I shouldn't respect anything they say, because that's totally irresponsible behavior. Cynique said: "People have a right to hold the President of the United States accountable for his actions, no matter who he is. In fact, this is the duty of the "loyal opposition." You don't have to be a Republican to challenge the policies of a Democratic president, or be white to wince over the gaffes of a black president" HIP HIP HOORAY.... I agree 100% Cynique said: "Or do you have to come up with a suggestion for a replacement, just because you question who currently holds the office. Now, it's my opinion that if those "questions" are voiced in a way or in an envioronment that could lead to the removal of President Obama, I believe it's a responsibility of every black person to keep an eye on the future. From this black man's point of view, if I am going to have a hand in removing the president(in any capacity), "I", as a black man better concern myself with who could/would be my stepdaddy. Cynique, you have to agree (well you don't have to) that there are followers (monkey see, monkey do people), and there are leaders. I think that's a fact. I believe followers make up the core of our society. Consequently, the core of my post speaks to being aware of how your words can persuade others. In regrads to the presidency, if black people do not concern themselves with the future which is coming, it will repeat itself with any ol'Harry Bo Scary.

Shrek Is A Black Man: The Prince Yaphet Kotto. The grandson of King Alexander Bell, ruler of Cameroon. Come on now, look at that nose and those teeth, that's Shrek!{photo} Okay, need more proof? What, you're not convinced? Follow me. ***See all photos at blog*** See, in the movie, Shrek hung out with two other brown skinned men. Yep, Antonio Banderas.....{photo} And, Eddie Murphy.{photo} Of course they had to be a donkey and a cat. You know, a jackass and a kissin' boots. And Eddie was married to a big fat red woman with a bunch of babies. For real, did you see the picture? On top of that, ol'kissin' boots turned against Eddie and Yaphet. Yep, later in the movie, he was all up in the behind of the evil white man. I kid you not... you gotta see the movie. Oh, Yaphet Kotto is a real prince and he studied acting in New York. Now, did you know (probably not) that his first role was that of Othello? Stay with me now. His first role on Broadway was in the Great White Hope! Bingo baby, white women in the house. And who was Shrek married to... a fat white women. And who is Yaphat married to? Look, Shrek and his family lived in the ghetto. Sure did, and his wife's parents were rich (I'll get back to that). Anyway, just as with the aftermath of Katrina, when all the white folks drove by the destruction in tour buses, Shrek and his family had to endure the same humiliation. One time he was taking a crap in his out-house (yes out-house) and the thing fell over. Well, the white men on the bus covered the eyes of the giggling white women. In the voice of Forrest Gump... That's all I am going to say about that. Shrek is a black man. But check this, I knew Shrek was black when his wife's mother and white father were willing to give up their whole kingdom to keep her away from this big black mandingo. See, earlier in the picture, before Shrek married his princess, the parents went to this evil white man to cut a deal. Shrek had been sniffing around their daughter's penthouse and they couldn't have that. So they asked this evil sorcerer for a little help. Now Shrek's nose was wide open. He loved him some pink toe, and thus, he wasn't having it. So he went to work. **warning time** If you have not seen the movie, you might want to look away. I mean, I don't want to spoil the ending. Okay, here we go. With the aid of a bunch of white witches (**coughcough** ) the evil little white man managed to uproot Shreks future wife. But Shrek wasn't no punk, so he went out to find his Miss Thang. Well, they say if a woman goes black, she can't go back, well, he found her in the ghetto with a gang of large ugly brothas. This was the part that made me sad. His girl, Feona, didn't love him no mo'. The movie didn't disclose rather or not Jodie got the girl and was gone, but, she no longer had a twinkle in her eye for the black man named Shrek. This pissed off Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas. Who can forget some of Eddie's relationship woes? So Eddie grew a pair of balls and Antonio (not Hall)took off his fag clothes (yep, the white man had turned him out). He took off his pussin' boot and replaced them with his kickin' ass boots. Then, along with Shrek, they all went down to the hood to join Feona's gang. Although Shrek was still hurting from his woman's cold approach, he was determined to regain her heart. When they arrived back at the hood, the gang was under attack from the white wizard (who looked like a lizard) and his gang of *itches. The women were actually witches with flying brooms and pointed hats, but they were some nasty thangs. Anyway, the ending made me stand up and cheer. They took the fight to the lizard's castle. Remember Eddie's big fat red wife, the dragon lady (she was a dragon) she also joined in the war against the white pimp and his witches. When I cocked my 3D glasses at just he right angle, I could hear her saying "He may be black, and he may be a donkey, but that's my Ni**a, so you *itches better move around!". Man, she shot fire all through that joint. I can't tell you the ending, that wouldn't be right. But you have to go see it. I loved the whole movie and the 3D affect. And I love seeing black people on the screen. Now, don't tell nobody but Shrek is a black man that goes by the name Yaphet Kotto. But if you have to, tell all your friends were you got the good news. Tell them you got it from the Ghetto Critic, CareyCarey. *smile* See full photos here: http://careycarey-ca...phet-kotto.html

My brother Carey - much love as always. If it were another time and place -- -- things could have been different between us - Cuz, I LOVE your mind and wit - and errybody can know this. I have not seen the movie yet - I am not a huge fan of movies - I love theater - and will probably catch Shrek IV on DVD - apparently it is the only good thing out in the cinema - Sex in the City flopped and Prince of ? was a disappointment so the reviewers say. Its all good - and whatever you are smoking - keep it lit up - clear vision and opinion is so hard to find. Peace Soulful Sister

I have no desire to live "vicariously" through anything as demeaning as being a domestic to Miz Anne. And I certainly have no desire to move down south like you apparently did, Soulful Sister. BTW, I'm sure Hispanic immigrants are going through these same experiences today. Domestics of any race are subjected to the whims and insensitivity to their employers. It comes with the territory. None of this, however, neutralizes the irony of how the black experience differs from location to location. As I have previously mentioned, back in the early 1950s when I was a student at the University of Illinois and lived in the newly-integrated womens' residence halls, the year before a defiant Rosa Parks was arrested, me and my black dorm-mates, who elected to all eat our meals at the same table when we sat down to dinner in the dining room, were served by white waiters and waitresses, who were working their way through college - and who seemed to have no problem with catering to us. People have expressed skepticism about this, but it is true, and it is what it is. An AKA soror was also elected homecoming queen during that era. I dropped out of the U. of I. after 2 years and I have been reminded by others who followed, that things changed on campus when racial tensions began to surface. But this was my black experience and who is to say it is not authentic?

[Cynique]: "Carey. WHO ever called YOU a "self-hater"?" Excuse me, and who said anyone called me a "self-hater". If that was your way of trying to engage me in further debate... I am here. But look, I was just talking in general terms. [Cynique]: "Now all of sudden YOU are calling this "self-hate" label tomfoolery when YOU have used this term yourself in connection with people who YOU consider to be uncle toms. Talk about BS. You're full of it" Not! please go find a statement of mine in which I called someone a "self-hater! Please, I'll wait. But don't make your move too soon, because you will NOT find it. I may have called someone an uncle tom, and you a tomette, but never a self-hater. If by chance you do find something that mimmicks those words, it was probably in reply to someone that said something about "themsevles" and not a statement about the woes of the black state of affairs. I challenge you, but I doubt that you will back up your words. You have a propensity to run and hide from the truth. And, you never (in your 10 years of doing this) have shown the courage to say... I was wrong or I may have mis-spoken. Nope, you can't do it. But lets make no mistake about it, you ARE a hater (imo). See Cynique, unfortunityly you will not agree, but again, you've shown your weakness as an effective debator, because you leave too many holes in your game, by giving your opinion and trying to render them as facts. Then you seem to get frustrated when someone calls you on that BS, and then you resort to name calling. Your thang is weak. And you are A DYED FRIED, CARD CARRYING HATER! Raise your hand and take a bow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/our-role-in-haitis-plight To wit: What is already all too clear, however, is the fact that this impact will be the result of an even longer-term history of deliberate impoverishment and disempowerment. Haiti is routinely described as the "poorest country in the western hemisphere". This poverty is the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression. The noble "international community" which is currently scrambling to send its "humanitarian aid" to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce. Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide's phrase) "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies. Aristide's own government (elected by some 75% of the electorate) was the latest victim of such interference, when it was overthrown by an internationally sponsored coup in 2004 that killed several thousand people and left much of the population smouldering in resentment. The UN has subsequently maintained a large and enormously expensive stabilisation and pacification force in the country. Haiti is now a country where, according to the best available study, around 75% of the population "lives on less than $2 per day, and 56% – four and a half million people – live on less than $1 per day". Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future. It is this poverty and powerlessness that account for the full scale of the horror in Port-au-Prince today. Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered. As Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, points out: "Those people got there because they or their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Meanwhile the city's basic infrastructure – running water, electricity, roads, etc – remains woefully inadequate, often non-existent. The government's ability to mobilise any sort of disaster relief is next to nil. The international community has been effectively ruling Haiti since the 2004 coup. The same countries scrambling to send emergency help to Haiti now, however, have during the last five years consistently voted against any extension of the UN mission's mandate beyond its immediate military purpose. Proposals to divert some of this "investment" towards poverty reduction or agrarian development have been blocked, in keeping with the long-term patterns that continue to shape the distribution of international "aid". The same storms that killed so many in 2008 hit Cuba just as hard but killed only four people. Cuba has escaped the worst effects of neoliberal "reform", and its government retains a capacity to defend its people from disaster. If we are serious about helping Haiti through this latest crisis then we should take this comparative point on board. Along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of Haiti's people and public institutions. If we are serious about helping we need to stop trying to control Haiti's government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy. And then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done. And before somebody starts screaming that American Blacks ought to do something about this, take a look at our own inner cities-- Clean up your own houses first before you try to save somebody else!

It's the American mindset: one drop. That's why the media calls Obama black instead of white or mixed-race. That's why Tiger Woods, with just one black grandparent, is a black man in the eyes of the public. Puerto Rican activist Rosa Clemente has embraced a personal version of the "one drop" idea -- but for unconventional reasons. Why she identifies herself as a "Black Rican": I am so tired of having to prove to others that I am Black, that my peoples are from the Motherland, that Puerto Rico, along with Cuba, Panama and the Dominican Republic, are part of the African Diaspora. Do we forget that the slave ships dropped off our people all over the world, hence the word Diaspora? The Atlantic slave trade brought Africans to Puerto Rico in the early 1500s. Some of the first slave rebellions took place on the island of Puerto Rico. Until 1846, Africanos on the island had to carry a libreta to move around the island, like the passbook system in apartheid South Africa. In Puerto Rico, you will find large communities of descendants of the Yoruba, Bambara, Wolof and Mandingo people. Puerto Rican culture is inherently African culture. She says she chooses to claim black identity as a political statement. Read the whole essay. Clemente was former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's vice presidential running mate on the Green Party ticket in the 2008 presidential election.

She has a severe personality disorder. She's never acted in any movies. It is true, however, that her entire public persona is an act. As I said before, I consider her more of a performance artist than a writer. Her primary manuscript is not the printed pages between her book covers, but the Internet tale of Kola Boof.

"You don't HAVE to do shit. Keep you unsolicited views to yourself and I'll do the same. If I do decide to respond to any of your "assertions", unlike you, I will be fully prepared to take as good as I give" OH really! Settle down grandmama. Did you just say that you would keep your unsolicited views to yourself? See, that's a perfect example of you running around the mulberry bush. You say one thing, yet, do the exactly opposite. And, although you SAY you take as good as you get, nothing could be further from the truth. Besides, is not an open board a place for people to express their unsolicited views? Look, although I am not a doctor, I believe I know the core of your problem. You may profess to be a deep thinker, and are oh so quick to label others as less than, but you really do not like being required to think outside of your comfort zone. You re very good at saying "STFU" or other forms of defensive posturing when you have to support one of your weak arguments, however, your frustrations speaks more to a non-thinker than a deep thinker. But I understand you. You may be old but you have not reached a point in your life in which you are comfortable saying 4 easy phrases. Without such, you will never be able to use your brain to a point that someone would consider you as a deep thinker. Your emotions will always keep YOU from saying the following: I Don't know! I was wrong! I am sorry! I love you! See Cynique, without the emotional stability (maturity), to say those words, a person will never move beyound themselves. And thus, will be left with a belief that they have all the answers, which does not require that person to "think" deep. Actually, they may even know they do not know the whole truth. Nevertheless, they will withdraw to their own frame of reference. To say "I don't know" or "I was wrong", does not leave comfortable feelings. They tend to leave most humans with a sense of being vulnerable, which, as you know, is a very scary place. YOU, my dear, are the perfect example of the above individual. Say it loud, like you're old, black and proud! Say.... STFU, Carey, you old slippery snake. Or, don't say it, because see, I've already said, I understand YOU.

Thank Troy, yipppppppppppppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! This is what your site is ALL about, sharing. Eve, I appreciate the bio you have included. Look for "Transformation" in the June issue. I will try to place the other poems in upcoming issues and I will notify you accordingly. If you submit them elsewhere for publication please let me know. I throughly enjoy your writing style, especially the voice and tone of each poem. Editor Michael Brown 4 U, Bookfan! KIDS! A kindergarten pupil told his teacher that he found a cat, but it was dead. "How do you know the cat was dead?" she asked him. "Because I pissed in its ear and he didn't move" the child said innocently. "You did WHAT!?" The teacher exclaimed in surprise. "You know" the boy explained "I leaned over and went Pssst! and it didn't move".

Who cares what that jack-off Tiger's next move should be? He screwed himself up. Let him eat Mickelson's shorts, and stew in the Kodak moment all of his white detractors are rubbing his nose in as the Master's winner, replete in his green jacket, like a good and true faithful husband, embraces his cancer-stricken wife who left her sick bed to come and cheer him on to victory. Pardon me while I barf.

I must admit, I can't figure out why he didn't just go on and teach the classes. Did they want him to teach four classes every day (something that most high school and gradeschool teachers do)--or what? Especially these days with jobs real tight--I don't figure it. I would teach four classes for 100 thou plus--Dr. Madhbuti (who was once Don L. Lee) may be making a bad move.

I've been reading this story for a couple of days waiting for it to make sense. It still doesn't. I don't understand why Mitchell called it a public fight, when it wasn't public until she wrote about it? (And it is notable that no other media outlet picked the story up). I don't understand why Mitchell wrote 2 stories in three days, the first about a non-existent feud and the second to foment public response about the non-existent feud, unless the something about the relationship between these two that we don't know. Where is a good ethical editor when you need one? So these are my questions. First, when would an English Professor work for the President? He wouldn't. He would work for the Chair of the English Department. But the Chair of the English Department is three levels below the President. So why does this professor call the president "his boss?". It doesn't pass the sniff test that this is a real feud. Second, Emeritus status is always an unpaid status. I don't understand why this Professor thinks that he should be paid when there is a Director of the Center Quraysh Ali Lansana, Director, Gwendolyn Brooks Center, Associate Professor of English/Creative Writing. Is Chicago State supposed to pay two Directors for this center? Is the media being used in an effort to get the CSU to back down? Third - retiring is the way to get what he wants, to be paid (he will get a pension), and he won't have to teach. So why not just take that option instead of creating this noise? Fourth - why does Madhubuti think that an obscure letter he wrote a year ago is even relevant? Everyone but him had forgotten about it a year ago. Fifth - If Haki would rather retire than teach, why does he think that there was a move against him? Why isn't it just that he exercised an option to retire which was available to him? Sixth - Why is a 68 year old man retiring considered to be "an early retirement?" Seventh - I don't believe CSU has a job called cultural icon, but if does, why doesn't Madhubuti apply for it and be done? If his job is an English Professor, why does he think he can be paid to be a cultural icon instead? Eighth - If Madhubuti can teach somewhere else, why doesn't he just go there and teach? Why put CSU through the hoops? He has given up his slave name, and he should give up his slave mentality about work. Nobody forces him to take a check from CSU. Nineth - If he doesn't teach, why would he be missed? How many students even know who he is or that he has an office at CSU? Last, why pick now? Why pick this way, (in the papers) rather than civilized and behind closed doors. Why not show the students the courtesy of not bringing dishonor to CSU with public name calling and mudslinging - if you have any students you care about?

Troy, my girlfriend in Ohio seems 2 agree with you! I am stuck in the house and can't see it yet cuz the pollen count here in good ole Ga. is around, 5,ooo! GOOD GRIEF!!! I usually see his movies the day they come out

I tried to tell yawl about WBP+1.That be white boy power plus 1 light skin brotha. See, since this is not a post-post-racial America. There's only one way I pick my Final 4. Well, first I count the number of white boys on the team. Then I look to see how many of them are part of the starting 5. Now I move to the coach. If the coach has a last name that's hard for me to pronounce, he, and the team are in my Final 4. But don't hate me, hate the players. I mean, I'm from Iowa and white boys have been kicking my ass since grade school. Are you kidding me, they all have a hoop in their driveway or in their back yards. That's why they can't jump but can hit that 3 pointer. I know... I know, Northern Iowa didn't make it to the final 4, but hey, they didn't do too bad for a bunch of slow white boys... that can't jump. But see, I don't know if you noticed, but they had a negro buster. They had an 8' 2" corn feed 300lb white boy. Yep, I've had a few of them run me through a few corn fields. They're not very fast, but they can dunk a basketball and sling Negroes off the boards. Nope, Northern Iowa didn't make it to the Final 4 this year, but Butler did. The name "butler" tells the story. See, I've lived in Indiana (Yvettep's there now :-)and there's some real rednecks around dem parts. I mean, Butler's basketball team may not be WBP+1 but Mr Charlie is in the house. I think the team mascot is the Grand Wizard. Okay, don't believe me, but I'm tellin' you, this is not a post-post-racial America. I would bet yawl, but I am still waiting on this one blogger to pay off a wager from last years World Series. I'm not going to call his name but *cough*Keith*cough*fromPhilly*cough* still owes me a little sumtin'. But I'll tell you what, I am open for suggestions. I mean, I'll listen to a few words of wisdom. Maybe somebody knows more about this basketball thang than me. But don't forget, CareyCarey said the nets will be cut down by one light skinned brotha with a white girlfriend, four 3 point shooting white guys, and a coach that has a nose that's looks like that thang that hangs off the end of a fried chicken back... but a little longer. GO DUKE!

You know damn well I am not reading all that bullshit. From comments to the poem you probably wrote while under the influence. I simply thought the shit was a bad move and I am entitled to think that, since YOU put it out there on blast. I mean damn....why explain? You did it because you wanted to, I thought it was asinine and that's that. Damn...you aint got ta make no speech, mane.

Well Miss Camarel, now that I see what I am working with, I understand your position. [Camarel]: "Yeah, exactly...because the responses were NOT the ones you were expecting. THAT IS WHY I thought it was a bad move" Nope, quite the opposite. first, I was not looking for a response, yet your's is exactly what I expected. See, it's obvious that we will not meet on common ground, because your answer makes little sense at all. Listen to what you said, because "I"[CareyCarey] didn't receive the response that "I" wanted, "you" thought it was a bad move. So, if "I"[Carey] received the reponses that "I" was excpecting Then "you" would have thought it was a good move??? Do you see why your statement is nothing more than a porous assumption that speaks more about you, than it does about my reason to delete the post. I took it down because that type of post was meant for an audience of those that may be suffering from their own personal storm. Exposing my flaws serves 2 purposes. It allows me to be free of my past indescretions and false self image, and it's meant to send a messages to others that they are not alone. Again, it's become glaringly obvious that the post was not meant for you. It's my opinion that you are very young and therefore are still searching to find who and what you are. Consequently, in your mind, you have few faults that you need to work on. But I'd be the first to tell you that you may be mistaken in that belief. Why? Well, for one, you hid behind several screen names, which tells me that you were insecure about something. What's in your wallet? More importantly, this is not about a drink or a drug, it's about finding solutions to a horde of problems. So, posting that piece was a way for me to work on my solutions. It was not meant to receive replies. Because, you may not know this, but I've been a member of this book club/board for over 10 years. I have many friends that Ive met right here. Most of them did not know all of my story/storm. Some knew that I went to jail, but few knew my whole story. So, whenever a person show a secret from their past, they stand a risk of being alientated, or a least looked upon "differently". So, for me, I have to walk right into those possible scenaros and say "here I am friends and world, love me or leave me alone". Then I've taken the assumptions off the table, and then I am left to deal with the results. And, I can deal with that. The journey is in front of me... I am not looking back. Miss Carmella, in the following piece, when you see "******" I'll put in divorecd, which means separated from someone or something. You can include a word of your choice. I am sure you might find something that fits you. MISUNDERSTOOD I SAID I CRIED LAST NIGHT, DIDN’T SAY I DIED LAST NIGHT CAME THROUGH THE STORM, WAS ALL-RIGHT LAST NIGHT. I CRIED TEARS OF JOY. I WANTED TO BE WITH THEM, NOT IN THEM. I LONGING FOR THEIR PRESENCE HAD A HOLE, A ROLE COULD HAVE FILLED IT WITH ANOTHER STAR BUT THE PART WAS MADE FOR THEM. OTHERS COULD HAVE PULLED IT OFF. EVERYBODY COULD HAVE BEEN PAID. BUT THAT PART WOULD HAVE BEEN MISSING THEM. WHO SAID IT? I DIDN’T. I SAID THEY LEFT, TOO MANY NIGHTS FILLED WITH IMAGES OF THEM. TOO MANY VOWS BROKEN, THE PAIN– HAD NOTHING LEFT IN MY HEART NOTHING BUT DISDAIN FOR THEM. WHAT DID YOU READ? THE PAPER SAID *******, NOT USED. NOT SOMEONE’S UNWANTED ITEM TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED AND TAKEN TO THE RESALE SHOP. IT SAID ********, NOT NEARLY NEW..IT SHOULD SAY NEW. DOES IT SAY I AM NOT WHOLE? IS THERE AN ASTERISK SAYING THAT I AM MISSING PARTS? WHERE DID IT SAY I WAS VOID OF LOVE, COMPASSION, HOPE...AND DREAMS? DOES ******* STRIP A MAN OF HIS MANHOOD? DOES ****** IMPLY THAT A WOMEN IS LOVE-LESS? WHERE DOES IT SAY NUCLEAR WASTE? I FELL DOWN, ROLLED AROUND, I GOT UP. THAT ROAD IS BEHIND ME. MY ROAD IS IN FRONT OF ME. READ IT AGAIN, DID IT SAY I WAS A TOY TO BE PLAYED WITH? DID IT SAY SPIN THIS, USE THIS, ANYONE CAN DO THIS!? READ IT ONE MORE TIME. I DOUBT IT... I DOUBT IT SAID WITHOUT PRINCIPLES, OR ABSENT OF LOVE IF YOU THINK SO, YOU GOT ME TWISTED, FUCKED UP, CONFUSED, AND MISUNDERSTOOD! ~CareyCarey