Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

The House or The Field

Recommended Posts

"There were two kind of slaves. There was the house negro and the field negro. The house negro, they lived in the house, with master. They

dressed pretty good. They ate good, cause they ate his food, what he left.

They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near their

master, and they loved their master, more than their master loved

himself. They would give their life to save their masters house quicker

than their master would. The house negro, if the master said "we got a

good house here" the house negro say "yeah, we got a good house here".

Whenever the master would said we, he'd say we. That's how you can

tell a house negro. If the master's house caught on fire, the house negro

would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the

master got sick, the house negro would say "What's the matter, boss, we

sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than the

master identified with himself. And if you came to the house negro and

said "Let's run away, Let's escape, Let's separate" the house negro would

look at you and say "Man, you crazy. What you mean separate? Where

is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than

this? Where can I eat better food than this?" There was that house

negro. In those days, he was called a house nigger. And that's what we

call him today, because we still got some house niggers runnin around

here. This modern house negro loves his master. He wants to live near

him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near

his master, and then brag about "I'm the only negro out here. I'm the

only one on my job. I'm the only one in this school." "You're nothing but

a house negro. And if someone come to you right now and say "Let's

separate.", you say the same thing that the house negro said on the

plantation. "What you mean separate? From America? This good white

land? Where you gonna get a better job than you get here? I mean, this

is what you say! "I di-I ain't left nothing in Africa" That's what you say.

"Why, you left your mind in Africa". On that same plantation, there was

the field negro. The field negro, those were the masses. There was

always more negros in the field as there were negros in the house. There

negro in the field caught hell. He ate leftovers. In the house, they ate

high up on the hog. The negro in the field didn't get nothing but what

was left in the insides of the hog. They call them chit'lins nowaday. In

those days, they called them what they were, guts! That's what you

were, a guteater. And some of you are still guteaters. The field negro

was beaten, from morning til night. He lived in a shack, in a hut. He

wore cast-off clothes. He hated his master. I say, he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house negro loved his master. But that field negro, remember, they were in the majority, and they hated their master. When the house caught on fire, he didn't try to put it out, that

field negro prayed for a wind. For a breeze. When the master got sick, the field negro prayed that he died. If someone come to the field negro and said "Let's separate, let's run." He didn't say "Where we going?" he

said "Any place is better than here". We got field negros in America

today. I'm a field negro. The masses are the field negros. When they see

this mans house on fire, we don't hear these little negros talkin bout

"Our Government is in trouble. They say thee Government is in trouble."

Imagine a negro, "Our Government". I even heard one say "Our

astronauts." They won't even let him near the plant, and "Our

astronauts". "Our neighbors" That's a negro that's out of his mind. That's

a negro that's out of his mind! Just cause the slave master in that day,

used Tom, to keep the field negroes in check. The same ol slavemaster

today has negros who are nothing but modern Uncle Toms. 20th

century Uncle Toms to keep you and me in check. Keep us under

control. Keep us passive and peaceful. And nonviolent. That's Tom

making you nonviolent. It's like when you go to the dentist and the man

is going to take your tooth. You're going to fight him when he start

pulling. So they squirt some stuff in your jaw called novocane, to make

you think their not doing anything to you. So you sit there and because

you got all that novocane in your jaw, you suffer peacefully. Hahahaha.

There's nothing in our book, the Quran, as you call it, Koran, that

teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent.

Be peaceful. Be courteuos. Obey the law. Respect everyone. But if

someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery! That's a good

religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that ma and

pa used to talk about. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and a

head for a head and a life for a life. That's a good religion. And doesn't

anybody, no one resist that kind of religion being taught but a wolf who

intends to make you his meal. This is the way it is with the white man in

America. He's a wolf and you're his sheep. Anytime a shepherd, a pastor,

teach you and me not to run from the white man, and at the same time

teach us don't fight the white man, he's a traitor, to you and me. Don't

lay down our life all by itself, no, preserve your life. It's the best thing

you got. And if you got to give it up, let it be Even Steven. .

-Malcolm X

Bro. Malcolm had some real yet comical stuff, too. Have you ever really read that brother or heard his speeches/interviews? Brilliant he was indeed, with a wonderful sense of humor. In general, we don't read and listen and think for ourselves as much as we should.


Eulogy for Malcolm X

The following eulogy was delivered by Ossie Davis at the funeral of Malcolm X on 27 February 1965 at the Faith Temple Church Of God

Here—at this final hour, in this quiet place—Harlem has come to bid farewell to one of its brightest hopes—extinguished now, and gone from us forever. For Harlem is where he worked and where he struggled and fought—his home of homes, where his heart was, and where his people are—and it is, therefore, most fitting that we meet once again—in Harlem—to share these last moments with him.

For Harlem has ever been gracious to those who have loved her, have fought for her and have defended her honor even to the death. It is not in the memory of man that this beleaguered, unfortunate, but nonetheless proud community has found a braver, more gallant young champion than this Afro-American who lies before us—unconquered still.

I say the word again, as he would want me to: Afro-American—Afro-American Malcolm, who was a master, was most meticulous in his use of words. Nobody knew better than he the power words have over minds of men.

Malcolm had stopped being a Negro years ago. It had become too small, too puny, too weak a word for him. Malcolm was bigger than that. Malcolm had become an Afro-American, and he wanted—so desperately—that we, that all his people, would become Afro-Americans, too.

There are those who will consider it their duty, as friends of the Negro people, to tell us to revile him, to flee, even from the presence of his memory, to save ourselves by writing him out of the history of our turbulent times.

Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain—and we will smile. Many will say turn away—away from this man; for he is not a man but a demon, a monster, a subverter and an enemy of the black man—and we will smile. They will say that he is of hate—a fanatic, a racist—who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say to them:

Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him or have him smile at you? Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did, you would know him. And if you knew him, you would know why we must honor him: Malcolm was our manhood, our living, black manhood!

This was his meaning to his people. And, in honoring him, we honor the best in ourselves. Last year, from Africa, he wrote these words to a friend: My journey, he says, is almost ended, and I have a much broader scope than when I started out, which I believe will add new life and dimension to our struggle for freedom and honor and dignity in the States.

I am writing these things so that you will know for a fact the tremendous sympathy and support we have among the African States for our human rights struggle. The main thing is that we keep a united front wherein our most valuable time and energy will not be wasted fighting each other.

However we may have differed with him—or with each other about him and his value as a man—let his going from us serve only to bring us together, now.

Consigning these mortal remains to earth, the common mother of all, secure in the knowledge that what we place in the ground is no more now a man—but a seed—which, after the winter of our discontent, will come forth again to meet us.

And we will know him then for what he was and is—a prince—our own black shining prince!—who didn’t hesitate to die, because he loved us so.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess we have to limit our concern about those poor dehumanized enslaved Africans to the "field negroes". They seem to be the only ones that fair-skinned, red-haired Malcolm X has any use for. :angry:

Nice eulogy, Ossie. As well it should be. Speak well of the dead. If you can't say something good about them, don't say anything at all. :rolleyes:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, this speech has much relevance in this day. However, the same can be said about many speeches of yesterday because today is but the offspring of yesterday.

As far as Malcolm, the content of Malcolm's speeches evolved as his perceptions evolved. If you are interested in this evolution, I will gladly post some links with his speeches and you can compare and contrast speeches from the earlier ones to the later ones.

I think that Martin Luther King's evolution is often overlooked as much as Malcolm X's evolution is overlooked. While I do not at all think that it is accurate to say that either of these men did a 180, I do think that it is accurate to say that the content of their speeches evolved as their perceptions and objectives evolved.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was there from the beginning. I saw Malcolm and MLK evolve. Their hey day was my hey day. I kept up with them, agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kept up with them, agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with them.

I don't know one person with whom I would always agree 100% and I sure don't know one person who would agree with me 100%.

I tend to look at our minds as filters for all the stuff that our brains will take in and that with all people and/or events, it is wise to eat the fish and leave the bone. Or vegan version, eat the fruit and leave the pit. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Malcolm evolved a great deal over his life from criminal, to Black Muslim to becoming a Sunni Muslim. He continued to evolve throughout his short life Who knows where he would be today had he lived.

I think Waterstar first shared this video:

If you listen to it Malcolm sounds like a brainwashed member of a cult. Malcolm's position changed dramatically and that change cost him his life.

Even James Farmer's and Walker's stance changed, in hindsight.

Our failure to understand, learn and capitalize on these changes is our biggest problem, if you go around quoting Malcolm when he was still in the Nation we miss the whole point...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I totally agree with our needing to better understand, learn, and learn from these changes, I do not think that the whole point or even the majority of it escapes those who quote Malcolm while he was still in the Nation, because many of his viewpoints remained the same. I think it heavily depends on what type of material the person is quoting.

To quote Malcolm on say Dr. Yacub and neglect to mention that he had abandoned the promotion of this subject would seem to be an example of missing the point. However, for us to separate him into two parts with the first being his Elijah stage and his post Elijah stage and to say that Malcolm abandoned most of his thoughts in his Elijah stage would not be accurate.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waterstar sure many people who believe Yacub created the white race will also quote Malcolm on other issues. People pick and chose what supports their world view. In much the same way people abuse Christianity - using it to justify slavery and all manner of evil.

We can learn from Malcolm's growth and exceed it, but that has not happened. We have regressed. A leader like a Malcolm or a King would be impossible to emerge now. Those with the potential seem far too interested in accumulating wealth.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's definitely real@ pick and choose for convenience in both cases.

I think that the main reason that we have no learned from Malcolm's lessons is because we have never really studied Malcolm.

From T.Abetu's reviews

The author reflects on the enduring resolve of Malcolm X’s teachings despite numerous attempts to assassinate his political legacy

Opinion: The Myth of the Post-Mecca Malcolm X

Many people talk about Brother Malcolm after he made his pilgrimage to Mecca as if he did a 180 degrees turn from his ideas, opinions, and goals after doing such. This is very much inaccurate and it is not just inaccurate; it is pure trickery.

While it is definitely so that Brother Omowale El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, more popularly known as Malcolm X, made some drastic changes during this time, many would have us believe that the changes he made were in the direction of recounting, renouncing, and abandoning many of his beliefs and objectives in reference to liberation to primarily embrace the nonviolent struggle for civil rights in America as well as for the advocacy of world peace.

This was not at all the case. In fact, in an WBAI-FM interview with Harry Ring in 1965, Malcolm was questioned as to why he, to the disturbance of many white supporters of the Freedom-Now Movement, rejected the concept of nonviolence to which he replied: "Well, we think that when nonviolence is taught to the Ku Klux Klan or the White Citizens Council or these other elements that are inflicting extreme brutality against Blacks in this country, then we would accept it. If we're dealing with a nonviolent enemy, then we would be nonviolent, too. But as long as our people in this country have to face the continued acts of brutality on the part of the racist element in the North as well as in the South, then I don't think that we should be called upon to be nonviolent. When they'll get nonviolent, we'll get nonviolent."

Brother Malcolm, no doubt, involved himself fully in the struggle for human rights which he felt would, once attained, automatically guarantee his people civil rights as well. I am fully convinced that he, like many of us, would have loved a peaceful world, but the way that many people in books, on televisions, in day-to-day conversations, have said that Brother Malcolm had completely changed is beyond inaccurate; it is criminally untrue. While many have circulated this myth intentionally in the hopes that it would neutralize the carrying on of works of liberation, many have regurgitated this myth mostly based on simply not knowing anything about Malcolm's words, involvements, and objectives after he left Mecca (and quite possibly not knowing a lot about his words, involvements, and objectives before he went).

What is almost never mentioned about Brother Malcolm is perhaps the most important aspect of his post-Mecca life, because as he made his travels and links in Mama Africa, his already pan Africanist mind expanded tremendously and so did his ability to articulate and to set out clear pan Africanist objectives. When Brother Malcolm returned to America, he did so with a much more refined understanding of the global struggle for liberation; his mind had become much more internationalized.

He explained, “In 1964, oppressed people all over the world, in Africa, in Asia and Latin America, in the Caribbean, made some progress. Northern Rhodesia threw off the yoke of colonialism and became Zambia and was accepted into the United Nations, the society of independent governments. Nyasaland became Malawi and was also accepted into the UN, into the family of independent governments. Zanzibar had a revolution, threw out the colonialists and their lackeys, and then united with Tanganyika into what is not known as the Republic of Tanzania-which is progress indeed… Also in 1964 the oppressed people of South Vietnam, and in that entire Southeast Asia area, were successful in fighting off the legions of imperialism…And with all the highly mechanized weapons of warfare-jets, napalm, battleships, everything else- and they can’t put those rice farmers back where they want them.. ”2

Our problem has to be internationalized

Malcolm stood in solidarity with others around the globe who were fighting against imperialism and emphasized the importance of the exploited and oppressed masses to unite: “…When these people in these different areas begin to see that the problem is the same problem and when the 22 million Black Americans see that our problem is the same as the problem of the people who are being oppressed in South Vietnam and the Congo and Latin America, then the oppressed people of this earth make up a majority, not a minority. Then we approach our problem then as a majority that can demand, not as a minority that has to beg.”3

Brother Malcolm understood that there was a global battle, a resistance by the oppressed against their oppressors. He saw that the situation faced by his people in America was but a microcosm for the situation faced by his people in Africa and of the situation faced by the oppressed in Asia and Latin America. “...Our problem has to be internationalized. Now the African nations are speaking out and linking the problem of racism in Mississippi (The United States) with the problem of racism in the Congo and also the problem of racism in South Vietnam. It’s all part of the vicious racist system that the Western powers have used to continue to degrade and exploit and oppress the people in Africa and Asia and Latin America during recent centuries.”4

I tend to believe that most of what many of us know about Brother Malcolm is limited to what Spike Lee's movie showed and/or what other works or words in the media have portrayed. In America, many of our people do not speak about Malcolm. He is so demonized here in the United States, the same country where pirates like Christopher Columbus are praised, where slave holders like George Washington are revered. He is demonized in the same way that Marcus Garvey and countless others who have had the audacity to assert the right to self-determination and human dignity have been demonized.

All of this brings up perhaps a more important and more general point. All around the globe, we have been allowing others to pick our heroes and our villains for us for far too long. Only when we really grasp the realities of the problems that we face will we be in a position to even devise their solutions. It is imperative that we strive to break down the information that we encounter just as the body breaks down food before digesting it. We must read, search, and think for ourselves. It is imperative that we teach the children to do this; they are the carriers of the torch and our teaching is the number one factor in their deciding what they will do with that torch. If they throw the burning torch down, it might not only burn them but also many future generations to come.



1Interview by Harry Ring on Station WBAI-FM in New York, January 1965

2 Malcolm X, Speech at Militant Labor Forum on “Prospects for Freedom in 1965

3 Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary: Speeches, Interviews, and a Letter by Malcolm X (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1970), pp. 35-67.

4 Interview by Harry Ring on Station WBAI-FM in New York, January 1965

5 blackpast.org, Introduction to (and) Malcolm X at the Founding Rally of the OAAU, Audobon Ballroom, New York City, 1964

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that Malcolm is demonized here in America. Certainly Black people have never abandoned him. About 10 years ago, all the young brothers were even wearing caps with "M" for Malcolm on them. We still love Malcolm and are familiar with his legacy.

I continue to be amazed how White America has overlooked Muhammad Ali's checkered past and taken him to their bosom. And in my interactions, White people, in general, are a little vague about Malcolm, not seeming to have particularly hostile opinions if they have any at all. White historians don't villainize him and acknowledge that he broadened his perspective after his visit to Mecca. Maybe they don't aggrandize him, but do credit him with being a significant figure in the black struggle.

Louis Farrakhan is another story. He is disliked and feared by whites, especially Jews. Here in Chicago, however, he recently unleashed his Fruit of Islam brigade on the streets of Chicago in hopes that their presence would combat all of the killings that are going on in the black neighborhoods, and both the police chief and the mayor welcomed his help, almost groveling at his feet.

I wonder if the different slant we seem to have on things has something to do with our living in differents parts of the country, WaterStar. I know, I know, racism is just more subtle in the North but this often allowed Blacks to slip in through the back door. And altho you deny a generation gap, we seem to be a couple of decades apart with you being more focused on the past.

I know my black experience is different from a lot of people's because I lived in a bubble for about 5 years, completely removed from what was going on elsewhere as the the civil rights storm clouds began to gather in the early1950s. I resided in a quiet little interracial town where blacks and whites were very comfortable in their separate encaves, neither group feeling the need to challenge the status quo. I've always attended integrated schools, and I've never had a black teacher... I tell people all the time, that when I attended the overwhelmingly white University of Illinois, while Rosa Parks was being shunted to the back of the bus, I was living in a newly-integrated dorm, where we black coeds voluntarily chose to hang together, and when we all sat at the same table in the dining hall, we were waited on by white waiters and waitresses with twangy southern Illinois accents, and who never seemed to have a problem with serving us uppity niggras. Of course this was the calm before the storm, and things were different later when the nilitancy of the 1960s exploded on the scene.

Just some thoughts you might want to comment on.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with Malcolm's legacy not being a demonized one. Sure brothers and sisters were rocking "X" and "M" hats and tshirts all over the place when Spike Lee's movie about Malcolm X came out, but that does not take away from the campaign to tarnish the image of Malcolm neither during his life nor in his death. When the movie "Panther" came out, brothers and sisters were rocking shirts with pictures of Huey Newton or Angela Davis or buttons with "Panther" all over the place, too. That does not take away from the campaign to tarnish the image the panthers neither then nor now in the continued negative information about these brothers and sisters who, just like Malcolm X, the panthers, the Black Liberation Army, etc. were targeted, harassed, tortured,, framed, jailed, and in many cases killed by the state. These people were branded "militants" and that brand was associated with negativity in the past and it is associated with negativity in the present. Take for example the "militants" in Syria. When this is said by journalists and politicians, what are the images this conjures up in the minds of people in America?

In the minds of many people who live in America, Malcolm is seen as a "racist man who encouraged hatred" and these sentiments are not only held by white people, not by a long shot. It is different with many about Martin Luther King Jr., because many of many different backgrounds revere him. The case is dramatically different with Malcolm X. I notice that a lot of our people distance themselves from Malcolm. Not even in Malcolm's death are black people in America free enough to openly proclaim their appreciation of Malcolm X's contributions. Malcolm is just not one of those "safe" topics. Malcolm X's name has and continues to have a stigma that Martin Luther King's name just does not have. The civil rights struggle in general just does not have the same stigma that the liberation struggle has and that is so from past to present. It does not matter that many who were fighting for civil rights have extensive files on them just like those in the liberation struggle.

What you interpret as my focusing on the past can be summed up in this quote:

The events which transpired five thousand years ago; Five years ago or five minutes ago, have determined what will happen five minutes from now; five years From now or five thousand years from now. All history is a current event."

Dr. John Henrik Clarke

The generations are something. Think of a how a heirloom can be handed down from generation to generation. An elder can hand down an heirloom which is precious to him, one which came from the elders before him. The continuity of this depends upon the younger generations and the generations not yet born. The care will determine its continuity or its discontinuance. There are some of us of the younger generations who will inherit the heirloom and sell it just as quickly as we get our hands on it because it doesn't mean that much. Some of us will think so little of it that we will be see something that we want while window shopping that we can't afford yet say, "Oh wait. If I pawned that thing, I can get it!" and just like that, it's out of our hands. Then there are some of us who will guard and polish the heirloom. We take value it highly and take good care of it because we are looking at it as did our elders, as something to be handed down from generation to generation and we strive to teach those who are younger than us about the value of the heirloom and the instructions for its care so that when it is in their hands they will pass it on in the same way, so that they will carry it on. Some of us are the abandoners of things and some of us are the keepers.

The different slant that we have on things is not just about our living in different parts of the country. This is not the only place that I have lived and it is certainly not the only place in which people that I love and am concerned with live. It is my opinion that the American south is just really a microcosm for geopolitics. If one can understand the dynamics of southern fried capitalism and its governing politics, then surely one can understand the dynamics of world class capitalism and its governing politics. I think that in the American North and the American South, we don't often realize that we are eating variations of the same meal and bigger than that, all over this globe, we are eating different versions of the same meal.

I can understand how your living in a bubble and being removed from certain things can make certain things foreign or at least kind of distant to you. We all bring our backgrounds wherever we go and though the schema of an individual is not always known, its importance should always be kept in mind. I came up a certain way, marinated in certain things that probably often make me see things different than some just like the next person came up a certain way, marinated in certain things that probably make him/her see things different from myself or the other person next to him/her. All in all though, I feel that a difference of methods does not automatically constitute a difference in objectives. I believe that many individuals and groups have been separated by differences that became dichotomies.

Differences don't have to be dichotomies. If I have no religion and the sister who is a christian sees things re: religion totally different from me, does that make her anything less than my sister? No, absolutely not. On the contrary, if she feels differently about that, that is nothing that I can help, but in such an event, I did not make the situation into a dichotomy, she did. I feel that the so called "generation gap" often comes with the same possibility. Even if I am a friendly and respectful person who is 17 with my pants hangin on the ground and you are 63 and you don't speak to me because my pants are hanging on the ground, I can't make you abandon your thought process and therefore I cannot keep you from making our differences into a dichotomy.

Let me leave you with this. About a month ago, I was on a different continent and while I was there, I met a brother who spoke very little of my primary language and I spoke very little of his primary language. However, instead of using these differences as a "barrier", we worked together, using the fragments that we 'did' have and with the sincerity along with the patience that we had with one another along with the genuine aim of building with each other for the betterment of our people, we built a bridge and not a wall. I was able to learn from him and he was able to learn from me though the languages that we spoke were different. In my eyes and in my heart, he is my brother. In his eyes and in his heart, I am his sister. Differences in languages cannot change that. In a situation similar to this, two can just as easily use the differences in languages as a wall, a "barrier" to communication.

All this to say that differences in languages cannot change the fact that my brother is my brother, Your age could never change the fact that you are my sister. This is so for you or any brother or sister.

Language might not be universal, but love and sincerity are.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Chicago, the third largest city in America and arguably still one of the more segregated ones, has a city college named after Malcolm X which means this is not a private school but a public taxpayer-funded one. I dare say that just as you will find streets named after MLK all over America, you will also find all kinds of little centers and schools and societies containing the name Malcolm X, and "demonized" is hardly the word to characterize white indifference to this situation. And I can truly say that I've never met a black person who bad-mouthed Malcolm X.

Like I said, white Americans forgave the blabber-mouthed Muhammad Ali for his embracing the teachings of Elijah Muhammad and for being a draft dodger and for scolding the white race while being color-conscious, himself, preferring light-skinned women, and also for calling Joe Fraizer a "monkey" and, as I see it, they do not begrudge Malcom X his politics, shrugging rather than scowling over them. Also the recent Pulitzer prize winning biography of Malcolm is out there, available for anyone who wants a more in depth look at this man.

The Black Panthers advocated "bringin-down-this-mutha revolution" but their infra-structure left a lot to be desired what with how misygonistic and drug-prone the members were. Just ask Katheen Cleaver. Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver both ended up the pathetic victims of their own erratic shortcomings. Co-founder Bobby Seale joined "The Establishment" and seems to look back on his Panther days with amusement. Angela Davis is as much a fashionista as she is a college professor, still identifying herself as a Communist while enjoying the fruits of Capitalism. Bobby Rush, the Minister of Defense in the Illinois Black Panther Party is now a pious preacher in addition to being an Illinois congressman who handed Barack Obama a stunning defeat when he ran against him for this office. And, incidentaly, the late Illinois Black Panther Party chairman, Fred Hampton, has a swimming pool named after him in his and my hometown, where outside a bust of him is perched with a plaque honoring his efforts to have this facility installed. Yes, the Panthers initiated free breakfasts progams for young school children, and defied the uniformed pigs, and had great slogans like "all power to the people" and projected very impressive images with their black berets and raised fists, but their chief accomplishment was panicking J. Edgar Hoover who took them a lot more seriously than the brothers in the street who knew that all of their posturing would be no match for America's firepower. Today they are remembered as being "cool" hotheads but who, for all their efforts, never eliminated racial profiling.

Everybody gives lip-service to the importance of history but this is the "right now" age which espouses the idea that dwelling on the past has its place in a classroom, but the arena of the real world is where life in the present has to be confronted.

So, WaterStar, once again our views are different, but the window of life has many panes, and I'd be the first to agree with you about language, having previously reminded that it's what transcends language that can be the best communcator because actions often speak louder than words.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are the yin to each other's yang, WaterStar. :wacko: Together we become a single entity that, if nothing else, - makes things interesting, :unsure:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to think that it's about balance, reciprocity.

The older generations have things to offer that the younger generations cannot provide and the older generations have things to offer that the younger generations cannot provide. I don't see this concept being promoted as much as I see the "older generations vs, the younger generations". Even, generally speaking, in terms of the differences of views, I don't see how our all having pieces of the bigger puzzle is being promoted as much as the dichotomy based on our differences of views is being promoted. Why should our differences be seen more as a source of disharmony than elements of balance?

It can be likened to the "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" type thing. I do not play into this concept. When the basic essentials of life are not held sacred, what really remains sacred? To me, anti-woman male chauvinism is ridiculous because even the most misogynistic man came from a woman. To me, anti-man feminism is equally ridiculous because even the staunchest feminist and all any feminist that she could possibly admire would not be here if it were not for a man.

As has been mentioned previously, background is often very important, because not all people see things in the same way. I was brought up by communally oriented people who emphasized always the importance of interdependence. As my elders would say "No man is an island." Everyone, no matter how big or how small was important. At the same time, my people were committed to the concept of autonomy/self-reliance/self -determination in terms of the collective. So, I was taught that it wasn't just about me, that it was about the collective.

Selfishness, even from young, was betrayal. Neither money nor the myriad of privileges/amenities that it could provide was ever allowed to be our god. So whether it was selling dope while killing our people in the process or making political choices to advance as individual while selling out our people, it was frowned upon. The people over the self, rule not an exception.It didn't have to be beaten into us as younger people any more than salt has to be beaten into a potato that is in stew. Even talents, skills, and career decisions were more than just an "individual" thing. My peope/are about the fundamentals of nation building. Individuality was definitely encouraged and nurtured but never the concept of rigid individualism. "One hand washes the other, both hands wash the face./"I am because we are". These things might seem unnecessary or even foreign to many, but not to me in the least. Of course, I could have abandoned these things at any time, yet I've never had any interest in doing so.

So to make a long story shorter, we all have building blocks and those things above are some of mine. .My mentality is that nothing that divides us is good for the collective. Not the male vs. female thing, not the generation gap thing, not the classism thing, etc. There is strength in unity, there is destruction in division.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is what unites us necessarily good for the collective. It all depends. Life is too full of variables to totally embrace a philosophy that is the mantra of those who are seeking revenge for the past.

Determining what's good for the common collective is a slippery slope when defined by paternalistic, self-serving leaders, as illustrated by the German people during HItler's era.

Many roads lead to a goal; those who prefer a lock-step cookie-cutter approach have tunnel vision and are lacking in flexibility. :rolleyes:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there are groups who are united in bringing down a historical enemy in revenge for the past. That's the motivation of the Islamic Jehad against Christianity, and variations of this theme permeated the mindset of militants who considered "whitey" their foe.

And. one person's truth can be another person's falsehood. You call for greater "autonomy" and "solidarity", words which bring "automatons" with a "sheep mentality" to my mind. Leaders never want dissidents in their ranks because they dilute the power that eventually corrupts those in charge.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we see things differently is not so much an indication of disunity as it is diversity, WaterStar. People of color who fall under the black umbrella run the gamut of types. In your subliminal goal of controlling their minds, you like to refer to them as "we" or "us" but they don't all choose to be on your team or share your passion. If your cause was more compelling perhaps they would. You want them to congeal into a mass who, lumped together, can rise. But others are not encouraged by this overweight aspiration, skeptical perhaps about the tribulations of Barack Obama, the paragon that unity created, but who fares better as an individual that ignores his own kind. He is the result of the solidarity that you advocate, even as you chose not to support him with your vote and approve of the idea that Blacks divide their political loyalities by infiltrating the Republican party. It's complicated.

But that's how it goes. You are an idealist and I am a pragmatist. And the future is gonna do what it does. -_-

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we done now? This dead horse is beyond being beaten death. I just wish your "indifference" entailed shorter posts. And I'm troubled by your frequent references to suicide, Waterstar. Stay away from guns. In the hands of the wrong people they can be disatrous. :o

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...