There
are many layers to affirmative action, alluvial deposits left
by The Great Crime: slavery. In our exceptionally well circulated
May 15 Cover Story, "The
Jayson Blair - New York Times Affair: Affirmative action blamed
for white folks' mistakes," we wrote:
Yes,
there is something inherently wrong with affirmative
action as practiced in the United States and at The New
York Times: white people still make all the decisions. The
perpetrators of the historical crime, the people whose delusional
worldviews created the societal distortions that plague
Black America in the first place - the same people that
make the New York Times an unfit interpreter of reality
- remain the arbiters of societal standards, values, and
hiring. They decide what is "Fit to Print," and
who is fit to engage in the process. Let them live with
their choice of Jayson Blair - that's white folks' business.
When
we first encountered the NYT-Blair affair, we recoiled; it
had that musty smell of an old Ebony magazine, sitting there
demanding that we take up a collective defense of the
white folk's erstwhile choice for the next Black journalistic
"role model" gone awry - a choice we had nothing
to do with, made by people whom we do not respect.
Beneath
the sediment lays an essential truth: White people cannot
be trusted to create the antidote for their own poison. When
white people construct affirmative action policies to suit
their own purposes, affirmative action failures must be viewed
as white failures. Black people as a group have nothing to
do with this state of affairs.
But
of course, we must live with the consequences of the decisions
of the New York Times' and other, essentially hostile institutions.
Somehow, we must navigate the swamp created when the heirs
of men who made Blacks beasts of burden attempt to further
burden the offspring of the slave, hitching Black fortunes
to white folks' never ending follies and blaming us for the
inevitable results.
In
the Blair case, we see that the Gray Lady's brand of affirmative
action elevates the type of Black person who suits the fancy
of executive editor Howell Raines, the white "liberal"
from Alabama, and the paper's founding Sulzburger family.
This supremely subjective environment may be a fertile field
for many white candidates, but it produces strange Black fruit,
indeed.
Situated
at the pinnacle of pretense, the New York Times styles itself
both arbiter and exemplar of excellence. If we buy into that
lie, it follows that Black excellence must also be judged
by Timesian standards. Those who swallow the potion consign
themselves to perpetual hollowness. Too many African Americans
in the corporate world revel in a role similar to that of
General Custer's Black Foot Indian scouts, all the while proclaiming
themselves proud warriors ("role models") for the
race.
With
this in mind, 
found no reason last week to point out that the managing editor
of the Times, Gerald Boyd, is Black. Boyd "manages"
to allow all manner of racist skullduggery to occur on his
watch. (It's all his watch, we are led to believe, at least
when the Times is anxious to demonstrate that it has changed
its racist ways.) Boyd allowed Times political pet Adam Nagourney
to get away with a lily-white analysis of the South Carolina
Democratic candidates debate. Nagourney, a Timesman in very
good standing, pretended that the entire "third tier"
of presidential hopefuls (Sharpton, Moseley-Braun and Kucinich)
was absent.
is forced to conclude that, for Black purposes, Gerald Boyd
is absent.
supports affirmative action. However, do not invest the process
with magical properties. Especially in the corporate world,
the beneficiaries are - as often as not - men and women whose
most concentrated talents lie in currying white favor. Fawning
careerists have value to themselves and their direct dependents,
but they are useless to the group as a whole. In the end,
they cannot even save themselves, much less the Jayson Blairs.
Dignity
is derived from a well-grounded sense of self. Leadership
flowers in struggle.
Ella
Baccouche has dignity in abundance. And she's smart, too.
I
love your argument concerning white folks' notion of institutional
"standards." You put that particular tenet in
perspective, enabling us to see those monocultural reference
points for what they really are, racist. Safire's remark
about the "rigorous editing" at the NY Times was
just a little deceptive. Come on! Does he expect us to believe
that the one-sided worldview, whitewashed, sanitized, censored
reports coming from their embedded, often delusional, journalists
posted throughout the world have actually gone through some
kind of rigorous editing process? Pleeease! Does he deny
that the NY Times consistently undermines democracy by eliminating
unwanted voices from their reports?
Take
the example you cited of Rev. Al Sharpton's absence from
Nagourney's report. Mr. Safire, the NY Times cannot compare
itself to independent and democratic news sources in the
world. One thing is for sure. You can always depend on the
Times op-ed articles to cheerlead for US hegemony. And that
slogan, "All the News that's Fit to Print", is
just another way of saying, "All the News that Fits
Our Agenda and Our Paradigm", regardless of its truth
value.
Yes,
I agree that Blair is an authentic Timesman. In his eagerness
to assimilate into the white corporate world, he, like his
white counterparts, has forgotten his journalistic oath
by lying to the public and by not checking and rechecking
the veracity of his sources. But, on top of that, he apparently
didn't heed the cardinal rule that obligates the house Negro
to do as the Master says, not as the Master does.
I
have one comment about the Malcolm X speech. Malcolm is
so contemporary and right on point. However, his request
about the US government giving us land and wealth is unlikely
to happen because Blacks are a crucial part of the system.
The system cannot tolerate non-white independence. (Haiti,
Cuba) They need the black masses to exploit. (i.e., poverty,
survival and miseducation of black children; overwhelming
joblessness and incarceration of African Americans) Blacks
must remain in the "belly of the Beast" because
exploitation and racism mean huge profits. And for these
profits to materialize, the white political operatives in
Washington have again (see Malcolm's BIG SIX) selected and
successfully recruited the likes of Colin Powel, Condoleezza
Rice, [Washington, DC] Mayor Anthony Williams, Justice Clarence
Thomas among others who have demonstrated again and again
that they have no scruples about selling us field Negroes
down the river.
Ben
Tripp is a cartoonist, essayist and playwrite. Here's his
review of the drama at the Times:
As
ever, your analysis of events from the black perspective
is greatly illuminating, which just goes to show that the
dark lantern is making a comeback (canned laughter here).
I am particularly struck by your take on the Jayson Blair
fiasco at the New York Times. Here is how this bwana saw
the grotesque attack/apology set forth by the editors:
-
First, I was astonished that The Times
would apologize for something it could more easily hush
up.
-
Second, it seemed incredible to me that an establishment
paper would let a cub reporter run rampant in this fashion,
as alleged. I assumed (being naive and idealistic) that
the editors routinely checked the facts in their pieces
and only allowed the officially sanctioned errors to
get through.
- Third,
I saw the large photo of the accused and was very surprised
that they ran such a big picture of him. Like he was
a fugitive, or something.
- Fourth,
it occurred to me that same Jayson must have been completely
out of the editorial loop, and I wondered why. Didn't
they ever have staff meetings? Annual reviews? Didn't
he have a relationship with anybody at the paper?
- Finally,
reflecting on the overlong article itself, which was
redolent of garment-rending and mea culpas, I began
to wonder how much of the alleged misbehavior arose
from sheer opportunity: if The Times ignored me like
they ignored him, God only knows what I might get up
to. Mischief abhors a vacuum. He might be guilty of
the sins detailed in the article, but why the hell not?
It was working for him.
But
I never quite connected the story with his race. Seen in
that context, the anomalies begin to make sense. Your analysis
of the situation reveals what this congenital whitey couldn't
see for himself.
-
The huge apology becomes clear. Jayson Blair was an
affirmative action hood ornament, not a reporter. One
can imagine the editors fielding complaints about his
work: "we can't censure him, he's ... well, we
just can't." So when it came time to pillory the
man, they did so at incredible length and with excruciating
detail - just to make damn sure it's understood that
they had to dismiss him, it wasn't just racism
or anything. A "black eye," indeed.
-
Suddenly the large picture of the accused makes sense,
too. Like that infamous Newsweek cover of OJ Simpson.
"Is he guilty? Just look at him!" The
term 'uppity negro' need never be spoken.
-
And of course the editors couldn't have identified his
merits (or lack thereof) independent of his race, because
in truth there is no such independence. Naturally the
editors didn't check his work - they probably didn't
even read it. I'm sure they feel he just reverted to
type. At least Bob Herbert is civilized.
But
the clincher is in the comparison you make to Adam Nagourney's
on-message, official-version account of the Democratic debate.
What a stupendous oversight at the very least not to mention
the dark horse candidates, so to speak. One suspects however
that this was not an oversight but a deliberate omission.
And in context of the standards belatedly applied to Jayson
Blair, such an omission ought be grounds for dismissal,
particularly if The Times gives a damn about racial parity
or editorial purity.
Nagourney
is presumably a white man, and I'll bet he lunches with
the editors on occasion. They read his work and check his
sources and they like what they see. He's not out of the
loop. But then, neither is Jayson Blair.
Guilty
or not, he's in a different loop, attached to the end of
a stout rope.
Carol
D. Tart is distracted by neither the Times' crocodile tears
nor the yelps of Hard Right hyenas. Somewhere in the middle
of the tale, there's the question of power.
Who
cares what the anti-affirmative action pundits have to say
about Jayson Blair? Who cares what a black Republican, like
Armstrong Williams, has to say? And who the heck cares about
black people who have truly missed the mark on this subject.
On the surface, it seems that Blair has become the poster
boy who has signaled the end of Civil Rights Movement
and We Shall Overcome addictions and the experimental
results of affirmative action. But, looking deeper, Blair
put a spin on the world that will wreak havoc for years
to come. And, he created, supposedly, most of his stories
from his home. Genius. WOW!
It is obvious Blair did something that
most journalists, in particular blacks, have been unable
to do: He wagged the dog. If you don't know what I mean,
rent the video and then take a class in Thinkology.
The information he reported, whether plagiarized, embellished,
or made up, if you read the New York Times, it was legitimized.
Furthermore, since the New York Times is the most respected
newspaper in the world, what other media forums incorporated
his articles in their reporting of the news? Just like Richard
Nixon, Jayson Blair is a bad mamma-jamma! (This has nothing
to do with political ideology, but everything to do with
the love of power.)
A
matter of supremacy
Black
failure is permanent, indelible. White failure is just another
excuse for a sequel, writes Margaret Kimberley.
When
all is said and done, the controversy over Jayson Blair
is all about white supremacy. At this late date in history
many white people believe that black people do not belong
in certain places, such as the NY Times newsroom. If we
fail when we step out of our "place" our faults
are magnified and we are punished forever.
Do
you remember the case of Mike Barnicle? He is the former
Boston Globe reporter who was accused of plagiarism and
lying for years before he was finally fired. The question
of race should have been asked of him. Did being white and
in the old boys network help him? By the way, he is still
working as a syndicated columnist and as a commentator on
MSNBC. What are the odds of Blair being employed in journalism
again? Hopefully he will have the same second chance that
Barnicle had. I must add that I am not holding my breath.
Black
folks have been relegated to the shadows for so long that
we sometimes forget we are not the only people made invisible
by the New York Times and its ilk. Rhoda Shapiro, of Encinitas,
California, writes:
I
was astonished this Sunday to find four and some full pages
to Jayson Blair's 'betrayal' of the NYT. Your response made
the Times racism crystal clear. And yes, all the news that's
fit to print is the way they see fit to frame it. Adam Nagourney's
articles are only the tip of the iceberg. They make people
disappear all the time, simply by either not covering stories
fully or framing them from their own point of view.
Note
how they cover the Zionist occupation of Palestine. They
would never use that phrase, since they are so tied up in
the Zionist project themselves. No story on Palestine and
Palestinians is ever covered from the point of view of the
occupied. Mostly they ignore the daily murders, home demolitions
and now the 'transfer' of Arab peoples out of 'their' land.
Never are Zionists brought to task about how many times
they have thumbed their nose at the law of world bodies,
beginning from Israel's imposition on the Arab world, through
the refusal to allow refugees to return to their homes,
to collective punishment, ethnic cleansing and the deliberate
murder of young children. Never mind even considering the
legitimacy of another European settler state ....
To
me the Blair episode revealed the cynicism and ruthlessness
of capitalist white men. This has happened before at NYT
and I'm sure it happens all the time at every establishment
media outlet. After all they could have fired him as soon
as his methods of work became apparent. It happens every
day. But they waited. Made an example of Blair. They sat
on this story until they figured out how to make it seem
like it didn't have anything to do with racism. And framed
the story so that he takes the hit for the real betrayals
by the NYT of its readers.
Thank
you for your always lucid analysis.
With
millions out of work, it is difficult to justify all of the
concern over one 27-year-old, university-educated, single
man who has not sacrificed a thing - to our knowledge - in
the service of others. We are, therefore, glad to hear from
a brown brother in a blue collar, Joseph Osorio.
Your
article re: Jayson Blair was excellent, and had some replies
I can use. I was an affirmative action hire by the phone
company years ago. Fortunately for me, I have been able
to hang on though laid off twice. Funny thing how the groups
I was in that got laid off were all brown but probably just
a coincidence, right? Good news too about Sharpton likely
to place high in South Carolina. I'll vote for him if given
a chance.
Since
the Times makes such a spectacle of self-love, we should be
reminded of the newspaper's and the rest of the corporate
media's orgy of embeddedness with the U.S. military. Leroy
Wilson, Jr. won't let us forget that episode - one that will
sooner or later be repeated.
Do
those who profess to be appalled by the Jayson Blair scandal
express the same sense of betrayal about reporters who were
embedded in Iraq? Do they honestly believe that the embedded
reporters filed absolutely true, complete and accurate reports
about the military who were responsible for protecting their
lives? Somebody out there knows the answer to this question.
What is it?
We
assume Mr. Jones meant that as a rhetorical question.
Many
immigrants to the United States now fear to ask public questions
of any kind. This writer asked that we refer to him only as
"Eyes Opened" - signifying the way he sees the world.
Jayson
Blair's actions were fraudulent. However the circumstances
that made his actions possible are typical of the African-American
experience in corporate America. If the purpose of employment
is to achieve, it is only possible by distinguishing ones
performance within the purpose of the organization. As pointed
out in your article, it is unfortunate that prevailing perceptions
place a disproportionately immense burden on African Americans
to prove that they actually do bring assets that are of
value to the organization.
Astoundingly,
it is often those assets that are of most value to the organization
that are the most difficult to establish by the African
American individual.
Robert
E. Reynolds, Orange Park, Florida says there's a piece missing
from this puzzle.
I
understand your point of view in the article and pretty
much agree with the general theme.
But
- no one has heard Jayson Blair's side of the story. The
extent of the effort by the Times to thoroughly discredit
Blair, 4 full pages in the print edition, 10 pages on the
Internet, is certainly all out of proportion. Further, they
set up a special web address to receive new complaints about
Blair.
Does
this make any sense to you? Does it smell right to you?
Could
it be that the NY Times is running a diversion campaign
to deflect criticism of other reporters? Questions have
been raised about Judith Miller and her reports from the
Middle East. She has been tied to Daniel Pipes and others
with what some of us consider extremist views. The Drudge
Report hints that there are two others under investigation.
It
should never be forgotten that the NY Times, along with
the Washington Post and the LA Times, led the attacks on
Gary Webb and the San Jose Mercury for the CIA and Drugs
series. They made allegations against Webb and the Mercury
that were untrue. It destroyed Webb's career.
I'd
like to hear Blair's side of the story. Even if what the
Times claims is true that doesn't mean that there isn't
more to this story. Perhaps he became a threat for reasons
unknown.
The
one thing that is clear is that the attacks on him are disproportionate
to the alleged crime. Maybe they are just overreacting,
maybe not.
Cocaine
traffic buster Gary Webb is no longer a corporate journalist,
but he doesn't labor in obscurity, either. His "Dark
Alliance" site has hosted 26,000 visitors in search
of the truth about the CIA and the crack cocaine explosion
in inner city America.
Ric
Dodson sees intellectual corruption at the Times as symptomatic
of a deeper rot.
I
would like to offer my thanks and support to your very lucid
depiction of reality as it exists at the NY Times and, unfortunately,
many of the institutions in this nation.
Your
article was refreshing, insightful, factual and timely in
this nation, which continues to lose its way and disintegrate.
Your
article succinctly juxtaposed the inequitable standards
of many US institutions and the follies of such institutionalized
policies being administered by some of the most incompetent
and biased individuals on the entire planet.
At
a time when most US residents (citizens and others) are
petrified of the regressive regime in Washington D.C. and
its collusive minions, it is comforting to know that there
are some of us who have the courage to illustrate critical
thinking in an intellectual but comprehensible manner, such
as your article.
Unless
the residents of this nation recapture our government, regrettably,
this nation is doomed.
If
I may add, we need not fear the so-called terrorist from
abroad - our home-grown "decepticons" are doing
a yeoman's job at destroying what existed of this nations
fabric, one thread at a time.
Thank
you for the insightful discourse.
"Prismatic"
stuff!
Jesse
Elam reports that the monochrome corporate media culture also
reigns in his city, Vancouver, Washington.
Your
piece was sizzling and prismatic: it split out dimensions
of racism in institutions to which most white folks, including
myself, would never have opened their eyes. I'm sorry it
all happened, but I couldn't wish for a fallman more deserving
than that doddering bluestocking of a paper.
In
the specific case of the Times, the newsroom could recognize
(as none of our commercial news outlets have) that having
an all- or mostly-white staff of reporters will inevitably
slant the news, but that would mean giving up the front
that objectivity ensures the race of the reporter doesn't
matter. (The Times would recognize that in order to chop
away bias, paradoxically, they'd need to admit to themselves
that they aren't objective.) Beyond the Times, in other
businesses and institutions, the internal incentive may
not be there. Few businesses, arguably, have a product that
manifests the race of its manufacturer. Would they require
legal compulsion or shame, the same less-than-moral mechanisms
employed during active integration, to change?
If
the news is to be distributed justly, it can't be news by
and for whites only, and that seems to me the ineluctable
outcome of a pale newsroom. This approach sidesteps equitable
hiring for its own sake and talks about the "good reasons"
for hiring people of certain races. Ultimately those good
reasons also have to do with justice, but justice across
the whole society, getting whites' minds off the individual
hire. Thus they can stop sputtering about how this is a
meritocracy and that one has to "deserve" to be
hired. Maybe then the sanctimonious white reaction can be
avoided - the lines that whites got their positions by their
cultivated merits, not by native traits; or that it's unfair
for whites to have to give up their spots for disadvantaged
races so they can become "advantaged."
As
the
article well points out, the NYT puffs up in its security
that it sets the standards, that blacks don't meet them,
and that blacks don't deserve desks there. And it has a
flawed character in Jayson Blair as a fait accompli. But
given the lapses or outright whitewashings in the Times
that the
article also noses out, the NYT's standards aren't in shape.
The lesson for the Times should be that, among other things,
it vitally needs non-whites on-board.
The
good judgment of persons we don't know brought us in contact
with W.S. Tkweme, who wrote that he also passed the Blair
commentary along to people he respects.
Someone
sent this to me last week, and I found it to be one of the
best pieces of commentary I have read in a long time. You
all are to be congratulated heartily. Please keep it up
and best wishes.
Dr.
Donald Blais, ThD scared us for a second when we opened his
letter. Dr. Blais (Penobscot-Metis) is a lecturer in Aboriginal
spirituality and Christian colonial history, Department of
Religion, University of Toronto.
Ahneen!
This little Canadian 'savage' couldn't
have said it better than you did. Only that I'm 'jealous'
that you did it rather than I, that is, giving the Times
a well-deserved kick to the backside. Now, if you could
just kick again, a little up higher, you might in the process
give the Times the hit upside the head that they need. (Hehehe.)
But, that would mean that you would have to put your foot
part way up the Times' ass. Well, so be it!
Any ways. Enjoy your site; check it out
occasionally. Caught this on Counterpunch, though.
Going to print up the article for my reader
in Aboriginal Studies for the Fall, because its one of the
most succinct articles written on how white privilege works,
of which I've seen of late. I think my Native students will
get the point quickly. Got to get back to preparing for
tomorrow's lectures on decolonizing Christianity.
It
turns out that "Ahneen!" means "Greetings"
in Penobscot. "Hehehe" is untranslatable.
Counterpunch.com
editors Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn published
our piece on Blair two days before we did - a good thing,
allowing us to catch the flavor of their worldwide audience.
Peter Kaslik is Hungarian Human Rights Monitor in Cambridge,
Ontario.
Congratulations,
and thanks for your superb article. The following excerpt
from your piece may serve very well as the quote of the
decades, past, and future:
"The
starting point of American racism is the assumption that
white people and their institutions represent the proper,
normative standards against which all other people and institutions
are judged".
It
should be posted all over the land. Keep up the great work!
Kevin
Stiers, of Hamburg, Germany, appears to have learned his English
from - the English.
Hear
hear!
I never really thought about it, but affirmative
action in the wrong hands is of course doomed to have all
the flaws you would otherwise expect from such an ultra-responsible,
"truth-loving" organization as the NYT.
Thanks for your cogent and informative
expose.
Note
the British-style sarcasm employed by Mr. Stiers. We at
appreciate all cultural manifestations of contempt for the
newspaper that claims to have copyrighted objectivity, but
dispenses paeans to Power, instead. Or, to paraphrase Napoleon's
humiliation of Talleyrand, "The New York Times is shit
- in a silk stocking."
With
that, we have completed our segue to a letter from Philippe
Dambournet, of Paris.
I
agree with the root points of your article. One really effective
comparison you could use is with William Safire, whose own
lies, distortions, and inaccuracies are having a huge impact.
He gets a free pass, even though he's been exposed by Barry
Lando in Le Monde and on TomPaine.com. Even the man who
vetted him for the Nixon White House calls him names. But
not the New York Times - whose Bob Herbert is a wonderful
columnist, by the way.
Now
here's an anecdote: I read Herbert for quite a while assuming
he was white. Then I saw his picture. I had to adjust. Not
because I thought he was therefore less talented or interesting,
but because I had to recompute where he came from. The messenger
is part of the message, it's a package. We are all decrypting
what comes out in one variation or another of that mode.
On the other hand, if you are one of those who can only
trust, respect, or love those who most closely resemble
them physically, you are engaging in a variation of incest.
There
is no question that Bob Herbert is an excellent journalist
and an honorable man. For two years he refused to allow the
Times' readership to forget the atrocity against the Black
population of Tulia, Texas. Herbert elevates the Times - not
the other way around.
We
saved the last Blair-NYT comment for Ernest Allen, Jr. a professor
at the W. E. B. Du Bois Department of Afro-American Studies,
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Professor Allen's
note is shorter than our buildup to it. However, we are aware
that Allen was busy marking papers when
arrived in his mailbox, just like so many of our readers in
academe. Nevertheless, Prof. Allen took time to offer a critique:
Excellent!
Right on the money!!
Thank,
sir.
Slow
motion overthrow in Haiti
2004
marks the 200th anniversary of the establishment of Haiti
as the world's first Black republic. The Bush men would like
to be there for the occasion - in place of the popularly elected
government. All signs indicate that Washington has set lose
the dogs of the former military regime, who operate with near-impunity
from their sanctuaries in the neighboring Dominican Republic.
As
reported in last week's issue, it has become clear that the
"U.S.
plots 'regime change' in Haiti":
Supporters
of Jean-Bertrand Aristide's government are convinced that
the U.S. has decided to do a "regime change" in
Haiti before the world's first Black Republic celebrates
its 200th anniversary, in 2004. Frustrated that a three-year,
American-led aid embargo against Haiti has failed to topple
the popularly elected Aristide, the Bush men are escalating
their proxy terror campaign against Lavalas party activists
and the island nation's fragile infrastructure, all the
while threatening to further strangle the economy.
We
also noted the rightwing campaign to pressure MCI to fire
actor Danny Glover as its advertising spokesperson. Glover
is board chairman of TransAfrica Forum, which vigorously opposes
U.S. policies in Haiti.
We
got this letter from a reader named Nadege.
Thank
you so much for your timely and honest article on Haiti
and Danny Glover. The Haitian people need all the help we
can get. We must stand for justice.
"Chickens
Come Home To Roost"
May
19th was the birthday of Malcolm X - El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz,
who would have been 78 years old. We marked the occasion by
publishing his December 4, 1963 speech commonly known as "The
Chickens Come Home To Roost," edited by former assistant
minister Benjamin Karim. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad silenced
his top spokesman shortly after the speech. Thus, it was Malcolm's
last major address as a member of the Nation of Islam. Here's
an excerpt:
"If
we are a part of America, then part of what she is worth
belongs to us. We will take our share and depart, then this
white country can have peace. What is her net worth? Give
us our share in gold and silver and let us depart and go
back to our homeland in peace.
We
want no integration with this wicked race that enslaved
us. We want complete separation from this race of devils.
But we should not be expected to leave America and go back
to our homeland empty-handed. After four hundred years of
slave labor, we have some back pay coming, a bill owed to
us that must be collected.
If
the government of White America truly repents of its sins
against our people, and atones by giving us our true share,
only then can America save herself!"
R.
W. Stamper, Sr. appreciated seeing Malcolm's words in print:
The
day of the fulfillment of Malcolm's preaching of the Messenger's
words calling for a separate territory of rich and fertile
land, a generation of maintenance until viability and the
separation of the races, in short, reparations, is being
accelerated by the reparations movement. Reparation means
separation.
After
the Civil War Black people were conscripted into American
citizenship without our consent. No plebiscite, national
referendum or inquiry of any kind was taken among us. Those
of us who choose to depart from the oppressor realize that
no peace or justice is possible living among the European,
that he is and shall remain a thief, a liar and a murderer.
Thus, reparation necessarily means separation.
The
most important aspect of the reparations movement is (1)
the instillation in us of the consciousness of the debt
America owes us, (2) the hopelessness of peaceful integration
with the European, and above all (3) the development of
a sufficient number of Black minds, a critical mass, who
realize that separation is the only solution, who can will
that reality into existence; in other words, a nommo
type of reality creation.
The
printing of Malcolm's words is a significant contribution
to this necessary aspect of the struggle. The divinities
and the ancestors await our mass awakening, poised to intervene,
empower and aid us in our righteous struggle.
Black
Children in Poverty
Since
George Bush snatched the keys to the White House, the number
of Black children in extreme poverty has risen 50 percent,
as if a trap door had opened beneath the feet of a condemned
generation. In our May 8 Cover Story, "Bush's
Harvest of Shame," we wrote that "the Bush men
celebrate every step that is taken in the forced march to
a society of vast inequalities, spreading squalor, and premature
death."
Such
people cannot be moved by appeals to conscience - they have
none.
There
can be no common, human dialogue with a class that is, essentially,
misanthropic. One million Black children are on a conveyer
belt to death, George Bush's Harvest of Shame. Yet Bush
is not ashamed, but proud of the fruits of his exertions,
and believes that his God approves of his work.
This
is an enemy who plays for keeps - a happy, smirking child
killer.
JoAnn
Wypijewski agrees:
The
Harvest of Shame piece is just fantastic! One of the best
polemics against Bush I've ever read. Onward and upward.
You do terrific work.
Superpower
in a bubble
The
world watches as U.S. dreams of hegemony dissolve at a quickening
pace. The juxtaposition of awesome military power and near-autistic
behavior can lead an observer to wonder what he has missed
- there must be an intelligent method somewhere beneath
the madness, a hidden text.
There
is none. The Bush men operate on a complete set of delusions,
nurtured on the North American continent through hundreds
of years of predation and privilege. As we wrote in our April
24 commentary, "Conspiracy
Theories II":
Armed
and extremely dangerous from the day they set foot on North
American shores for the express purpose of claiming title
to everything within range of their imaginations, white
Americans "learned" that they were admired by
the survivors among the people they preyed upon and enslaved.
They gained this knowledge from each other, the only people
whose opinions counted. Their overwhelming arsenals brooked
no objection to the self-evident fact of their innate superiority
and ... goodness. Who would disagree?
In
this closed, continental conversation a worldview was refined
that has grown so fundamental to white American methods
of thought, so perfect in its affirmation of self-serving
assumptions, so automatically corrective of unwanted information,
that the social organism is all but impermeable to disagreeable
facts. Outside of the centuries-old American cocoon, much
of reality simply does not compute.
Mandy
Pegram is relieved, having previously thought she had failed
to comprehend the masterful part of the Pirate's Master Plan.
Wow,
finally something makes sense! What well written, well thought
out analysis. Not only have you covered what many of us
white Americans have baffled at (why this president is popular)
but also covered what we also have wondered, the true why
of it all; the response of the world? And the reasons for
it all looking so planned! Thank you so much for this article,
it is opening my own eyes in ways I did not know they were
shut.
In
response to the American offensive-against-all, virtually
every sector of every nation seeks ways to withdraw from the
madman. Since George Bush's "With Us or Against Us"
and "Axis of Evil" speeches, these global currents
of revulsion have joined the structural undertow sucking the
U.S. dollar downward.
The
Iraq war was largely designed to insulate the dollar against
the threat of euro-denominated oil. But the world economy
is bigger than petroleum. The slide will continue, as dealmakers
everywhere quietly redline the United States at every opportunity
- a characteristic of global resistance to the men who are
proclaiming a New American Century. As we said on April 24:
The
Pirates believe they hold the trump card: half the world's
military under one, super-tech command. It is a blunt instrument,
with a narrow range of uses. The real bomb ticks under America's
porch, and will devastate the dollar in a spasm of millions
of individual and institutional decisions to run in the
other direction.
Maureen
H. Williams, Sylmar, California, has been taking notes.
Just
prior to the "war" in Iraqi, one of your wonderful
emails included a detailed article on the impact of the
oil market on the USA dollar and the Euro. Since reading
that article, I now pay closer attention to the business
news regarding OPEC, or the Euro dollar. On 5/8/03 Reuters
released an article, "Euro Lords it Over Dollar",
written by Javier David.
Thank you for giving your readers a "heads
up".
Anti-public
education chief
The
Bush men are like the Sioux "contraire" brave in
the movie, "Little Big Man" - everything they say
means the opposite. As one of countless examples, Bush chose
as Secretary of Education a Black man who detests public education.
We wrote about Rod Paige's duplicities April 24, under the
heading, "U.S.
Education chief favors church schools."
Paige
is far more at ease with white Southern Baptists. Two weeks
ago, Paige told their denominational press he favors private,
Christian education because, ""all things equal,
I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong
appreciation of the Christian community, where a child is
taught to have a strong faith. When a child is taught that,
there is a source of strength greater than themselves."
In
other words, he does not like public schools.
At
another religious event, the man who sits on billions of
dollars of the public's money explained that, "in
a religious environment the value system is set. That's
not the case in a public school, where there are so many
different kids with different kinds of values."
Kurt
Kiebler writes to us from Kansas City.
I
applaud 's
criticism of Secretary of Education Rod Paige and his views
that only a Christian-centered education should be taught
to children. I am not against the idea of politicians supporting
religious values. Dennis Kucinich is Catholic and I understand
Al Sharpton is Protestant, but neither Kucinich nor Sharpton
is trying to make their religious perspective the law of
the land. If Paige wants to support religion, then the proper
venue for this is in church, not our public schools.
These
constant intrusions of rightwing Southern Baptists into the
national dialogue are what happens when a quarter of the electorate
determines the outcome. The GOP rules through this active
minority, and must keep them energized. Thus, the Bible thumpers
color the public face of what is essentially a regime of piratical,
speculator, war profiteering thieves. It makes for a weird
combination of absolute cynicism with a halo around it.
Obligations
of the Black candidate
There
are candidates who are Black, and there are Black candidates.
In the current Democratic presidential primary race, Rev.
Al Sharpton is the latter. Our April 24 commentary, "What
the Black Presidential Candidate Must Do,"
sought to clarify the matter.
First
and last, the Black candidate's job in 2004 is to energize
the Black vote. The largest possible number of African Americans
must coalesce behind one candidate in order to prove that
there still remains a formidable Black bloc vote.
We
also had some specific advice for Rev. Sharpton, when he is
compelled to defend his stance during the Tawana Brawley affair.
Amy Tillem thought we gave wise counsel:
"You
are a minister who believed a young Black woman over the
words of white men in rural, upstate New York. On Black
terms, that's righteous, honorable, and quite enough."
Much like the Simpson jury, no?
What a breath of truly fresh air your site
is. Thanks.
Appreciative
remarks
In
all uphill endeavors, morale is the critical factor. Our readers
never fail to keep our spirits soaring.
Errolway
Kirkland:
Thanks
for printing the real truth so all may know. The publication
is great.
F.
Green:
Keep
up the good work, brother. This is good stuff.
We
saved "Joyce in Connecticut" for last, just because
she makes us feel so good.
How
do you do it? I marvel continually at your unending, passionate
ability to articulate such crystal clear critiquing of the
artificial truths that are constantly promulgated toward
us, the "supposed to be dumb" public. Brothers
and Sisters at ,
when I read your work, I am reminded of Brother Malcolm,
who could stand before his publics, fully saturated with
passion and compassion, yet espouse truths in a manner totally
untouched and unblemished by his emotions.
This
is the stuff great warriors are made of. Wage on,
Brothers and Sisters! And may God continue to bless you
in your efforts!
Keep
writing.
gratefully acknowledges the following organizations
for sending visitors our way during the past week:
Information
Clearing House
Destee
Discussion Forum
Counterpunch.com
Black
Planet.com
Democratic
Underground.com
Liberal
Oasis.com
Africana.com
Playahata.com
