Newark-based
poet Amiri Baraka acts as a surrogate for many of us when
he titillates student audiences at Condoleezza Rice's expense.
We could not resist calling attention to Baraka's characterization
of Rice as a "skeeza" in a recent speech at Baltimore's
Coppin State College - a much more economical description
than our own sobriquet for the woman, "The
Devil's Handmaiden."
Equally
entertaining was the ridiculous defense mounted on behalf
of the National Security Advisor by Gregory Kane, a painfully
uptight, politically primitive throwback Black columnist for
the Baltimore Sun. Kane thought it necessary to deny
that Condoleezza is a skeeza... repeatedly!
Buffalo
community activist Loretta L. Renford noted the response to
our story in last week's e-MailBox, and expanded on the thrust
of our headline, "'Skeeza'
is as 'Skeeza' does."
I
was amazed and glad Skeeza-Weezie made such a clamor among
many. It indicates we are thinking rather than just winking.
Answering
the call of the massa depends on who one perceives
herself/himself to be in life. But, the choice is a personal
one to make. We are familiar with the choice adjectives
attached to these mongrels because the view from the top
varies. Pimps and whores have not changed in their descriptive
categories. Dressed up or down, it remains the same.
As
a woman I dislike the attachments, but it causes me no great
pain to attach these titles. Oftentimes the pain these pimps
and whores - and let's include these so-called Black stealth
candidates - inflict on the innocent, while securing their
place in history, deserves our wrath.
,
print the truth and let the beat of justice reach the ears
and eyes of these pimps and whores. Yes, that includes these
quasi-leaders and representatives.
Redlining
America
The
"decline" of the United States has begun, accelerated
by the Bush Pirates' aggressions against international order.
In last week's commentary, "Racist
War, Pirate Plunder," we sketched the process of
worldwide withdrawal from all things American - a movement
that has been underway for some time.
The
entire globe is recoiling from the United States, a planetary
phenomenon that will characterize the historical period
we have now entered - if humanity survives it….
A
kind of international redlining will increasingly make itself
felt, but not seen. The Bush men believe they are willing
into existence a New American Century, while in reality
they are creating an America-phobic planet in which the
U.S. has earned an invisible but powerfully consequential
non-favored nation status. Having invented the concept of
globalism, the United States will be consigned to pariah
status - and shrink, until it learns to live by human norms
and scales.
George
Paxinos agrees with our analysis:
In
all my years of trying to understand and somehow formalize
the backgrounds to such worldwide elitist psychoses, their
trends and ultimate self-destruction, I have never ever
read such a shortly succinct, cogent and prophetic article
as this one.
You
have put both past, present and future world history into
perspective, and that in a nutshell.
Larry
Piltz is a fine prose writer who also slings some biting political
verse. He was kind enough to send us both.
If
you didn't keep emphasizing the racist underpinnings to
the current Iraq invasion, and the relevant racist nature
of the society, my mind would probably wander. And it shouldn't.
Because it still all comes down to this - primordial delusions
of white superiority and the race's timeless ritual of killing
and oppressing nonwhites in order to prove to itself the
validity of its flawed original premise.
It's
an invasion, not a war.
It's fomenting terror, not fighting terror.
It's using weapons of mass destruction, not suppressing
them.
It's using uranium ammunition, not suppressing uranium weapons.
It's practicing fascism, not promoting democracy.
It's Anglo-American colonialism, not a willing coalition.
It's classic hegemony, not charity.
It's backwards logic, not forward defense.
It's another racist hate crime, not a noble just war.
It's an organized lynch mob, not leadership decapitation.
They're homicide bombs, not guided bombs.
They're the natives, we're the cavalry.
Deja vu all over the place.
Larry
Piltz is a prolific commentator. We recommend his recent TakeBackTheMedia.com
piece, "TV's
War Coverage Becomes Pentagon Snuff Film."
This
media coverage debases all who see it, converting passive
observers into material witnesses and war supporters into
accomplices, while hiding in plain sight the amorality and
sadism of war crimes. Many will say "I didn't know"
that there were people in those buildings, but if they're
honest they'd actually say they didn't care that there were
souls in those people.
Ella
Baccouche frequently graces our pages with her insights. She
ponders the Bush/media's "Operation Iraqi Liberation"
- a monsoonal insult to language and reason - and sets her
mind to traveling.
Think
about this conditional probability. If a country happily
supported my oppressor during his worst atrocities against
me, then when that country controls the government, it would
oppress me, too. Seems logical.
Perhaps
an Iraqi mother is thinking - if these Anglo-American troops
are liberating us so that we will no longer be oppressed,
depressed, and our voices suppressed, then why are they
brutally bulldozing their way through our cities with their
"machines and weapons of mass destruction," terrifying
us, killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of us civilians,
especially our children, bombing our water and 
electricity
supply - it is very hot here during the day and our bodies
crave water - depriving us of food, mining our countryside
to immobilize and paralyze us now and reek havoc for us
in the future, ransacking our homes with all the egregious
enthusiasm and contempt of a Ku Klux Klansman looking for
any "nigger" to hang, and taking our sons who
are not military personnel as prisoners, perhaps never to
see again? And yes, why do their bombs contain depleted
uranium when they know that it has a half-life of 4.1 billion
years, creating carnage now and, until the end of time,
affecting the survival of our posterity?
Is
all this in the name of freedom? It seems to be an illogical,
and perhaps, even INSANE probability, in her thinking.
And
in the thinking of any human being not hopelessly afflicted
with racist delusions.
María
Luisa Etchart, an Argentine currently living in Costa Rica,
finds the Bush/media version of Standard American English
difficult to translate into civilized language.
I
receive your editorials regularly and really thank you for
them. They are well written, truthful and informative. I
enjoy your style because I can sense the flame burning behind
the pen, the way it should be.
The
latest war (stay tuned: there are more coming) has had the
singular effect of creating a new set of euphemisms produced
by the gang and their obscene voice: the media. Such as
"friendly fire" - to express they are so paranoiac
they tend to shoot their own allies.
"Collateral
damage" - meaning they kill civilians, including children
and old people but what the heck, what were they doing there,
walking about in their own country.
"Liberation
of Iraqis" - so far they haven't been able to show
anyone asking them to please set them free.
"WMD"
- arms supposedly possessed but not yet shown by the "Evil",
which can be easily distinguished from the ones used by
the "good guys" who are tearing apart a nation
using only World War I bayonets.
"Humanitarian
aid" - which, like reconstruction of everything that
is being destroyed, will be paid for with their own oil
production.
There
was a scene shown (probably by mistake) of American troops
on their knees, with guns pointing down, trying to calm
down a group of unarmed people who by merely lifting their
arms and showing their hatred and contempt for the invaders
dominated the scene. No further comments were provided on
that episode. They will no doubt end by invading the whole
country but that doesn't mean they have conquered the spirit
of those brave people. The fall of the empire has just begun
and they have no moral values to support them.
A
21st Century world watches the mad lunge for global hegemony,
a death-dealing theater of racist depravity acted out in minute
detail on everybody's television, complete with running commentary
by the also-guilty. Somehow, the term, "fascism"
sounds parochial and small, not big enough to fill the screen
- possibly prematurely overused by a previous generation of
Americans. But it's the word we've got.
It
should be constantly emphasized that European fascism was
a popular movement.
Carol
Habstritt, of Saint Paul, Minnesota has been thinking a lot
about the subject, lately.
I
have always been curious as to how the German people let
Hitler rise to power in the 1930's. Now I am witnessing
the same phenomenon in the U.S.
It
appears that the citizens are sheep, the media follows everything
the administration says, and the Democrats are scared by
the bullies in the administration into saying nothing.
Our
country has essentially sleepwalked into a war with Iraq.
There has been virtually no discussion in the Congress about
it. The media has followed the administration line. The
people treat the whole thing like an inevitability. The
Bush people bully anyone who disagrees with them (e.g. the
Dixie Chicks, Tom Daschle, France). The Bush people are
nasty and liars, but no one confronts them.
How
many times does one need to tell a lie before it becomes
the truth? How many times does Bush need to connect Iraq
and Sept. 11th before it becomes true? Apparently it has
worked, because most of the Marines in Iraq believe that
Saddam Hussein was behind Sept. 11th, although there is
no credible evidence that he has had any dealings with terrorists.
In
two short years, Bush has wrecked our economy, provided
deficits for as long as anyone can see, caused almost every
country in the world to hate us, taken us out of many international
treaties, started a war and taken money from the poor and
given it to the rich. When is enough enough already?
With
the new preemptive strike strategy, the U.S. will be continuously
at war (shades of 1984). There will always be a country
that presents a threat to the U.S., and might do something
to us in the future. If not, the threat can be manufactured
(e.g. Iraq).
Patrick
Lanagan writes from Germany, where peace is popular and George
Bush is anathema.
Thanks
for the excellent article, "Racist War and Pirate Plunder",
which hits several nails squarely on the head. As a Scotsman
living in Germany, I can only confirm the author's diagnosis.
Immediately after 9/11, this country was united in heartfelt
solidarity with America and Americans; yet now, only 18
months later, the amount 
of
sheer rage (and fear) at the words and actions of this lying,
warmongering Bush junta is simply indescribable. I notice
this even amongst people who were previously almost completely
apolitical. Nonetheless, I'm doing my best to share your
author's view that the long-term effects of these altered
perceptions will prove positive for everyone involved -
except, of course, for the soldiers and civilians in Iraq
who won't live to experience those effects.
Best
wishes, and keep up the good work.
Vote
Impeach
Leona
Heitsch, of Bourbon, Missouri appears to have written to
with the sole purpose of furthering the impeachment process.
We're down with that. Ms. Heitsch also calls attention to
a site where the Bush men's plans for the world are plainly
presented.
So
glad you let the cat out of the bag on the Project
for the New American Century. The mainstream media ducks
it like it was a cluster bomb, which it is, aimed at all
of us, black, white, tan, olive....
It
is disgusting to listen to Bush saying "we are coming"
to the Iraqi people with the inference that all this blood
and gore is for their freedom. They might look at us
and wonder what happened to our freedoms if they
weren't so busy with what our tax money is raining down
on them.
Please
visit VoteToImpeach.org,
We don't have to take this steamroller if we all shout NO
together.
We
knew we would run afoul of one constituency when we wrote
the following description of racist, delusional American behavior:
Objectively
incompetent at analysis of non-whites and only imagining
the characteristics of foreign whites, they launch wars
against "enemies" whom they cannot properly assess,
with a cavalier cruelty that the civilized world reserves
for animals.
Alant
Jost writes to correct us, and to speak for those who seek
peace among all God's creatures
I
would leave out the part "with a cavalier cruelty that
the civilized world reserves for animals."
The civilized world shouldn't be cruel
to animals at all.
Black
man cautions
on "racism" overuse
In
our February 27 commentary, "Al
Sharpton's Battle to Transform the Democrats," we
described Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman as
a "dreadful racist." He is, and his Democratic Leadership
Council (DLC) was formed in the 1980s expressly to move the
party to the "center" - away from the policies of
the Congressional Black Caucus and organized labor.
Lieberman
is a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.
We wrote:
He
will soon be recognized as wholly unacceptable to Black
voters, who are the progressive mass base of the party,
and to anti-war voters, a majority sentiment within the
ranks at this time, nationwide.
Lieberman
and the DLC spell electoral non-participation by Blacks.
Therefore, he and his ilk are the enemies of all those who
seek the broadest, most intense political involvement of
African Americans in national life. There can be no compromise
with people who poison the political well. Cohabitation
with Rightists and racists means death to the Party.
In
this and other commentaries, we predicted that a Lieberman
victory at the convention would cause a drastic erosion of
Black support for the national Democratic Party, although
African Americans would continue to work through local and
state party structures, the repositories of generations of
Black political investment.
Jon
Chapman doesn't like our frequent use of the term, "racist"
- or our treatment of Lieberman.
Thanks
Black Commentator for your articles. I am glad to have the
chance to read them.
I would caution against what appears to
me to be the over use and sometimes ill-considered use of
the term "racist". I assume Al Sharpton used it
in his comments about Lieberman. In the first place, Lieberman's
obvious and not unexpected pro-Israel views do not necessarily
mean that he is a racist or anti-Black. Any more than Al
Sharpton's pro-Africa/African American views means that
he is anti-Jewish. Yet the media has a field day portraying
him as such.
In the second place the premise that denying
Lieberman the Democratic nomination is more vital to Black
America than denying George W. a second term is patently
wrong-headed, in my view. No president since FDR (that's
as far back as I go) has been able to stand up to the Jewish
lobby/voting block in this country so Lieberman could not
be much worse than Bush with regard to Palestine-Israel,
at least as this issue affects Black American.
On the other hand, will Lieberman be so
anti-Affirmative Action, anti-minimum wage increase, anti-civil
rights and freedoms, pro-big business, and pro-wealth as
George W.? I think not.
My last point is, that if we keep using
the "R" word as a tool of political opposition,
it will continue to decline in its meaning and impact and
may even backfire - becoming a kind of "Red Badge of
Courage" for politicians pronouncing themselves ready
and able to stand up to "special interests".
Black people are not a special interest
group, but we are easily portrayed as such when so few vote
and express their "interests" and those that do,
engage in unproductive playing of the race card.
Keep those articles coming.
Since
's
agenda is not dictated by the Bush/media, we chose not to
answer those parts of Mr. Chapman's letter concerning Sharpton
and Lieberman and Jews and other diversionary nonsense. Here's
our reply to Mr. Chapman's "racism" complaint:
We
do not "play" any cards. We do analysis. Our mission
is to encourage debate by offering and defending our own
positions. Racism is pervasive in America. We submit that
you care too much about what others perceive Black
people to be doing (how we are "portrayed"), to
the detriment of forging an effective Black strategy based
on a cold assessment of the facts, including the pervasive
facts of racism.
Lieberman is an active, conscious racist.
That's why he employs the red herring term, "quotas"
- a code word well vetted by the Right for its effect on
racist audiences. We discussed the disastrous consequences
for Black political action within the Democratic Party should
Lieberman and his DLC capture the nomination.
is primarily concerned about the ways in which Black people
can influence events and empower themselves. A victory of
the DLC neuters Black power in the Democratic Party, where
most of our assets are engaged.
- "If the political house is unwholesome, polluted
with the unmistakable odors of white supremacy and Black
sycophancy, African Americans recoil as one body."
In
terms of war and peace, which is now the paramount issue
for the entire globe, Lieberman is no different than Bush
- a point not worth belaboring since Lieberman himself strives
to hammer it home, daily.
Finally,
never framed the question of Lieberman v Bush. You did.
We happen to believe that Bush would trounce Lieberman,
a redundant choice, anyway. This outcome would leave us
with a wrecked and worthless national Democratic Party and
a second term of George Bush.
- "If the party cannot loosen the fatal grip of the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) - the Republican
wing of the party - it will die."
Powell
then, Powell now
Colin
Powell has been depicted as dragging the Bush Administration
kicking and screaming through the processes of one United
Nations Security Council Iraq resolution (October) and the
final collapse of a second (March). In this version of events,
the product of insipid corporate media sports-type analysis,
Powell plays the diplomat seeking peaceful resolution versus
Donald Rumsfeld's Mad Hatter of war.
Powell
benefits immensely from this fiction, especially in the eyes
of some Blacks, a portion of whom wish desperately to see
him as a Man of Respect among the White and Powerful, single-handedly
holding off the forces of Bushite barbarism until the good
fight could be fought no more.
Although
it is true that Secretary of State Powell argued mightily
that the U.S. should try everything possible to gain UN acquiescence
to an American invasion, there was never any question but
that all roads led to war - for Powell, as much as the rest
of the Bush men.
As
documented in the April
3 PBS Frontline, the Bush team's reluctant dance with
the UN came apart when France and Germany informed Powell
that they would not agree to war under any guise or pretense.
The Bush/media described the confrontation in Paris as a Franco-German
"ambush" of Powell. After that point, the former
general started talking just like his berserker comrades
at the Pentagon.
The
final, bizarre weeks of blustering American engagement with
the UN were a show for the benefit of British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, an exercise to assuage British public and Labor
Party anti-war opinion. Powell was undeservedly portrayed
as a peacemaker to the very end when, in fact, he had never
been in the peace game, at all.
Not
coincidentally, the farce ended just as the U.S. military
had finally assembled nearly all of the men and equipment
thought necessary to begin Shock and Awe. Powell moved smoothly
on to the new script.
We
have said all this to introduce a correspondence from Dr.
Salih J. Altoma, Professor Emeritus/ Former Director, Middle
East Studies Program, Indiana University at Bloomington. In
a letter titled, "Occupying Baghdad: Colin Powell's Failure
to Heed His Own Warning," Dr. Altoma points out another
opportunistic policy reversal by the Secretary of State.
In
an essay published in Foreign Affairs (1992-1993)
General Colin Powell defended former President Bush for
not ordering American forces to occupy Baghdad in 1991.
He argued that "even if Hussein had waited for us to
enter Baghdad and even if we had been able to capture him,
what purpose would it have served? And would serving that
purpose have been worth the many more casualties that would
have occurred? Would it have been worth the inevitable follow-up:
major occupation forces in Iraq for years to come and a
very expensive and complex American proconsulship in Baghdad?"
Mr. Powell's answer was "Fortunately for America, reasonable
people at that time thought not. They still do."
As a general Mr. Powell was keenly aware
of the regional ramifications of occupying Baghdad, even
when Iraq was still the fresh aggressor and the US had the
backing of the UN, numerous allies and friends. Perhaps
Mr. Powell knew then (but obviously not now) what it means
to occupy Baghdad, a city that stands out, for Arabs and
Muslims alike, as a metaphor of the golden age of the Arab-Islamic
civilization.
If the "unpardonable expense in terms
of money, lives lost, and ruined regional relationship"
was obvious to Mr. Powell as a General, in 1991, how much
more odious our war of occupation will be today? As America's
top diplomat he knows more than any government official
the long term consequences of growing anti-Americanism in
the region.
What is regrettable, if not unpardonable,
is that Mr. Powell, the diplomat, should find himself promoting
a plan he wisely opposed as General.
The
academic community make up nearly 40 percent of 's
readership, including a large and influential audience at
historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). However,
we have never gotten a letter from a Black professor in the
Far East, nor one more kind than that sent by Dr. Asselin
Charles, Associate Professor of French and English, Wenzao
College of Languages, Taiwan.
Just
when I started despairing of the international Black intelligentsia,
I discovered The Black Commentator. Your journal is simply
one of the most lucid, incisive, and uncompromising voices
in the Black world, indeed in the Third World, at the moment.
Any chance of producing the occasional,
say a couple of times a year, parallel edition in the major
languages of the African Diaspora? The French, Spanish,
or Portuguese speaking brothers and sisters around the world
would be thrilled to hear a fearless voice from our midst.
Keep up the good work.
Frankly,
we had never considered the idea. But now we know whom to
turn to when the time comes for
International.
Until
then, Michael Dunkley likes us just fine in English.
Another
great newsletter, diamond-like lucidity, just like listening
to good blues. Keep storming the ivory towers of white intellectual
racist worldviews.
Keep
writing.
gratefully acknowledges the following organizations
for featuring our commentaries during the past week:
Sons
of Afrika
U.N.
OBSERVER & International Report
TakeBackTheMedia
Bartcop.com
Hip-Hop-Elements
Liberal
Oasis
