 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
Issue Number 37 - April 10, 2003
Printer Friendly Version
Note: The size of the type may be changed by clicking on view at the top of your browser and selecting "text size". The document will print in the size you select.
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
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.
www.blackcommentator.comYour comments are welcome. Visit the Contact Us page for E-mail or Feedback.
