Read full post
Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Kobe Bryant's mumblings bring protest - a double standard?
“The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name…”
Dear friends,
The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name, as said media try to compete with the far more informative worldwide Internet, to me, is actually another case of the unclothed emperor attempting to cover himself up.
Bryant’s mumblings were offensive to a certain body of citizens. The powers-that-be of the NBA fined the young man $100.000. For all of the recording cowards like Chris Rock and African American hip-hoppers who are allowed by record companies to glamorize the use of the word “nigger”, I wonder what would have happened to him, if Kobe Bryant had called the ref a “cracker”? Did someone say “double standard”?
Nevertheless, while a proposition cannot possibly be proof of itself, this is the basis upon which many, if not most, of those who identify themselves as “gay” operate. “I’m just gay; that’s all to it.”, they say. Moreover, theirs is a bogus claim that they make about having such a staunch “sexual identity” as it relates to something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. And it is better study for a psychologist than sociologist.
Let’s face it. As the great Freud insisted, and I agree with him, our “identity” is an “emotional tie”. That first identity, of course, develops with our original nurse (mother). Additionally, this “identity”, as it were, is obviously an acknowledgement of one’s humanity. So, at least to me, the real question about “homosexuality” and “identity” then becomes: At what point does a person both alienate and disconnect himself or herself from the rest of humanity, by demanding to be recognized as gay?
To be sure, the “market” is responsible for this turn of events. You see, capitalism has been so attractive, because it is the only political economy, or process of social reproduction, that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip a bird" at the boss, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. So-called socialist (actually state capitalist) countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since almost everyone works for the State and must work where he or she is assigned, more or less.
In any case, the downside of the total political freedom of capitalism is: The "market” controls all economic and, therefore, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (commodities). Most importantly, the chief rewards that motivate people to thrive in the market are power and sexual greed.
Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture, with possession as the strongest desire. As a result, the definition of culture, which historically, has referred to all of the actions by a specific population group, has become anything that the market determines it to be. Consequently, the notion of a “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers and ads sold by them, books and book stores, fashions, gay this-gay that, and so forth), is, totally, a market construct.
Invading other countries (military/industrial complex) and locking up citizens and immigrants (prison/industrial complex) is not enough. The market is greedy! Greed, to be sure, is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf or the Exxon/Mobil oil spill on the Niger Delta of West Africa.
Moreover, culture has no meaning once taken out of the context of a reproductive process. A people who cannot reproduce themselves as a people will cease to exist as a people and become part of something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. For example, the culture that held Africans in slavery, in this society, could no longer reproduce itself in that form and had to change, because of the well-deserved hostility and resistance it engendered.
Still, African American people have an actual cultural and historical experience. As well, the claim to being African American has both historical and social criteria that make a person an African American. So-called "gay" people do not enjoy such an identity. Therefore, perhaps, it may be instructive for someone to come up with criteria that define just what makes a person "gay". Besides, considering what has just been said, is there any reason why one should wonder that it is extremely inconsiderate and insulting to many African Americans when so-called “gays” compare their plight to ours?
Worse yet, it should be no surprise that one of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, at the same time. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle. Except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white". Therefore, for example, the attempt by these same women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians", is disingenuous, at best.
After all, one need only recall 1974 and the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, as we watched our televisions, in both horror and anger, at scores of "white" women, daily, uninterrupted, as police stood watching, throwing rocks and other objects at buses carrying the brand new incoming African American children who were being transported to, especially, South Boston neighborhood schools. Additionally, from working in and living around Northampton, Massachusetts, a so-called lesbian stronghold, my own personal experience is that both the venomous vibes and actions of lesbian racists permeate the atmosphere here so thickly that one can cut said air with a knife.
Finally, in a healthy and sane society, people will not alienate themselves from the rest of us by calling themselves “gay”. (After all, imagine the mental health trauma that must be experienced, if one is incapable of making love with someone of the opposite sex.) Instead, folks will think of their communities first and help us all - and everything around us - proliferate with love and prosperity. As a result, males and females alike will engage themselves in nature’s symmetry of heterosexual bonding, as birds and bees do.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name, as said media try to compete with the far more informative worldwide Internet, to me, is actually another case of the unclothed emperor attempting to cover himself up.
Bryant’s mumblings were offensive to a certain body of citizens. The powers-that-be of the NBA fined the young man $100.000. For all of the recording cowards like Chris Rock and African American hip-hoppers who are allowed by record companies to glamorize the use of the word “nigger”, I wonder what would have happened to him, if Kobe Bryant had called the ref a “cracker”? Did someone say “double standard”?
Nevertheless, while a proposition cannot possibly be proof of itself, this is the basis upon which many, if not most, of those who identify themselves as “gay” operate. “I’m just gay; that’s all to it.”, they say. Moreover, theirs is a bogus claim that they make about having such a staunch “sexual identity” as it relates to something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. And it is better study for a psychologist than sociologist.
Let’s face it. As the great Freud insisted, and I agree with him, our “identity” is an “emotional tie”. That first identity, of course, develops with our original nurse (mother). Additionally, this “identity”, as it were, is obviously an acknowledgement of one’s humanity. So, at least to me, the real question about “homosexuality” and “identity” then becomes: At what point does a person both alienate and disconnect himself or herself from the rest of humanity, by demanding to be recognized as gay?
To be sure, the “market” is responsible for this turn of events. You see, capitalism has been so attractive, because it is the only political economy, or process of social reproduction, that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip a bird" at the boss, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. So-called socialist (actually state capitalist) countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since almost everyone works for the State and must work where he or she is assigned, more or less.
In any case, the downside of the total political freedom of capitalism is: The "market” controls all economic and, therefore, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (commodities). Most importantly, the chief rewards that motivate people to thrive in the market are power and sexual greed.
Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture, with possession as the strongest desire. As a result, the definition of culture, which historically, has referred to all of the actions by a specific population group, has become anything that the market determines it to be. Consequently, the notion of a “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers and ads sold by them, books and book stores, fashions, gay this-gay that, and so forth), is, totally, a market construct.
Invading other countries (military/industrial complex) and locking up citizens and immigrants (prison/industrial complex) is not enough. The market is greedy! Greed, to be sure, is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf or the Exxon/Mobil oil spill on the Niger Delta of West Africa.
Moreover, culture has no meaning once taken out of the context of a reproductive process. A people who cannot reproduce themselves as a people will cease to exist as a people and become part of something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. For example, the culture that held Africans in slavery, in this society, could no longer reproduce itself in that form and had to change, because of the well-deserved hostility and resistance it engendered.
Still, African American people have an actual cultural and historical experience. As well, the claim to being African American has both historical and social criteria that make a person an African American. So-called "gay" people do not enjoy such an identity. Therefore, perhaps, it may be instructive for someone to come up with criteria that define just what makes a person "gay". Besides, considering what has just been said, is there any reason why one should wonder that it is extremely inconsiderate and insulting to many African Americans when so-called “gays” compare their plight to ours?
Worse yet, it should be no surprise that one of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, at the same time. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle. Except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white". Therefore, for example, the attempt by these same women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians", is disingenuous, at best.
After all, one need only recall 1974 and the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, as we watched our televisions, in both horror and anger, at scores of "white" women, daily, uninterrupted, as police stood watching, throwing rocks and other objects at buses carrying the brand new incoming African American children who were being transported to, especially, South Boston neighborhood schools. Additionally, from working in and living around Northampton, Massachusetts, a so-called lesbian stronghold, my own personal experience is that both the venomous vibes and actions of lesbian racists permeate the atmosphere here so thickly that one can cut said air with a knife.
Finally, in a healthy and sane society, people will not alienate themselves from the rest of us by calling themselves “gay”. (After all, imagine the mental health trauma that must be experienced, if one is incapable of making love with someone of the opposite sex.) Instead, folks will think of their communities first and help us all - and everything around us - proliferate with love and prosperity. As a result, males and females alike will engage themselves in nature’s symmetry of heterosexual bonding, as birds and bees do.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
