Brilliant must-hear & see video lecture by Dr. Molefi K. Asante about the African Renaissance

"he is the actual person who popularized the concept of Afrocentricity..."







Dear friends,

On the link below is an hour-long must-see and -hear video lecture by a distinguished scholar, Dr. Molefi K. Asante. A longtime friend and teacher to me, I can proudly proclaim that Molefi's scholarship is both comprehensive and impressive. He lays out the history of the Atlantic Slaving Operations to the Colonization of Africa to Pan-Africanism to the ideal of a United States of Africa in a clear and concise manner that is as good as it gets. Moreover, he is the actual person who popularized the concept of Afrocentricity, the name of one of his 70 books. Enjoy!

Africans worldwide must unite!!!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI_ISfsCYJ4&NR=1 Read full post

WHY ARE NEWTOWN, CT MURDERS SO PREVALENT IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY?

WHY ARE NEWTOWN, CT MURDERS SO PREVALENT IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY?

Capitalism has been so attractive, because it is, thus far, the only type of economy that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip the boss a bird", as it were, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. Socialist countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since everyone works for the "State" and, therefore, must work where he or she is assigned, more or less. 

The downside of total political freedom for workers within the capitalist political economy is: The "market” then controls all economic and, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (e.g., food, clothes, and so forth). Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture. 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 notions of “youth" culture (clothing, hairstyles, piercing and tattoos, books, magazines with ads sold in them, and so forth), "Hip-hop" culture (drugs, guns, gangs, and so forth), and “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers with ads sold in them, and so forth), are, totally, market constructs. Additionally, while there are social constructs like age and gender, for example, those social structures were not created for the appetite of the market. Rather, they serve the purpose of establishing social relationships within the society itself that will allow it (said society) to last for hundreds or even thousands of years. 

The idea that a culture can develop without any connection to the past (except its increased availability of consumables) is a contradiction in terms. Hence, the notion of "youth culture", for example, is designed to exploit the vast and seemingly endless energy and enthusiasm of young people. Yet, it seems, at least, to me, that the energy and courage of Our youth should, actually, serve the purpose of moving society forward - but only under the guidance of that part of society (parents and other elders) that has both the experience and understanding to recognize the values that maintain both Our humanity and spirituality.

Moreover, once the market is allowed to define culture, Our only values become those which drive it (the market). For that reason, the mentality needed to function within the market system itself, has a great deal to do with causing the people in this society, for the most part, to not have the ability to act in a loving way towards each other, since it defines people by price or money-name. Hence, terms like low-income and wealthy become the false abstractions, like so many other monikers, that tend to sort out and classify people, then assign said folks to their stations in society and life, with most people never having any real control of their destinies

Therefore, and ultimately, if Our youth are to be Our future, then it will only happen if We as adults, particularly parents, take the reins of this present culture and provide Our children with both an historical and social conscience, and set the example for them, by informing identity through recognition of the connection between generations and defining human life in a meaningful way (as opposed to basing who they are upon unstantiatable claims regarding with whom they are having sex, or what "gang colors" they're wearing). That way, Our society will benefit from the "leadership" of Our youth. As well, the "market" will then be a function of the values of the society and not vice versa. 

Finally, 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.

In any case, let Us stop asking children what they want to be, in the context of what they will possess, when they grow up. Instead, let Us ask, what they want to be, regarding their relatedness to others. Let Us ask, "How will you help the community when you grow up?" Let Us ask, "What kind of work will you do to help people when you grow up?" 

If We are to become real communities, We need the will and actions of a community. Obviously, We do not have either right now. Still, it seems that it is equally apparent, from the current standpoint, that We definitely have the resources to develop a loving and prosperous African American community, for example, in Philadelphia, and in any other locales across the country. Let's do it! Peace.

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

An Interview/Discussion about Zionism" with Neil Zagorin and Palestine/Israel (originally posted 1/28/09)

The Israeli narrative about the creation of the Palestinian refugee population was that these refugees fled either on their own initiative or upon the urging of their leaders. The Palestinian narrative has been that they were driven out..."

**************************************
Djata: We especially hear the term “Zionism”, coming from Arab Muslims and their supporters, whenever there are bloody conflicts such as the one happening in Gaza right now. How do you define Zionism, Neil?

Neil: Jews lived in many parts of the world since the end of the Roman Empire, and remembrance of the biblical land of Israel has been important in Judaism, in the study of bible and in prayers. Zionism was a 19th century philosophy, originating in Europe, that took this impulse and turned it into a secular, nationalist movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people.

The great majority of Zionists were not religiously inspired, but rather viewed Jews as an ethnic/national group on the basis of their shared experience as a distinctive minority in many places. Being a minority meant being vulnerable, and in 19th century Europe, Jewish communities were not only vulnerable but often mistreated. Having a homeland like everybody else would solve this – that was the belief of Zionism.

There were different viewpoints within Zionism. For example, some thought that having viable Jewish communities in the biblical land of Israel as places of refuge and as centers of Jewish cultural renewal would be a suitable goal. This was known as Spiritual Zionism. The majority view, in the end, was known as Political Zionism, whose central figure is a late 19th century Austrian journalist named Theodor Herzl. Political Zionism sought to develop a modern Jewish nation-state in the ancestral homeland of Jewish people, the Land of Israel – also known as Palestine.


Djata: Does Zionism, whether spiritual or political, represent an attempt by some Jews to “perfect” the understanding and practical expression of their religion, for themselves?

Neil: Zionism was largely a secular movement. Certainly it sought to reformulate Jewish cultural norms and practices, which were rooted in or influenced by Judaism, into norms and practices that could underpin and cement a modern Jewish nation-state.

Djata: Do you believe that Zionism is a form of “self-estrangement”, inasmuch as it is embraced as Jewish people’s nationality as “Jews” over and above their nationalities as, say, North Americans or Europeans ?

Neil: I don’t think that Jews as a group fit into any neat category. At times it’s made sense to view Jews as a community sharing a religion: Judaism. This is how most Jews in the US view themselves today, for example, and this is how Jews are viewed within the US.

At other times it’s made sense to view Jews as an ethnic or national group. Often this has made sense because of the reactions of others. During the period of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, “Jewishness” was a matter of “blood.” A Jew who converted to Christianity could still be regarded as a Jew. In 19th century Europe, the attitude of Christians towards Jews in many places was similar to this. So, for 19th century Zionists, living in an environment where the separation was already there, embracing Jewish “nationalism” wasn’t a matter of self-estrangement, it was an attempt to make a virtue out of a problem.

Is being Jewish a matter of religion or ethnic/national identity? This has been a puzzling dilemma for Jews in the West for the past couple of centuries. Zionism was one of many attempts at resolving this, and Jews have tried resolving it in both ways.

Djata: Particularly in the mainstream media of our country, we hear about Israel’s “right to defend itself”. Yet, since these bloody conflicts, here-to-mentioned, seem to go on constantly and – at least to me – will not end without statehood for Palestinians, is there an issue of legitimacy that the government of Israel is always trying to prove to itself, its citizens, and others?

Neil: The short answer: yes. The State of Israel was born in conflict and lives in conflict. Israel, or at least its ruling elites and supporters, constantly seeks affirmation of legitimacy. There’s a question of what type of legitimacy Israel seeks: as a potent force not to be messed with, or as a society with which its neighbors can live in peace and respect.

Djata: Neil, do you agree with the Palestinian assertion that they were intentionally expelled by Yishuv and later Israeli forces in terms of a plan drawn up even before the war?

Neil: “Yishuv” is the Hebrew term for the community of Jewish settlements in pre-1948 Palestine. The Israeli narrative about the creation of the Palestinian refugee population was that these refugees fled either on their own initiative or upon the urging of their leaders. The Palestinian narrative has been that they were driven out. Jewish militias drove Palestinians from their homes. That this happened is beyond doubt. It is reflected not only in the stories of Palestinian refugees, but by the work of the Israeli “new historians” of the past generation who have found documentation of this in Israeli governmental sources.

I do not know the degree to which the intentional displacement was pre-planned and organized in a top-down fashion. I have heard conflicting claims about this, but it seems fair to assume that there was some level of forethought and planning.

There were also Palestinians who fled a war zone of their own initiative, and Palestinian leaders who ordered their people to move away from the fighting. It is important to acknowledge this to avoid fruitless quibbling about which side did what. I do not know which of the two factors was the most important, and am happy to leave that to be determined by historians in the fullness of time. The important fact to me is that, on the Zionist side, there was definitely intentional displacement of Arabs in order to establish the new Jewish nation-state.

Djata: What do you think of Dr. Ilan Pappe’s claim that, “If you don't understand colonialism, ethnic cleansing and the war for freedom, you can't understand Palestine”?

Neil: Ilan Pappe is one of the Israeli “new historians”. He takes his conclusions about Israel’s willful suppression of Palestinian national aspirations farther than others, and is for that reason very controversial. I want to acknowledge that before responding to this quote. I'm just somebody who cares about justice and human dignity for all. I can’t judge his basis for selecting these three criteria as the bottom-line basis for “understanding Palestine”. I do think that examining these areas is very revealing.

Colonialism: Zionism was not a monolithic movement. However, it emerged in its modern form in late 19th-century Europe, and reflects some of the same beliefs that motivated and justified colonialism by European powers. The State of Israel controls the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River today, and as such is the primary force limiting Palestinian nationhood. I think it is also important to recognize that the Ottoman Empire before World War 1, and the British Empire after it, controlled this land and played a role in how the conflict between Zionist settlers and Arabs developed and unfolded.

Ethnic cleansing: Intentional displacement of Palestinians to create a Jewish nation-state played a part in the birth of the State of Israel. This must be taken into account when discussing relations between Palestinians and Israel.

The war for freedom: This primarily means the Palestinian struggle for national freedom. Previously, it took a politically nationalistic expression. Now, with the ascendancy of Hamas, it is taking an Islamist-nationalist form. I don’t know whether Ilan Pappe intends the following, but the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has taken place in a larger context of Third-World nation-state formation and the struggle for freedom from Western control or dominance. Lastly, Zionism was a bold but desperate attempt to seek freedom for Jews on a national/ethnic basis. It was not an attempt to exploit a colonial possession for the benefit of a colonial power far away, and for most Israeli Jews the survival of their state is a matter of both political and physical life and death. I think that acknowledging this sheds light on an important reason that this conflict is so enduring and bitter, and why it is so difficult to see the way forward to a resolution. But this brings us full circle: when thinking of the struggle for freedom in the context of Palestine/Israel, it is the Palestinians who do not have national freedom. There can not be any reasonable resolution until they do.

Djata: I understand what you are saying. I don't like to use the term "Third world", because, like the term "minority", it suggests that certain people are "naturally" inferior to others. Therefore, I prefer non-European. However, since Jews are not a monolithic group, that means that various Jews have different interests. That having been said, if Zionists simply wanted a place where they can live in peace and be left alone, then why did they expand their originally-allotted territory, along with conducting business with a number of world powers, especially the United States, that allows the Israeli government a presence - and influence - in other lands?

Neil: Guess I date myself by using the term “Third World,” don’t I?

You ask about Zionists wanting a place where Jews could live in peace. Again, Zionism has encompassed a variety of outlooks. Many of them were not so utopian as to imagine that nationhood would bring “peace”. Nationhood would bring “normalcy”, that is, Jews as a people doing all the things that any people do to make their way independently in the world. Build, work (in all levels of the economy, not just those to which the host country allows access), play, make decisions. Peace is sometimes part of the picture, but so is conflict.

Modern Zionism developed in late nineteenth-century Europe, a time and place when many of the stereotypes of Jews being treated as victimized outsiders were in fact true (and I don’t subscribe to the view of Jewish history that says this is the essence of Jewish life in Europe). One of the roots of the Israeli army is in local Jewish self-defense groups that arose in towns and cities in Central and Eastern Europe in response to waves of pogroms. Many rank-and-file Zionists who came to Palestine were accustomed to an atmosphere of violence and expected a hard life. They called themselves “halutzim,” or “pioneers,” and they meant it.

So, let’s turn your question into a statement. The State of Israel seeks to project its power beyond its borders. There are a number of reasons for this.

When Zionism was in its visionary phase, it often imagined a Jewish state on the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River (and even beyond). This is not how the borders were drawn by the UN in 1947, and not how the borders were fixed at the end of the 1948-49 war. I want to believe that most Israeli Jews, if given the choice between endless war and a realistic chance for a saner life, would not hold to a vision of a larger Israel. However, there are sectors of the Israeli political system that do hold strongly to it, for nationalistic, religious, military, or other reasons. This is a major explanation for the continuing growth of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, even during this past 15 years of negotiations for a two-state solution.

The State of Israel also acts as a regional force. Some of Israel’s reasons for doing this relate to its perceived national interests. Other times, Israel gets swept up in larger political currents. Many local and international powers vie for influence and control in this area. There have been regional rivalries beyond that of Palestinians and Israel. On a larger scale, the Cold War rivalry seems to have been replaced by a rivalry between Iran and the US-led bloc. War, bloodshed, and other suffering result from these things. Israel is not blameless, but there's a lot of guilt to share in this.

Please stay tuned...

Read full post

The Federal Deficit and Going off a Cliff

“Yet, how much of our government’s purchases/expenditures, for example, are directly tied to doing business with US corporations and big banks?”

  Dear friends, 

 The federal deficit is defined as, “The excess of federal government spending over tax collections. The flip side of the federal deficit is the less common federal surplus, the excess of tax collections over spending.” 

 Yet, how much of our government’s purchases/expenditures, for example, are directly tied to doing business with US corporations and big banks? So, what if the government charged tax rates according to the amount of money and other assets that an enterprise has, since greater security (i.e., police and military) is needed in order for that aforementioned enterprise to survive? After all, the current crop of Republican politicians and their corporate sponsors/bosses enjoy the protection of their assets, both here and abroad, at low cost? 

 I mean, what if they had to hire their own armies and police? Would that be a higher expense than the taxes that they pay at present? And so, is the rant about wanting “small government”, actually, a red herring? 

 How much time would the owners/managers of the aforementioned corporations and banks have to invest towards creating more wealth, if they had, instead, to spend more time on protecting their assets from those who have less (the so-called 99%)? Moreover, what type of lives would these owners/managers of corporations and banks, mentioned above, have, in terns of enjoying their wealth, as a result of having the responsibility of protecting their assets? 

 Please remember that greed is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to the BP oil spill. 

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Dr. Ndibe shows how banks from the West help keep Africa "poor" (originally posted 4/12/10)

"There’s no question that many – I dare say, most – of those who answer to the name of leader in Africa are in the mold that Frantz Fanon categorizes as “contemptible fools.” But there’s also, we must not forget, the issue of the hypocrisy of the world’s economic powers – the nations whose banks facilitate the thefts in Africa, and keep the proceeds. "


"The art of throwing money away"

by Okey Ndibe (okeyndibe@gmail.com)

It’s always deeply painful when Africa achieves another distinction in the wrong sector. This time, it’s in the foolish art of throwing money away!

Last month, the Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based research group, released a sobering report on the illicit outflow of cash from African nations. The report concluded that, in the four decades between 1970 and 2008, African nations lost $854 billion through illegal transfers of funds. And GFI suggests that it’s a conservative estimate. Actual outflows, the report states, may be as high as $1.8 trillion.

In case Nigerians are wondering – yes, our country (once again) topped the list. With $240.7 billion, Nigeria clinched a claim as the outstanding star in the league of exporters of cash. Nigeria’s closest competitor, Egypt, lost $131.3 billion. The other countries in the top five are South Africa ($76.4 billion), Morocco ($41 billion), and Algeria ($35.1 billion).

There’s little surprise about Nigeria’s stellar showing in this dubious league. It’s estimated, after all, that Sani Abacha alone pocketed more than $3 billion. Last year, a Swiss judge ordered the freezing of $350 million in assets “belonging” to Abba Abacha, one of the dictator’s sons.

The picture is dismal. Much of these stolen funds end up in European, Asian, and North American banks. And then comes the paradox: the same public officials responsible for frittering away the continent’s resources are quick to haunt the capitals of Europe and North America, bowl in hand, to beg – shamelessly! – for alms.

The GFI report illustrates the anomaly: what Africa has exported in illicit cash is at least double the official development aid that’s come to the continent. That’s one way of saying – forgive the cliché – penny wise, pound-foolish. Here’s the diagram of events. First, our rulers wire good money to the so-called big donor nations. Then they travel to the Western capitals to debase themselves begging for handouts. Often, they return, like triumphant fools, clutching the pittance they received – at best, half of the loot they “donated” to Western banks. And then they promptly privatize much of the aid – and wire it back to their Western sponsors.

What’s worse, foreign aid – unlike the cool cash we idiotically transfer – comes with strings attached. Often, it’s aid only in name, but in reality part of the scheme by donors to further impoverish African peoples. All too frequently, foreign aid is abracadabra, pure and simple. It’s often packaged as “technical” assistance that destitute African nations are coaxed to pay for – often at hideously inflated prices.

It’s a financial magician’s dream trick. One day, no questions asked, African rulers enrich the banks and economies of the West with looted funds. The next day, these same rulers show up in Western capitals on perennial begging missions. They look like miscast mendicants in their designer suits and handcrafted pairs of shoes. They mope, listening – with little or no sense of shame or irony – to Western “donors” give them long, stiff and humiliating lectures on the virtues of wise investment, sound economic planning, and financial discipline.

I invoke the words of Ayi Kwei Armah: Why are we so blest?

There’s no question that many – I dare say, most – of those who answer to the name of leader in Africa are in the mold that Frantz Fanon categorizes as “contemptible fools.” But there’s also, we must not forget, the issue of the hypocrisy of the world’s economic powers – the nations whose banks facilitate the thefts in Africa, and keep the proceeds. When the right crop of African leaders reclaim their nations from the depraved hands of those who steal for a living, then the issue of the West’s role in impoverishing Africa must be raised.

It would be comforting if we could say that the GFI report focused on a habit that African leaders have since been dropped. Sadly, that’s far from being the case.

Take Nigeria. Despite some modest gains made over the last eleven years against the scourge of corruption and money laundering, the culture of stealing public funds remains alive.

Last week, the president of the Nigerian Bar Association reminded the world that his country has not lifted a finger about the Halliburton bribe scandal. This, despite the fact that there’s no doubt that officials of Halliburton handed hefty bribes to high-ranking Nigerian public officials. And despite the fact that Mr. Umaru Yar’Adua promised that he would not shield any implicated officials, and made a “show” of setting up an investigation panel. Chances are that, had Yar’Adua not been hobbled by sickness, he would have bestowed national honors on some of the Nigerian recipients of Halliburton bribes.

Nigerians pay a steep price for a culture that garlands corrupt people with pompous chieftaincy titles and hollow honors. That price is that corruption has become as familiar as staple food; the stealing of public funds is so normalized, in fact, that those who reject the temptation to steal are often viewed as fools – or worse.

Nigerian officials are specialists in squandermania, the disease of throwing money away. Nigerians throw away money on power generators, neglecting to fix their country’s power supply. Too many government officials splash huge fortunes on high-priced cars, but won’t invest in road construction and maintenance. They dole out stupendous sums to foreign hospitals and doctors, but won’t provide a healthcare system worthy of human beings for their hapless fellows who are stuck in Nigeria.

Today, Nigerians are riveted by the scandal of the N64 billion-runway at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja. How did Julius Berger win a contract to construct a runway whose price tag surpasses the cost of building an entire airport? Nigeria has a Bureau of Public Procurement whose statutory job includes the carrying out of due diligence before signing off on contracts. Did the officials of that bureau go to sleep when it came time to vet this contract? How in the world did the bureau give a thumbs-up to a project whose cost – from all appearances – is so scandalously inflated?

The aviation committee of the House of Representatives has been holding hearings, but I doubt that its members are less puzzled than the rest of us. Numerous officials have appeared before the committee in Abuja, but none has given a coherent explanation. The runway saga is, I fear, one of those bizarre narratives that point up how Nigeria’s cash takes wings and flies away to foreign vaults.

Here’s a textbook case deserving Nigerians’ attention. The bar association, labor unions, student activists, the media and other civic organizations ought to use this case to advance the cause of accountability in Nigeria. Acting President Goodluck Jonathan ought to ask for briefing on this scandal. At the very least, he should send away the leadership of the Bureau of Public Procurement and demand that Julius Berger renegotiate the contract.

GFI’s director, Raymond Baker, stated that stemming the “devastating outflow of much-needed capital is essential to achieving economic development and poverty alleviation goals in these [African] countries.” It’s questionable that Mr. Jonathan has the will to play spoiler to those who profit by throwing away Nigeria’s cash. But he has a rare opportunity to rise above the limitations of his political career, and the forces that contend for his loyalty. If he acts to freeze the runway contract until the disturbing questions are resolved, and to dismiss procurement officials who seem to doze while Nigeria is being fleeced, he’d send a signal that the era of irresponsible fiddling with public funds is nearing the end of its run. Read full post

HAMAS - Liberators or Terrorists? (originally posted 5/4/09)

"Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force..."



Dear friends,

Particularly mainstream media in the US lump both HAMAS and Al Qaeda together in the same category as “terrorists”. The idea is: terrorism is a great act of “evil”.

However, if we use history as a guide, terrorist actions are often not just carried out by mean-spirited people for the sake of “evil”, as it were. Rather, they are used mostly, in fact, as part of a larger plan that lesser military powers carry out against their more potent and larger foes for the former’s intent to gain autonomy. A case in point that occurred right here in the United States happened during the 19th Century, when Confederate forces openly robbed and burned stores of armaments from both warehouses and ships belonging to the Union, until President Lincoln was finally forced to declare war. And descendants of many of the Confederates and their ilk, by the way, continue to proliferate in this country, at all levels of power.

Nevertheless, the role of HAMAS is not simply terrorism. After all, their main duties appear to be administrative ones where they are responsible for providing social services to the citizens of Gaza, from food and health care to education. This aspect of their work is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the mainstream media of the West.

At any rate, in the informative discussion/interview, below, with noted Jewish scholar Neil Zagorin, he and I shared ideas about the role of HAMAS in the Israel/Occupied Palestine mess.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
*******************************

Djata: Hey Neil, talking about HAMAS in the US in anything other than a negative light seems to bring uneasiness among a certain part of the population.

Neil: HAMAS is treated like such a bogeyman that it's hard to say anything positive about it without making it seem naive and easily dismissible.

Djata: Neil, personally, I see HAMAS as a grass roots, freedom-fighting group. How do you see them?

Neil: Virtually every organized Palestinian group in the past century has striven for Palestinian freedom in one way or another, as far as I can tell. If you’re asking whether I see HAMAS as primarily motivated or inspired by the struggle for freedom, I’d say that’s a main factor.

Djata: In the context of their religious/political direction, do you consider HAMAS part of the body of Islamic fundamentalists who seem to be controlling an increasingly larger portion of the Middle East?

Neil: They are an Islamist group that seeks a Muslim renewal of some sort. Of course, the perceived need for that should be seen in the context of the dispossession and lack of freedom Palestinians have endured in the past century. It’s been fashionable, at least in the US, to view Islamism negatively, but I don’t think we should resort to stereotypes. If Al Qaeda is towards the far end of an Islamist spectrum, the ruling party of Turkey, with whom the West seems able to live respectfully, is at a different part of that spectrum. I would be cautious about concluding that HAMAS is like Al Qaeda.

Djata: But if HAMAS is simply another “terrorist” group, then why do they have so much support from everyday Palestinians?

Neil: Hamas would not be where it is without tremendous grass-roots support among Palestinians. As I understand it, HAMAS has earned a reputation for being more honest and competent in discharging administrative duties than the Palestinian Authority. They have earned respect for being confrontational with Israel in a context where 15 years of negotiations have not produced a 2-state solution, but have produced significant Israeli settlement in the West Bank that threatens to make a 2-state solution impossible.

HAMAS will use brute force to achieve political goals within Palestinian society, but brute force is a common tool in that region. The reasons for that are many and complex, and HAMAS is not the roughest group in that part of the world. In the end, for a combination of reasons, HAMAS commands grass-roots support, even among Palestinians who are not Islamist, or even Muslim.

Djata: Do you agree with the US government not wanting to include HAMAS in the dialogue?

Neil: The governments of both the US and Israel have dealt with and do deal with HAMAS. They both tolerated, if not enabled, HAMAS to get started a generation ago, seeing it as something that could counterweight the Palestinian secular radicalism of the PLO and similar groups. Now that HAMAS is a genuine national force, they still deal with them. There’s been quiet cooperation, at times, between Israeli government officials and Palestinian officials who are Hamas members on administrative matters pertaining to daily life. Israel negotiated one truce arrangement with HAMAS last summer, that is, in 2008, that was relatively successful in keeping armed conflict damped down for the duration of its limited scope, even if it was unsuccessful in other ways, particularly in having border crossings into Gaza opened as HAMAS wanted.

Israel and the US deal also with HAMAS by publicly rejecting a direct relationship, and treating it confrontationally. That is also a way for one political actor to deal with another political actor.

Djata: Yes, I understand your point; however, the Obama administration seems to be following the same path as the Bushies did, by not acknowledging HAMAS as a crucial group in the process regarding dialogue that will lead to solving some of the problems that both Israel and Palestine face.

Neil: If you’re asking me whether I think it would be better for the US government to deal openly and directly with the HAMAS-led government in Gaza, I think that it would. The objection at this point is usually that HAMAS is a terrorist organization, or is a bunch of Muslim fanatics, or is rejecting of Israel’s right to exist.

Djata: One of the points that are made against HAMAS is their use of Palestinian civilians as “targets:, during their confrontations with Israel. Is that your position?

Neil: Yes, HAMAS has been willing to harm civilians, and to create fear among civilians, as tools to achieve political aims, which is a definition I would use for terrorism. Yes, HAMAS is an Islamist political entity that has striven for Muslim rule over all of historic Palestine, though some segments of Hamas say they would be willing to settle for a 2-state solution. Substitute “Israel” for “HAMAS” and “Zionist” for “Islamist” and “Muslim” in the preceding sentences, and see how they read.

Yes, HAMAS says it can’t recognize Israel. This is for theological reasons, as I understand it: all lands that were historically under Muslim control should remain under Muslim control. Some people in HAMAS speak of long-term truce that could be extended indefinitely as a method of co-existence with Israel. They may be sincere, or not. In honesty, this is an alien type of political view to me, a Westerner. Look at the Israeli body politic; at this point, though, there’s reason to doubt that it has the intention and will to negotiate a settlement with Palestinians in which Palestinians actually achieve some real independence.

The point of this is that if the US wants to only deal with groups that are politically high-minded and dedicated to non-violence, it may as well pack up and go home. If the US wants to be involved to foster a resolution that will bring some kind of justice and normal life to the region, it should deal with major players. Hamas has a real presence in Palestinian society, it represents a genuine spectrum of Palestinian opinion, it may well be a reality-based player that would adapt to being included in the mainstream by behaving as a mainstream player. Will it become “moderate” in its view of Israel? Doubtful, but let’s be honest, there’s little real moderation in that part of the world. In any case, it would take a long time after some kind of resolution of the conflict is put in place and works out well for most Palestinians to feel okay about the situation.

Djata: President Obama appears to be maintaining a hands-off position with HAMAS. If his administration maintains that stance, how will this help HAMAS become engaged in the dialogue?

Neil: The US has taken a stance of rejectionism vis-a-vis HAMAS for years, while the situation has gone from bad to worse. Congressmen and Senators have visited Gaza recently. It's hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is a form of dealing with HAMAS directly, if not openly. If so, maybe it portends something beneficial. Read full post

Noam Chomsky on the USA and Israel - partners in crime

"It's something that you'll never see on PBS or even Democracy Bow."

Dear friends,

I was personally introduced to the great scholar Noam Chomsky back in the early Eighties, at Temple University. We shared a mutual friend who insisted upon us meeting. Nevertheless, I found Noam to be a very straightforward guy. Yet, he has an extremely mellow personality.

Nevertheless, the disgraceful move by the Democrats last week, during their convention, to name the occupied territory of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has inspired me to revisit the link below. It is a 36 minutes-long video of Dr. Chomsky at a college lecture/panel that happened not long ago. He really gives a great synopsis of the relationship between the USA and Israel. It's something that you'll never see on either PBS or even Democracy Now.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30X2tYUGK_8 Read full post

Why is the C.I.A. so much in fashion these days?

"I find it amazing that, even in a time of WikiLeaks exposing covert US government misconduct, that the same C.I.A. who, historically, murdered the likes of Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevara, and Salvador Allende are now blatantly perpetrating revolts around the Middle East and North Africa."

Dear friends,

I find it amazing that, even in a time of WikiLeaks exposing covert US government misconduct, that the same C.I.A. who, historically, murdered the likes of Patrice Lumumba, Che Guevera, and Salvador Allende are now blatantly perpetrating revolts around the Middle East and North Africa. Worse yet, television programs sporting C.I.A. operatives, like NCIS w/LL Cool J and CHAOS, are now in fashion. Moreover, is all of this about "transparency", arrogance, or getting citizens to accept this ruthless group that is worst than any of its organized crime counterparts?

Nevertheless, after recently seeing a New York Times piece about the role of the C.I.A. ‘s current involvement in Libya, I decided to do a piece about this shameful US foreign policy body. During my research, I came across an article that really pointed out the exact history of this agency that engages in never-ending, unconscionable acts against humanity, that seemingly happens totally outside of this government. The article appears on the link below.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.serendipity.li/cia/cia_terr.html Read full post

Piling Up On POTUS - a poem

“Piling on POTUS” – a poem 
by G. Djata Bumpus   

They said that 
he’d never get the job done. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 It started 
with an election run. 
Piling on POTUS.  

To think that 
a Black man finally won. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Disheartened 
racists, far more than one. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Now claim that 
his being there isn’t fun. 
Piling on POTUS. 

 Hmmm… Read full post

South African Youth Getting High on HIV Drugs

Dear friends,

It has recently been brought to my attention that a former "problem"  in South Africa has now reached an almost epidemic level. It is: Young people are trading sexual favors and robbing people for HIV drugs, in order to smoke them and get some kind of alleged euphoric nightmares. The problem seems to be limited to South Africa right now. No other African nations have complained about it yet. However, it just goes to show what people will do to escape the reality of oppression, while, simultaneously, being content with said oppression.

On the link below is a BBC piece that was written about the earlier stage of the problem, several years ago. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7768059.stm Read full post

Obama's Re-election Temporarily Beats Racism

“About two decades ago, while venting to a very wise man from India about racism (the euphemism for White Supremacy), he offered, ‘Yes, Djata, but everyone likes to inherit property – not guilt.’ “  

Dear friends, About two decades ago, while venting to a very wise man from India about racism (the euphemism for White Supremacy), he offered, “Yes, Djata, but everyone likes to inherit property – not guilt.” 

Back then I immediately countered, “That’s for sure…However, racism is an active agent that is enmeshed in the total social fabric of American culture…It is not a thing of the past.” And while, as I had predicted both on Facebook and in public, for the past week, that President Obama would win re-election by a landslide, he has yet to address the fundamental issue of racism in this culture. 

More importantly, that also means that he has not helped to create social conditions in America that will provide a chance for another qualified person of African, Latino, or Asian descent to have a chance of repeating such an astounding victory. 

That is not only inappropriate for him to be behaving in that manner, but, as well, at least to me, it gives off the stench of opportunism. For African Americans, from Daddy Grace to Reverend Ike to Al Sharpton, we’ve already experienced too much of that, as a people. Moreover, racism didn’t only get an undeserving liar like Mitt Romney millions of votes. Even worse, every single day, it (racism) affects our ability to acquire fair and reasonable housing, jobs, and health care, to name a few things. And every adult African American, Latino, and Asian knows exactly about what I am talking. 

 Finally, the biggest victory in President Obama securing his re-election over the unashamed racist Republican Party is: Education won’t be slashed, and access to health care will continue to grow in its availability. But President Obama should consider developing programs for the youth that focus on having them accept value judgments that reject people using each others as means to ends. After all, 25 years from now, most middle-aged Americans will be dead. Yet, those aforementioned young people will be here to keep the society going. Otherwise, except for benefiting a few – that is, the organized minority of each country, what’s the point of defending human civilization anymore? Cheers! 

 G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Barack Obama sings to Dionne Warwick

The brother can pipe too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo8nLMCLT60

Read full post

The first "Black" president?

"let us stop trivializing our presence by using the phrase 'first Black president', when talking about Barack Obama, as if we have finally contributed and accomplished something here in the USA."

Dear friends,

African Americans have fought in every conflict in the history of this country. There is no single group here who can say that, especially since the descendants of the original rulers of this country have rarely fought; instead, they have only enjoyed the fruits of the labor of others. Besides, the original British only came here to share their spoils with the British crown, They did not come here to start a new country.

During the French and Indian wars, we fought side by side (troops weren't segregated yet) in securing the provinces. During the War of Independence, we fought on both sides of the conflict (and the American troops were always led by "Black" fiddlers), We also fought on both sides of all of the other wars in this country, leading up to World War 1. After that, we only fought on one side.

Crispus Attucks, like Obama was of African and European descent. He was the first person shot on the Boston Commons during the Boston Massacre that started the War of Independence. Many Black men accompanied Paul Revere, when he and they road their horses through the streets of Boston and vicinity yelling, "The British are coming!". See Lorenzo Johnston Greene's "The Negro in Colonial New England", where he wrote, “When Paul Revere and William Dawes aroused the Massachusetts countryside on that memorable night of April 18 - they called Negro as well as white Minutemen to the defense of American liberties.” The aforementioned "Negroes" had names like Peter Salem of Framingham, Job Potomea and Isaiah Barjonah of Stoneham, and Cuff Whitemore of Cambridge, to name a few.

We did not just pick cotton and tobacco. We built ships - and homes. Many of the early doctors of Colonial New England were Black barbers who used leaches to "bleed" patients. That is from where the red and white striped poles outside of barber shops originated. It meant that the barber "bled" people, because there were few actual doctors and few citizens could afford them anyway. "Bleeding", almost always done by Black barbers in both Colonial and post-Colonial times, was thought to help heal diseases. This practice lasted through much of the 18th & 19th Centuries.

Finally, our contributions like hygiene, politeness, American table manners, and secular music, are of no small order either, and are enmeshed in the total social fabric of American society. So please, let us stop trivializing our presence by using the phrase 'first Black president', when talking about Barack Obama, as if we have finally contributed and accomplished something here in the USA. As the great anthropologist Melville Herskovits put it almost three generations ago, in his classic book, The New World Negro, "The difference between the English man and the American is the Negro laugh". Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Black athletes going broke, as usual

"No one can say with any degree of either logic or sanity, "I am going to deal drugs for a few years to earn money for college and then, after college, get a good job and raise a family." Even the strippers - who, often, claim to be putting themselves through college, by dancing up and down a pole - make more sense than that."

Dear friends,

Historically, African Americans have a poor sense of how to spend our money. Only the wealthy in this country are taught about wealth. The rest of the citizens (many European Americans included) have little or no idea of even what wealth is let alone how to either acquire or keep it. Unfortunately, with this, African Americans have been the worst. And even worse than that is the fact that just as we are beginning to gain some sense of the possibilities of saving, investing, acquiring property, and so forth, the train has just about left the station.

It used to be that if a person invested in an IRA from the time they were 19 until they were 25, they could see that grow into enough to retire on even if they never invested another cent. Now, with interest rates so low in banks and investments so "iffy", you have to keep investing, certainly, much longer, to make it worthwhile.

Additionally, the question then arises, how do African Americans tend to spend money anyway, when they are 19-25 years old much less younger than that? It is then, perhaps, more meaningful to develop as a standard that all youth are expected to have a college fund started by the time they enter Middle School. It may start out small, but it is the continual growth that makes a difference.

Imagine for example in 6 years, from 7th-12th grade, a students saves $5 per week-the first year, $10 /wk-the second year, $15/wk-the third year, and so forth. Even without interest, that student will have a substantial chunk of money with which to enter college.

The real benefit is developing a mentality that puts planning for the future and the assumption that We are all college bound, in the forefront. People who realize that they have a future may be less likely to squander it with petty and larcenous thinking like drug-dealing.

While we are on the subject, the worst thing about the drug-dealing mentality is that drug-dealing has no future and people who are involved in it have no vision of the future. No one can say with any degree of either logic or sanity, "I am going to deal drugs for a few years to earn money for college and then, after college, get a good job and raise a family." Even the strippers - who, often, claim to be putting themselves through college, by dancing up and down a pole - make more sense than that. (That is, at least, their profession is legal and has a fair amount of history to it.)

Now, what happens to the money, if the student does not go to college? Let it be available to the student when he or she is ready. It may go towards tuition in a trade school. It may be usable as downpayment on property. It should not be available as cash or to buy a car or pay rent. The point is that it is about moving the person forward. 

G. Djata Bumpus

http://newsone.com/2054369/athletes-broke-2012/

Read full post

Ahmadinejad is NOT "all lies", as Romney and Obama woukl have us think

Dera friends,

The constant reference to Iran, by American politicians and Zionists alike, about the Islamic Republic's intentions to start a nuclear arms and/or war race ignores the role of the US and Israel in the old game of "the pot calling the kettle black". Please check out the link below.

One Love!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169514.html Read full post

Education and disturbing Job ads (originally posted 5/10/10)

“The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for ‘education reform’ and ‘employment opportunities’. “

Dear friends,

The other day, I saw a post on a friend's Facebook page that, at least to me, pointed out a real contradiction between the cries of many politicians for “education reform” and “employment opportunities”.

The article was about employment ads that, basically, state: unemployed applicants will not be considered.

In other words, many employers are telling people who are out of work, for whatever reasons, that folks who are unemployed need not bother applying for the aforementioned employers’ jobs.

Now, actually, it had always been my experience that employers normally hire those who already have a job anyway. Therefore, I didn't understand why folks, including the author of the article, were so shocked about a practice that has always existed.

At any rate, apparently, in these Tea Party days, employers have "come out of the closet", as it were, and are stating publicly, “Get lost!” to millions of people.

Nevertheless, with all of the phony talk and legislation about
“No child left behind", isn't it funny that, for example, young people who have diligently gone and gotten their education, in hopes of contributing to the commonweal and being compensated for it, so that they can continue to share their skills with the rest of society, are locked out from the git-go? In other words, what’s the point of pretentious laws and statutes like the under-funded "No child left behind", if eager job applicants are discriminated against when they try to get opportunities to reveal the inner, personal powers that they enhanced through their education?

Yet, interestingly enough, the same politicians who say that they want "education reform" are happy to see these spurned job-seekers just mentioned go to war and defend the property rights of these pols’ sponsors (multi-national corporations and other big businesses). Also, you can bet on it that those same discriminating employers second the motion by politicians that young people be fodder for both the politicians' and corporations' benefit. Go figure.

Please check out the article on the link below.

Cheers!

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/04/disturbing-job-ads-the-un_n_600665.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=997897,b=facebook Read full post

Libya's and the West's crooked governments alike released prisoners (originally posted March 23, 2011)

“BP faced a new outcry Thursday about whether the Scottish and British governments sought to smooth BP's oil exploration contract talks with Libya by releasing prisoners, including the man convicted of bombing the Pan Am plane that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans..” - Steven Mufson, Washington Post, July 16, 2010

Dear friends,

The chaos that is going on right now in Libya is directly tied to the greed of the major Western governments, including the US and Israel (for whom the US continues to fight as a proxy), and their multinational corporate sponsors, along with the Khadafy regime. Exacerbating the whole mess is the release of prisoners, often murderers and drug thugs, by the Libyan government to undermine any genuine protest that may be occuring there.

To be sure, that practice of using criminals as cannon fodder is hardly either new or unfamiliar to Western powers especially. For example, about British settlements like the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Charlotte M. Waters wrote, "The colonies were used too as dumping ground for prisoners and undesirables generally, in spite of protests from the colonists. Criminals, prisoners of war, and inconvenient Irish were thus got rid of. Royalist prisoners after Worcester shared the fate with 2,000 Irish girls and boys deported by order of the Government. Kidnapping was not uncommon. Such emigrants were sold by auction..." (Waters, An Economic History of England).

Only a couple of years ago, British Petroleum (BP...remember them?)needed to cut a deal with the Libya government, regarding oil exploration opportunities. Part of the bargain was for the oil giant to obtain the release of one of Libya’s heroes, a man who had been convicted and was serving a life sentence for the air plane bombing over Lockerbee Scotland that killed almost 300 people, mostly Americans. Forget about the “War on Terror”. Business is business. Right? Right.

But where were all of the loudmouth right-wingers who love to boast about their unmatchable “patriotism” all of the time? Apparently, they all caught laryngitis together. In the Washington Post just last year (7/16/10), in an article called “Libyan controversy adds to BP's woes”, staff writer Steven Mufson reported: BP faced a new outcry Thursday about whether the Scottish and British governments sought to smooth BP's oil exploration contract talks with Libya by releasing prisoners, including the man convicted of bombing the Pan Am plane that went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The bombing killed 270 people, including 189 Americans.

Additionally, quoting a confidential source, Mufson went on to say how the Obama administration fit in with all of this: The Libya deal was done with the full blessing of the U.S. government, said the source, who sought anonymity to preserve his business relationships. There was always a policy of no surprises with the U.S. government.

The released murderers and drug thugs who were mentioned earlier have no plans for doing anything but what they have been known to do. They wouldn’t be interested in creating a civil society, even if they knew how to. Anarchy – not the Khadafy regime or the Western governments and their corporate sponsors - rules in Libya right now. That makes perfect sense. After all, this is about greed. And as I’ve said so many times before, greed is always bad, because greed is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP, the nuclear power plant owners, and so many other “free market” and “free enterprise” hooligans. As our dear brother Macolm X insisted: The guys runnin’ this place ain’t nothin’ but Jesse James, Frank James, and the Whatchumacallit brothers.

G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXSCLIlh17o
Read full post

Five Questions that President Obama and Mitt Romney will not be asked

Five Questions that President Obama and Mitt Romney will not be asked

1) If there are only a finite number of citizens and, therefore, consumers in America, will there come a time when some American companies will reach their “saturation points” as it is called in “Economics”; that is, will they be unable to do business here?

2) Should the government “bailout” such companies, including banks, when they reach their aforementioned “saturation points”, since their profits will decline?

3) Do companies have a responsibility to produce results in order to keep themselves in business?

4) Does it seem reasonable for UAW and Teamsters members to take over the Big Three, since they are already building and distributing the cars, while being supported by government funds as opposed to helping the same corporate managers who caused the failure from the outset?

5) The United States is, after many years, still one of the only advanced nations that has yet to sign the International E.R.A. (Equal Rights Amendment) Treaty, will your administration sign that document soon?

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Tired of folks complaining about Obama? (originally posted August 30, 2010)

Dr. Cornel West - in video, and premier journalist Annette John-Hall - in print, share two different, but very Black, views about President Obama's performance thus far.



http://www.businessian.com/cornel-west-obama-is-for-big-business-not-the-jobless-42667.html



http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/20100813_Annette_John-Hall__Tired_of_all_the_bickering_over_Obama_s_policies.html Read full post

A Hilarious Video about Marriage/Divorce

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

Dear friends,

One of the problems that most of us have in developing lasting erotic relationships is: the idea of searching for the "right" person.

A lot of that has to do with the silly and childish notion of "falling" in love. Such a feeling is merely a mood. Of course, moods change. Consequently, at least to me, when two people meet and decide to commit themselves to "standing" in love together, as opposed to "falling" in love, ultimately, they have a chance of growing together as life partners. That notion excludes the traditional idea of "marriage".

At any rate, on the link below, you will find a witty, well-produced video about the oldest of social reationships, that straight-jacket relationship which is the basic unit of bureacracy - marriage G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzjpAYwbFQE Read full post

The 2nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?

The 2^nd presidential debate of 2012 – A clash between Three Countercultures?

Dear friends,

I was hoping last night that President Obama was going to engage Mitt Romney on two points about which the latter pol continues to brag, regarding his qualifications to replace the incumbent. They are: 1) That Romney has a history in running successful businesses. and 2) That the former governor of Massachusetts has a knack for “reaching across the aisle”, as it were, in getting legislation passed.

To be sure, the idea of running our government as if  it is a business disregards its role as a body that represents the commonweal. After all, at least in this country, many businesses, if not most, are more concerned with collecting profits, than they are with “creating customers”. Hence, there is the, usually, short life of businesses, as either mergers or bankruptcies mark their endings.

On the other hand, governments operate, not on profits, but public funds through taxation and other forms of extortion where budgets are allotted annually to keep its various agencies running.

Therefore, as opposed to a board room, decisions are made, for government, by “elected” politicians who are sponsored by corporations, banks, and other such big businesses.

Nevertheless, talk of businesses, invariably, involves jobs being created for production of goods and services, along with the marketing, distribution, and consumption of same. It is here where the blue collar worker of previous times confronts the knowledge worker of today – called countercultures.

In the US, beginning after World War 2, when US military and economic might roared after dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the blue collar worker acquired both status and a standard of living that was equal to the affluent classes of many other countries. The blue collar worker was a force with whom to be reckoned.

But by the 1980s, the knowledge worker became the more prominent force. From various kinds of teachers to physicians, engineers, and attorneys to professional sales people, the more educated began to dominate the workplace.

Manufacturing jobs were outsourced to “lesser developed” lands, as a larger portion of higher-paid, blue collar labor in the US was no longer needed.

Meanwhile, another sector of knowledge workers through “non-profit” groups arose that were/are largely involved in social services. The concern for “dignity”, instead of profits has become the mantra for this body of people.

My point for saying all of this is: Romney’s insistence upon “creating jobs” as an ends is dishonest! Let’s face it. If jobs were an ends, then why would people ever change them? No. A job is simply a “means” for a person to meet whatever ends – including their needs and desires.

Additionally, Romney’s claim of “reaching across the aisle” cannot be substantiated by his record. As Kimberly Adkins of the Boston Herald shared in an article that was posted just yesterday (10/15/12), “Lawmakers often voiced frustration over a lack of engagement with the governor’s office, a stark change from previous GOP administrations...Lawmakers even at times publicly blasted Romney for taking credit where it wasn’t due — such as on anti-gang violence legislation that Romney touted as his own brainchild in a press release. The bill’s Democratic co-sponsor, former state Rep. Stephen Canessa, among others, told me at the time: ‘We never worked with him.’ ”

The worse part of all of this whole “debate” series/sham lies in the fact that the super-racist mainstream media, both print and electronic, are owned by only a handful of companies who control the opinions that are read and/or heard in our society (which is why the powers-that-be hate the Internet).

I mean, as dishonest and thoughtless as Romney is, if President Obama was European American would Romney receive such generous commentary from the “pundits”? Just sayin’…

G. Djata Bumpus

Read full post

The Origin of Blues and Jazz - and the USA

"This is That"

by G. Djata Bumpus

Where does

this music

come from?

Not seeking truth

sure seems wrong.

Where did

this music start at?

Not with some crazy,

stiff cat.

Did it start

with the sax,

or

some other ax?

Or,

was it cow bells

and

sea shells.?

Where did this music come from?

Dear friends,

The history of Black music in America is the history of the first secular songs played here. For example, during the War of Independence, basically, all fiddlers who led the troops were Black men...

Lorenzo Johnston Greene further confirmed this assertion in his timeless book, The Negro In Colonial New England, "Zelah, a Negro of Groton, Massachusetts, who later fought in the American Revolution, became famous in his neighborhood as a musician." Greene also refers to Newport Gardner, "...the slave of Caleb Gardner of Newport, Rhode Island, was given music lessons. He soon excelled his teacher and later opened a music school of his own on Pope Street where he taught both Negroes and white persons."

The contributions of people of African descent in this country are far greater than having merely produced a POTUS. And the gifts that we brought here are part of the very soul of this nation.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit!

G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post

Ronald Reagan's administration "conveniently" re-definded Raciam

"If racism is only a xenophobia, then why was it so important for Reagan and his bosses to end any hopes for maintaining peace around the world, by forcing the UN to dissolve?"

Dear friends,

Until the Eighties, the word racism was used almost exclusively by Black intellectual and social activists. The more moderate members of society, including most African Americans, still used the term "racial prejudice".

In fact, the term racism was offensive to the overwhelming majority of European Americans, as it was synonymous with White Supremacy. Now, along with groups like the accommodating NAACP, the government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media have re-defined racism as a xenophobia or disease, making it very convenient to have fingers pointed at those of us who are the historic victims of racism. Neat trick. Eh?

Finally, at the outset, I mentioned the Eighties, because that period coincides with super-racist Ronald Reagan coming into office. This is the same Ronald Reagan who held back US dues owed to the United Nations, almost crippling that body, until they withdrew the proclamation that "Zionism is Racism" (that had been declared during the Jimmy Carter presidency.) Once again, as is he case with Iran, the murderous Israeli government and its American sponsors prevailed. If racism is only a xenophobia, then why was it so important for Reagan and his bosses to end any hopes for maintaining peace around the world, by forcing the UN to dissolve? In any case, after the UN retracted its position about Zionism, the US government and its sponsor corporations then re-defined racism..WE must not let our enemies define our conditions. If we do, then we'll never free ourselves from the endless oppression.

"Dare to struggle - Dare to win" - Frederick Douglass
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post

Mitt Romney: The "Great White Hope"‏

• Dear friends,

  
  
  The brilliant piece below is a private email that I received from a longtime friend who prefers to remain anonymous. Enjoy!
  
  
  G. Djata Bumpus
  ********************************************
  
  

  The Great White Hope
  
  I watched the Republican convention last night and was appalled by the Clint Eastwood monologue in which he pretended to mock and berate an imaginary Barack Obama.
  
  First of all, it was cowardly.  The audience applauded Eastwood as he stridently confronted an empty chair.  The skit also implied that the imaginary Obama was tied to the chair like a prisoner against his will.  How else would he be compelled to sit onstage at the RNC and be ridiculed on national television?
  
  This shallow comedy routine was nonetheless deemed so important to Romney that he used it in the prime time slot that should have been reserved for his biographical film, the traditional opener to a presidential nominee's convention speech. 
  
  Why was this skit used to introduce Mitt Romney to a nationwide audience?
  
  Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood, the iconic American "tough guy" was clearly enlisted to redeem the manhood of conservative white male voters who feel emasculated by the presidency of the self-described "skinny kid with a funny name."
  
  And it just so happens that the "funny name" is Barack Hussein Obama.
  
  This foolish impulse to belittle President Obama will ultimately prove to be the downfall of Mitt Romney's second White House bid.
  
  First of all, it smacks of racism, implying that the president of the United States would speak in stereotypically profane language in response to Eastwood, instead of doing what has always done superbly: respond with eloquent rhetoric and brilliant reasoning.
  
  Second, the extensive focus on personally attacking President Obama means that the Republicans are not truly concerned with the current challenges facing the American people; they are only seeking a rematch against the reigning black heavyweight champion of American politics.  Mitt Romney is thus their newly-anointed "Great White Hope."
  
  The historic irony here is that Barack Obama was elected the first black president in 2008, exactly 100 years after Jack Johnson became the first black heavyweight boxing champion in 1908.  Two years later in 1910, white heavyweight contender James Jeffries was defeated by Johnson in what was billed "The Fight of the Century".  Jeffries was nicknamed "The Great White Hope" prior to the title bout and his defeat by Johnson triggered riots across the country. 
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29
  
  The Republicans are simply devoid of a real vision or plan for the country.  They have thus decided to take the racial low road and unite their base against the black man living in the White House whom they won't respect as the nation's chief executive and whom they don't even consider to be a true American.  Mitt Romney's line about Neil Armstrong planting the American flag on the moon led right into his charge that it was time for an "American" to lead the nation once again:
  
  Tonight that American flag is still there on the moon, and I don't doubt for a second that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us, that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American.  
  
  And last week, Romney made remarks alluding to the ongoing right-wing "birther" challenges to Obama's citizenship:
  
  "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised."
  
  In other words "I'm white! Of course I'm an American!"
  
  The hypocrisy therein lies in the fact that Mitt Romney, like Barack Obama is also the son of an immigrant father.  Mitt's father George Romney was born in Mexico and made his own bid for the White House in 1968 amid questions about his citizenship.  And true to his own words, Mitt Romney has not ever been asked to show his birth certificate to anyone.
  
  Such are the benefits of white privilege.
  
  I had always hoped that the Republicans would not play on white racial resentment in this election. In spite of all of his flaws as a leader, it must be noted that the last Republican president never used race to get elected, except for enlisting the support of high-profile black Republicans like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.  This time I was glad that Powell skipped the convention but I was otherwise disappointed that Condoleezza Rice instead delivered a prime-time convention address on behalf of Romney's candidacy.
  
  Obama's campaign slogan for 2012 is "Forward."  It epitomizes the vision of a truly forward-looking leader with an agenda that is focused on the future and not settling old racial scores.  It is a winning vision and I am looking forward to an historic re-election victory by the President in November.

Read full post