"Of course, invading a country under false pretense is not a form of terrorism to the victims. Is it? They are glad to see their liberators. Right?"
Dear friends,
The link below features an article from a great resource spot that you may want to check out from time-to-time. The producers of the Website focus on Africa. Particularly, in the case of Africa, little attention is given by Western journalists, outside of tragedies. As well, since 9/11, particularly the Israelis and their allies in the United States, via the mass communications media, have been able to somehow put fighters of the the Palestinian Liberation Movement in the same context as the Al Quaeda (a group that is nothing but an enterprise concocted by the likes of the C.I.A. and Mossad). Neat trick. Eh?
Of course, invading a country under false pretense is not a form of terrorism to the victims. Is it? They are glad to see their liberators. Right? If they are not, then like the former mayor of Baghdad, shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq, they will be locked up, if they are not happy to have their land invaded, their army disbanded, their government dismissed, and both their human and civil rights taken.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/49608
Read full post
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
A Real Solution for Teenage Pregnancy (newly-edited version of original post of 3/13/10)
“It starts with the dolls” - Dr. Namandje N. Bumpus
Dear friends,
Lately, there’s been a lot of talk, regarding 90 teenage girls who are currently pregnant, at one particular high school in Memphis, Tennessee. Yet, at least to me, the whole approach of psychologists and sociologists to both sex education and teenage pregnancy won’t bring about a solution. Worse yet, the aforementioned so-called social scientists analyze people as if we are talking insects; that is, they act as if we are the same creatures, regardless of our social interactions and experiences. And so, they constantly come up with alleged methodologies for distinguishing “patterns” of behavior. Amazingly, these here-to-mentioned “social scientists” claim their “theories” to be so succinct that they must be the envy of physical scientists.
“It starts with the dolls”, one of my two daughters, Dr. Namandje Bumpus, a professor and research scientist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, insists. She says that girls are socialized to fail at being fully human the moment that they are given dolls. In other words, parents and others set them up, albeit unwittingly.
In, especially, post-agricultural societies, there are far too many roles for females to play outside of a nursery. Male Supremacy (the euphemistic term for “sexism”) sees this dilemma differently, of course, particularly since it (Male Supremacy) is responsible for the turn of events that creates teenage pregnancy in this advanced civilization, in the first place.
Of course, human oppression and exploitation themselves in human civilization, specifically, started many millennia ago, with Male Supremacy, as males began taking advantage of females due to their monthly periodicity and child-bearing capabilities. As sexist values would have it, these female strengths just mentioned became deemed as weaknesses. Even worse, through time, females themselves began to accept their “roles” as the “weaker” – or lesser - sex as “natural“.
In time, males started mistreating each other, with the excuse that the latter were like females. Hence, the pejorative expression in modern times when a male is displeased with another male is, “Ah man, you’re acting like a bitch.”
Nevertheless, at a very young age, girls need to know that males will impregnate anybody who gives them the opportunity. Here’s a short, but true, story that I’ve told young girls, for roughly a few decades. It goes like this:
Around 1981, I was walking with my then six years-old son, Kwame, on the always busy Market Street in Center City (i.e., downtown), Philadelphia.
As we crossed a street continuing down Market, we noticed a “deformed”, 20-something African American woman laying on a gurney who made moaning sounds as she begged passers-by to put money in a bucket that was on the ground in front of her. All four of her limbs (i.e., arms and legs) were only about six inches-long each. Standing next to her was a fellow about 30 years-old, not a bad-looking guy, slightly above average height, holding a baby.
Now, I must mention that this particular woman was featured about every five years or so in the famous African American weekly called Jet magazine. Nevertheless, in spite of her deformity, the magazine always showed her relative independence which included living on her own as a “single” mother. For instance, they would show pictures of her changing her baby’s diapers or writing down notes with her feet, or using a pencil or pen.
As a matter of fact, while I would get used to seeing her in Center City for a number of years after that day, that was the first time that I had ever seen her in person (i.e., outside of Jet magazine).
At any rate, as I kept walking with my small son, he said, excitedly, “Look Daddy. That woman doesn’t have any arms or legs!” I responded, “She doesn’t have any integrity either, Kwame.” A European American woman who was walking directly behind us laughed out loud in apparent agreement with my assertion.
You see, I was upset with the woman on the gurney, because the begging didn’t seem necessary. But I was even more upset with the pathetic guy standing with her who may have been the father of her child. (And she had another child, apparently by a different man who I saw accompanying her, a year or so after that).
The moral of the story is: Guys will have sex with anyone, so young girls, especially adolescents, don’t need to worry about “getting’ a man”. Please tell that tale to young girls who you know.
By the way, over the years, not a single one of the many young girls with whom I’ve shared that story has ever gotten pregnant as a teen, when I’ve run into them in their early to middle Twenties.
Of course, there are other inspiring stories, and being given some direction in life helps a great deal. Nonetheless, in a genuinely safe, loving environment, at home and in school, where, from birth, young people are encouraged, motivated, and inspired to excel, while parents, guardians, and other elders in the community, along with their school teachers, guide the aforementioned youngsters so that they learn how to show care and concern for, try to understand, and feel responsible towards other people - and “things” like their school work and house chores, such youngsters will have a better chance of either recognizing or not recognizing those traits just mentioned in others. That will help them in choosing happy, healthy friendships and other non-familial relationships.
By the way, my other daughter, Tia, is more than halfway through an MD/PhD program at another major medical school. Also, both she and her sister excelled at several sports and forms of art when they were growing up, prior to college. Children need experiences with success at home and in school. Please remember that success in sports and arts, for example, brings confidence. Moreover, confidence nourishes the soil from which self-esteem grows.
Consequently, whether female or male, all young people need to experience success at something other than dressing dolls – whether Barbie or GI Joe. If they get into the habit of that, then they will stay away from people and activities that contradict the notion of having a successful experience. Dig?
So, in this day and age, should females feel obligated to have kids? Additionally, is a female’s worth diminished because she’s not a mother? If your answer to the aforementioned inquiry is in the affirmative, then I must ask: is the value in that logic based upon the same lame ticket that Male Supremacy aka sexism sells. Worse yet, is it right?
Still, at least to me, our biggest problem is not the economy, global warming, or even nuclear war, much less teenage pregnancy or childhood obesity. Rather, it’s violence against females. Let’s keep it real!
By the way, while I have added a few comments here, a woman commented on the original piece that was posted on March 13th of 2010. It’s pretty powerful, what she had to say. Check it out!
Finally, please stop giving dolls to little girls. Buy them build-it-yourself models, chemistry sets, and mechanical gadgets instead. Help them discover all of the wonderful powers inside of them, like both physical and mental energy, memory, focus, and much more. Most importantly, as the great Khalil Gibran taught us, please pass on to both your daughters and sons, “You can’t control what other people think of you...Only you can control what you think of you.”
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Monday, May 14, 2012
The Federal Bailout - a panoply of illusions (originally posted 12/11/08)
Teacher: Consider, oh child, whence these talents?
You cannot have them from yourself.
Child: Well, I have everything from Papa.
Teacher: And he, from whom does he have them?
Child: From Grandpa.
Teacher: Now look! From whom did Grandpa get them?
Child: He took 'em.
(Johann Von Goethe from "Katechisation")
Dear friends,
At the heart of the present world crisis in both banking and business is the illusion that value is something outside of what is socially accepted as such. Here, of course, I am defining an illusion (which should not be confused with the medical term “delusion”) within the Freudian context as: An idea or belief that is based upon wishful thinking that has no relation to reality, and does not admit to needing such a connection.
Nevertheless, roughly two and one-half centuries ago, Italian political economist Fernando Galiani insisted that “Value is a social relation.” For example, if you fill a room with either gold bullion or billions of dollars in cash, neither has any value, unless, at least, two human beings engage themselves with either of the aforementioned items during a process of exchange.
In other words, the value of any particular object or activity (i.e., commodity) is solely based upon imaginary notions of “value” that are concocted by buyers and sellers alike during commercial transactions. After all, as a dear friend of mine, Denny Wolfe, says: Other than the three elements that we call oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, which in combination provide sustainable life to both fauna and flora, no substances or objects on Earth have intrinsic “value” for us.
On a more tangible level, for humans, it is food that is the most significant matter that has intrinsic value. Consequently, in his classic book called "The Principles of Black Political Economy", Professor Lloyd Hogan insists that food, which he also calls the “elixir of life”, is "wealth in the abstract".
All people, regardless of either income or social status, must eat in periodic intervals or surely we will succumb. Period. Moreover, unless we are farmers, we must acquire our food by exchanging something for it that is useful to the seller of food. The item of exchange must not only be of use to the seller of the food, but it also must be of use to the seller of whatever the food-seller needs other than food - since it is presumed that this food-seller already has enough food and is merely selling surplus product(s) in order to acquire other things.
Hence, a universal item of exchange is needed. That is, an object or substance must be agreed upon that represents value in the abstract. Food is perishable; therefore, it has to be something that can withstand time. Gold once served that purpose, meaning all commodities shared the same quality in relation to gold, only quantitative factors, regarding how much gold any particular commodity represents was the issue.
And so, this is where money – like Dorothy in Oz - appears in the marketplace. In other words, it is not something "inevitable"; rather, it is pure chance. This is particularly so, because at the point of exchange, the food-seller mentioned above simultaneously alienates himself or herself from his or her ward (food commodity) and transforms it into that universal exchange value (money). At this point of metamorphosis, even the outward appearances disappear, only quantitative factors distinguish the values of commodities. That is precisely why any phenomenon can serve as money (e.g., paper, gold, plastic cards, and so forth).
This also explains why the Federal Reserve System can create money, like gangsters in a cellar, regardless of whether or not the aforementioned currency has any value to it outside of its name. But the more money that you "make", the less valuable existing money becomes. That means that the value of the money is inflated. Most people think of "inflation" in terms of "price". However, a higher price is only the affect that inflating the economy with more dollars has on the representative value of any given commodity. As a matter of fact, ultimately, it is military puissance that determines the validity and value of money. It is sad to say.
Knowing this, nevertheless, a handful of unscrupulous billionaires met on Jekyll Island (Georgia) in 1913 and formed the Federal Reserve System. However, they could not do it by themselves, so they got some seedy politicians to support their endeavor. In the wake of industrial capital being replaced by finance capital (banks fronting money to businesses in lieu of the expected future earnings of the latter), this was the grand opportunity to make sure that overall competition in US banking - and industry - was almost non-existent.
To be sure, it also allowed big banks and companies to determine the progress of the economy based upon their profit margins. That is why whenever we hear that the "economy" is doing bad, it simply means that the profit margins of the aforementioned large enterprises are not as favorable as their owners/managers wish them to be. The labor of everyday people makes the economy, after all. Therefore, as long as folks are healthy, how can the economy be bad?
One of the difficulties in maintaining a healthy economy is: There is no "free" market in the United States. Instead, combines, monopolies, cartels, and other such organizational forms eschew competition. Yet, free competition presupposes free trade. Free trade presupposes a free market. So about what is all of this talk of “free” enterprise that gets bandied about so much in this country through the opinion-making, government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media?
Moreover, today, both our federal government and the corporate media promote the word capitalism as a concept that can be used interchangeably with terms like freedom, democracy, or the magical phrase "market economy." Due to the illusions of politicians, businesspeople, and the overall citizenry, the idea of capitalism as "eternal" is popular as well.
“...the notion of ‘obedience’ to the ‘natural laws’ of a free-market economy has been represented not as reflecting solely the dictates of prudence and the calculus of self-interest, but rather as possessing far loftier ethical overtones. In times of economic crisis this residual naturalism inhibited business and political leaders from ‘interfering’ with the supposedly unalterable laws of the market: its principles were thought to be ordained by nature rather than by men, and men believed that to violate them was to court social disaster. Only the severe breakdown during the Great Depression effectively destroyed this archaic naturalism and prepared the way for the widespread acceptance of a managed capitalist economy in which market mechanisms are assiduously manipulated through the offices of government." - The Domination Of Nature, by William Leiss
Currently, we are in a similar situation as the Great Depression economically. However, the general population is exponentially more educated (only about 3 out of 8 people even finished high school, in those days). Presumably, one would then think that that means either power or wealth will have to be relinquished by the government, banks and corporations, in order to maintain their legitimacy. Yet, that does not seem to be the case.
Please remember, that the whole purpose of the original North American venture by the British ruling class was to extract as much wealth as they could from the land and animals (both human and non-human), for the good of their class - not their so-called "race" (another illusion).
Nevertheless, beginning with the complete falsehood about “Pilgrims” coming to this land in order to be able to express their religious beliefs more freely, while, for generations, their alleged descendants fought “Indians” over “un-inhabited” territory, North Americans have lived under the illusion that the United States was always the United States, it just had another name.
Still it has been up to those in power to remain so. As Professor Hogan explains, "It must be emphasized that Wealth Accumulation is not done in the abstract. Indeed, it must be carried out by the exercise of the conscious will of people acting in the role of wealth accumulators. These wealth owners have the onus of preserving the form of their wealth while, at the same time, striving to increase its magnitude. Just as important, is the necessity for continuous control over the Wealth Accumulation Process by the wealth owners”. (Hogan, ibid.)
But the “Bailout” is using taxpayers’ money, we are told. "Taxpayers' money?", I ask. It is taxpayers’ sweat and blood! It is an illusion to either think or believe that a great deal of the money that the federal government absconds from us under penalty of law goes towards the commonweal. Besides, does all of this mean that the big banks and companies are saving their own money, while they waste ours? Well, perhaps, that just means that, as Professor Hogan has insisted, they are simply doing what they are supposed to do, that is, protect their wealth.
Finally, at least to me, the biggest problem with any illusion is: It can neither be proven nor disproven. This is especially true, because, occasionally, illusions are realized. For example, state lottery games and gambling casinos proliferate, because so many people are willing to embrace their illusions of acquiring great wealth and prosperity, at almost any cost. Yet, there are people who actually “hit”, now and then. The banks and corporations, along with their servants in the US Congress are certainly hoping for that to be the case with the "Bailout". Therefore, it is an outright lie for Krugman, Wolfson, Bernanke, or any of the other apologists to suggest that any of this is about either logic or reason, much less that it makes sense. In any case, it will not work.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
You cannot have them from yourself.
Child: Well, I have everything from Papa.
Teacher: And he, from whom does he have them?
Child: From Grandpa.
Teacher: Now look! From whom did Grandpa get them?
Child: He took 'em.
(Johann Von Goethe from "Katechisation")
Dear friends,
At the heart of the present world crisis in both banking and business is the illusion that value is something outside of what is socially accepted as such. Here, of course, I am defining an illusion (which should not be confused with the medical term “delusion”) within the Freudian context as: An idea or belief that is based upon wishful thinking that has no relation to reality, and does not admit to needing such a connection.
Nevertheless, roughly two and one-half centuries ago, Italian political economist Fernando Galiani insisted that “Value is a social relation.” For example, if you fill a room with either gold bullion or billions of dollars in cash, neither has any value, unless, at least, two human beings engage themselves with either of the aforementioned items during a process of exchange.
In other words, the value of any particular object or activity (i.e., commodity) is solely based upon imaginary notions of “value” that are concocted by buyers and sellers alike during commercial transactions. After all, as a dear friend of mine, Denny Wolfe, says: Other than the three elements that we call oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, which in combination provide sustainable life to both fauna and flora, no substances or objects on Earth have intrinsic “value” for us.
On a more tangible level, for humans, it is food that is the most significant matter that has intrinsic value. Consequently, in his classic book called "The Principles of Black Political Economy", Professor Lloyd Hogan insists that food, which he also calls the “elixir of life”, is "wealth in the abstract".
All people, regardless of either income or social status, must eat in periodic intervals or surely we will succumb. Period. Moreover, unless we are farmers, we must acquire our food by exchanging something for it that is useful to the seller of food. The item of exchange must not only be of use to the seller of the food, but it also must be of use to the seller of whatever the food-seller needs other than food - since it is presumed that this food-seller already has enough food and is merely selling surplus product(s) in order to acquire other things.
Hence, a universal item of exchange is needed. That is, an object or substance must be agreed upon that represents value in the abstract. Food is perishable; therefore, it has to be something that can withstand time. Gold once served that purpose, meaning all commodities shared the same quality in relation to gold, only quantitative factors, regarding how much gold any particular commodity represents was the issue.
And so, this is where money – like Dorothy in Oz - appears in the marketplace. In other words, it is not something "inevitable"; rather, it is pure chance. This is particularly so, because at the point of exchange, the food-seller mentioned above simultaneously alienates himself or herself from his or her ward (food commodity) and transforms it into that universal exchange value (money). At this point of metamorphosis, even the outward appearances disappear, only quantitative factors distinguish the values of commodities. That is precisely why any phenomenon can serve as money (e.g., paper, gold, plastic cards, and so forth).
This also explains why the Federal Reserve System can create money, like gangsters in a cellar, regardless of whether or not the aforementioned currency has any value to it outside of its name. But the more money that you "make", the less valuable existing money becomes. That means that the value of the money is inflated. Most people think of "inflation" in terms of "price". However, a higher price is only the affect that inflating the economy with more dollars has on the representative value of any given commodity. As a matter of fact, ultimately, it is military puissance that determines the validity and value of money. It is sad to say.
Knowing this, nevertheless, a handful of unscrupulous billionaires met on Jekyll Island (Georgia) in 1913 and formed the Federal Reserve System. However, they could not do it by themselves, so they got some seedy politicians to support their endeavor. In the wake of industrial capital being replaced by finance capital (banks fronting money to businesses in lieu of the expected future earnings of the latter), this was the grand opportunity to make sure that overall competition in US banking - and industry - was almost non-existent.
To be sure, it also allowed big banks and companies to determine the progress of the economy based upon their profit margins. That is why whenever we hear that the "economy" is doing bad, it simply means that the profit margins of the aforementioned large enterprises are not as favorable as their owners/managers wish them to be. The labor of everyday people makes the economy, after all. Therefore, as long as folks are healthy, how can the economy be bad?
One of the difficulties in maintaining a healthy economy is: There is no "free" market in the United States. Instead, combines, monopolies, cartels, and other such organizational forms eschew competition. Yet, free competition presupposes free trade. Free trade presupposes a free market. So about what is all of this talk of “free” enterprise that gets bandied about so much in this country through the opinion-making, government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media?
Moreover, today, both our federal government and the corporate media promote the word capitalism as a concept that can be used interchangeably with terms like freedom, democracy, or the magical phrase "market economy." Due to the illusions of politicians, businesspeople, and the overall citizenry, the idea of capitalism as "eternal" is popular as well.
“...the notion of ‘obedience’ to the ‘natural laws’ of a free-market economy has been represented not as reflecting solely the dictates of prudence and the calculus of self-interest, but rather as possessing far loftier ethical overtones. In times of economic crisis this residual naturalism inhibited business and political leaders from ‘interfering’ with the supposedly unalterable laws of the market: its principles were thought to be ordained by nature rather than by men, and men believed that to violate them was to court social disaster. Only the severe breakdown during the Great Depression effectively destroyed this archaic naturalism and prepared the way for the widespread acceptance of a managed capitalist economy in which market mechanisms are assiduously manipulated through the offices of government." - The Domination Of Nature, by William Leiss
Currently, we are in a similar situation as the Great Depression economically. However, the general population is exponentially more educated (only about 3 out of 8 people even finished high school, in those days). Presumably, one would then think that that means either power or wealth will have to be relinquished by the government, banks and corporations, in order to maintain their legitimacy. Yet, that does not seem to be the case.
Please remember, that the whole purpose of the original North American venture by the British ruling class was to extract as much wealth as they could from the land and animals (both human and non-human), for the good of their class - not their so-called "race" (another illusion).
Nevertheless, beginning with the complete falsehood about “Pilgrims” coming to this land in order to be able to express their religious beliefs more freely, while, for generations, their alleged descendants fought “Indians” over “un-inhabited” territory, North Americans have lived under the illusion that the United States was always the United States, it just had another name.
Still it has been up to those in power to remain so. As Professor Hogan explains, "It must be emphasized that Wealth Accumulation is not done in the abstract. Indeed, it must be carried out by the exercise of the conscious will of people acting in the role of wealth accumulators. These wealth owners have the onus of preserving the form of their wealth while, at the same time, striving to increase its magnitude. Just as important, is the necessity for continuous control over the Wealth Accumulation Process by the wealth owners”. (Hogan, ibid.)
But the “Bailout” is using taxpayers’ money, we are told. "Taxpayers' money?", I ask. It is taxpayers’ sweat and blood! It is an illusion to either think or believe that a great deal of the money that the federal government absconds from us under penalty of law goes towards the commonweal. Besides, does all of this mean that the big banks and companies are saving their own money, while they waste ours? Well, perhaps, that just means that, as Professor Hogan has insisted, they are simply doing what they are supposed to do, that is, protect their wealth.
Finally, at least to me, the biggest problem with any illusion is: It can neither be proven nor disproven. This is especially true, because, occasionally, illusions are realized. For example, state lottery games and gambling casinos proliferate, because so many people are willing to embrace their illusions of acquiring great wealth and prosperity, at almost any cost. Yet, there are people who actually “hit”, now and then. The banks and corporations, along with their servants in the US Congress are certainly hoping for that to be the case with the "Bailout". Therefore, it is an outright lie for Krugman, Wolfson, Bernanke, or any of the other apologists to suggest that any of this is about either logic or reason, much less that it makes sense. In any case, it will not work.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Honoring Mothers' Day and the passing of Mildred “Mum” Haynes (February 18, 1921 - April 16, 2009) [originally posted 5/6/09]
"...whether you have actually birthed a child or not, the biological process that we call “pregnancy” is hardly a sufficient condition for claims of being a mother, nor is it even a necessary one..."
Dear friends,
We are all familiar with the longstanding adage: Behind every great man is a great woman. But that woman, as it were, is not always a wife or “soul mate”. In other words, she can be a mother, aunt, sister, daughter, or even a female cousin, in-law, or friend and colleague, as well.
Moreover, sometimes, a person can serve a role in your successes in life that are not easily discernible. This often happens in the lives of parents, because we are sometimes unaware of the contributions that others have quietly made to the progress of our offspring, since such folks are acting out of genuine love and expecting nothing in return, so they don’t bother to remind us of what they have done for us.
Beginning in my early childhood and lasting throughout my adult life until now, Mildred Haynes, the wife and lifelong partner of the late and great Cameron Vincent Haynes (who passed in 2003) and mother to my lifelong and oldest friend, Kenny Haynes, played a consistent role as my second mother. And the range of that role, both emotionally and intellectually, was as wide as that which my own mother has and continues to play. That is, from the look at me of disappointment to the glee and supportive words of encouragement, Mum, as I call her (just as all four of her own children do) reached into herself and showed real love and concern for me as a child, and, into my older years, as an adult.
While there are many examples, I have two specific incidents that occurred between us that I have never shared with any other person before now. I have never talked about them to my mother, my father - who I knew briefly during my late teenage years, a single one of my siblings or friends, neither of my first or second wives, or any of my children. The first incident happened during the summer of 1971. It was a hot day in July. I was going through some serious life changes at the time. Having spent the past couple of years as a very active member of the Black Panther Party, I had just only a few weeks or so earlier left the Panthers.
Now, I must say that a couple of my very close friends had informed me over those two years that their mothers et al. had told them to stay away from me, because I was a Panther (please recall that the F.B.I.’s J. Edgar Hoover had called us the number one threat to internal security in America) Yet, I always felt welcome in the Haynes’ house and around all of the family members. After all, they had known me ever since I was about eight years old, when I anxiously joined the Cub Scout troop of Vinny Haynes (who I called always “Pop”, beginning in my early adult life). Also, growing up, I had gone on trips with the Haynes family, from Boston to New York City. Again, my activism in the Black Panther Party did not affect their relationship with me one bit.
But here I was, on a hot July day in 1971. I had another friend with me. We stopped by the Haynes’ old house on Haskins Street, in the Roxbury section of Boston, Mass. After speaking briefly to Mum, my buddy and I went upstairs and hung out with Kenny, for about an hour or so, listening to music and rappin’ with each other. As my other buddy and I were leaving, with him stepping outside first, I turned to say goodbye to Mum as she started to walk up the stairs to the second floor of the house. She stopped and looked at the brown paper shopping bag that I held in my hand. I already had the bag in my hand when I first came in the house. But, apparently, she had funny vibes about the bag. So she glared into my eyes. Many thoughts were running through my mind at that point. I had never seen that look on her face before – or since. She said nothing. The two of us had ours eyes locked into each other’s and we were in a kind of Twilight Zone that lasted for about ten seconds. She looked angry and disappointed, but she also transferred the idea and feeling to me that she knew that I was better than that. I was embarrassed. And I was ashamed of myself. She turned and continued upstairs and I walked out of the house.
As I said earlier, this is the very first time that I have shared that experience with anyone. I was 17 years-old then. In the coming years, I would take some very positive steps towards returning to and maintaining my social activism as well as enhancing my scholarship, building a family and having a productive future for myself, my family, and my community.
Additionally, while I moved from Boston in 1978, when boxing legend Joe Frazier brought me to Philadelphia and signed me as a professional boxer, my friendship with Kenny and the rest of the Haynes family remained just as strong. When I moved back to Massachusetts in 1987, I settled down with my own family of a wife and three children in Amherst. Whenever we visited Boston - which was only once or twice per year, because it is 100 miles away, almost always, we would be sure to stop by Perrin Street and see Mum and Pop Haynes. And so my/our children grew up knowing them.
In any case, one day, during the early-Nineties, I called their house in order to see whether or not Pop had received copies of some published articles of mine that I had sent to him. Mum answered the phone that day. She told me, gleefully, “Vinny’s not here, but he got your package”. Then she said something that no one else who has known me since my early childhood, except my own mother, had ever expressed to me. She said, “You finally found something that you like.” She continued, “You’ve tried everything. Now you have something that you really like doing.” She was talking about my writing, of course.
I found Mum’s observation to be incredibly profound. While it has never been much of a source of income for me, writing has been one of my primary passions. Certainly, more than anything else, as an artist, a writer wants to be “read”. So I am overjoyed that the appreciation for what I have to share is revealed by the fact that on any given day, this blog, Djatajabs.com, that I only started 10 months ago, is being read worldwide, by people in 39 (now over 80) countries (not including the US) - and growing, daily. My motivation is in no small part due to the encouragement of loved ones like my Mother ad Mum Haynes.
So on this day that we honor mothers, even though I will no longer be able to, as I occasionally did, send cards or flowers to this great woman, Mildred “Mum” Haynes, those like me who have had the personal fortune of actually receiving her care and concern - her love - will acknowledge her too. Additionally, as Mum made it so clear to me long ago, if you truly love your own children, then you must love your neighbors’ children as well. For it is only through our relatedness to others that we can love at all, which includes the capacity for us to love ourselves.
Moreover, as Mum proved with her deeds, whether you have actually birthed a child or not, the biological process that we call “pregnancy” is hardly a sufficient condition for claims of being a mother, nor is it even a necessary one. Rather, only by actively engaging in and sharing the power of love with others, regardless of blood lines, is a person then able to recognize the interconnectedness between love for one’s self as well as other people and things that will help the latter grow.
No, Mum has not died. She has simply passed into another form of existence. And her contributions will continue to be played out, in an oh-so-subtle fashion. That was her style.
Finally, at least to me, it seems that, unless she is a celebrity of some sort, when a woman passes, there is not much fanfare as when a man ceases to exist in the living form. Yet, all of that has to do with Male Supremacy which must be abolished from all human societies as does White Supremacy (that affects less people, but is equally despicable).
Besides, men started it (i.e., the battle of the sexes). Consequently, it is we who must end it. Men must stop hiding behind our insecurities and illusions, and accept the fact that the human race is made up of groups of individuals who all have strengths and weaknesses of some sort and, as a result, in that context, we are all equals.
So to whom are you grateful today? To be sure, it is easy to find excuses to be angry with your parent(s). As a matter of fact, excuses are like unpaid bills; that is, you can always find one. Nevertheless, on her 75th birthday, nine years ago (now 12 years), after giving her a small celebration, along with Tia, the youngest of my two daughters, as I walked out of the door to her apartment, I exclaimed to my Mom, “Thanks for bringing me into this world!”
In any case, today, I must “Holla!” - Happy Mother’s Day!!! – to all females who have mothered other people or even non-human animals, whether you birthed them or not.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
We are all familiar with the longstanding adage: Behind every great man is a great woman. But that woman, as it were, is not always a wife or “soul mate”. In other words, she can be a mother, aunt, sister, daughter, or even a female cousin, in-law, or friend and colleague, as well.
Moreover, sometimes, a person can serve a role in your successes in life that are not easily discernible. This often happens in the lives of parents, because we are sometimes unaware of the contributions that others have quietly made to the progress of our offspring, since such folks are acting out of genuine love and expecting nothing in return, so they don’t bother to remind us of what they have done for us.
Beginning in my early childhood and lasting throughout my adult life until now, Mildred Haynes, the wife and lifelong partner of the late and great Cameron Vincent Haynes (who passed in 2003) and mother to my lifelong and oldest friend, Kenny Haynes, played a consistent role as my second mother. And the range of that role, both emotionally and intellectually, was as wide as that which my own mother has and continues to play. That is, from the look at me of disappointment to the glee and supportive words of encouragement, Mum, as I call her (just as all four of her own children do) reached into herself and showed real love and concern for me as a child, and, into my older years, as an adult.
While there are many examples, I have two specific incidents that occurred between us that I have never shared with any other person before now. I have never talked about them to my mother, my father - who I knew briefly during my late teenage years, a single one of my siblings or friends, neither of my first or second wives, or any of my children. The first incident happened during the summer of 1971. It was a hot day in July. I was going through some serious life changes at the time. Having spent the past couple of years as a very active member of the Black Panther Party, I had just only a few weeks or so earlier left the Panthers.
Now, I must say that a couple of my very close friends had informed me over those two years that their mothers et al. had told them to stay away from me, because I was a Panther (please recall that the F.B.I.’s J. Edgar Hoover had called us the number one threat to internal security in America) Yet, I always felt welcome in the Haynes’ house and around all of the family members. After all, they had known me ever since I was about eight years old, when I anxiously joined the Cub Scout troop of Vinny Haynes (who I called always “Pop”, beginning in my early adult life). Also, growing up, I had gone on trips with the Haynes family, from Boston to New York City. Again, my activism in the Black Panther Party did not affect their relationship with me one bit.
But here I was, on a hot July day in 1971. I had another friend with me. We stopped by the Haynes’ old house on Haskins Street, in the Roxbury section of Boston, Mass. After speaking briefly to Mum, my buddy and I went upstairs and hung out with Kenny, for about an hour or so, listening to music and rappin’ with each other. As my other buddy and I were leaving, with him stepping outside first, I turned to say goodbye to Mum as she started to walk up the stairs to the second floor of the house. She stopped and looked at the brown paper shopping bag that I held in my hand. I already had the bag in my hand when I first came in the house. But, apparently, she had funny vibes about the bag. So she glared into my eyes. Many thoughts were running through my mind at that point. I had never seen that look on her face before – or since. She said nothing. The two of us had ours eyes locked into each other’s and we were in a kind of Twilight Zone that lasted for about ten seconds. She looked angry and disappointed, but she also transferred the idea and feeling to me that she knew that I was better than that. I was embarrassed. And I was ashamed of myself. She turned and continued upstairs and I walked out of the house.
As I said earlier, this is the very first time that I have shared that experience with anyone. I was 17 years-old then. In the coming years, I would take some very positive steps towards returning to and maintaining my social activism as well as enhancing my scholarship, building a family and having a productive future for myself, my family, and my community.
Additionally, while I moved from Boston in 1978, when boxing legend Joe Frazier brought me to Philadelphia and signed me as a professional boxer, my friendship with Kenny and the rest of the Haynes family remained just as strong. When I moved back to Massachusetts in 1987, I settled down with my own family of a wife and three children in Amherst. Whenever we visited Boston - which was only once or twice per year, because it is 100 miles away, almost always, we would be sure to stop by Perrin Street and see Mum and Pop Haynes. And so my/our children grew up knowing them.
In any case, one day, during the early-Nineties, I called their house in order to see whether or not Pop had received copies of some published articles of mine that I had sent to him. Mum answered the phone that day. She told me, gleefully, “Vinny’s not here, but he got your package”. Then she said something that no one else who has known me since my early childhood, except my own mother, had ever expressed to me. She said, “You finally found something that you like.” She continued, “You’ve tried everything. Now you have something that you really like doing.” She was talking about my writing, of course.
I found Mum’s observation to be incredibly profound. While it has never been much of a source of income for me, writing has been one of my primary passions. Certainly, more than anything else, as an artist, a writer wants to be “read”. So I am overjoyed that the appreciation for what I have to share is revealed by the fact that on any given day, this blog, Djatajabs.com, that I only started 10 months ago, is being read worldwide, by people in 39 (now over 80) countries (not including the US) - and growing, daily. My motivation is in no small part due to the encouragement of loved ones like my Mother ad Mum Haynes.
So on this day that we honor mothers, even though I will no longer be able to, as I occasionally did, send cards or flowers to this great woman, Mildred “Mum” Haynes, those like me who have had the personal fortune of actually receiving her care and concern - her love - will acknowledge her too. Additionally, as Mum made it so clear to me long ago, if you truly love your own children, then you must love your neighbors’ children as well. For it is only through our relatedness to others that we can love at all, which includes the capacity for us to love ourselves.
Moreover, as Mum proved with her deeds, whether you have actually birthed a child or not, the biological process that we call “pregnancy” is hardly a sufficient condition for claims of being a mother, nor is it even a necessary one. Rather, only by actively engaging in and sharing the power of love with others, regardless of blood lines, is a person then able to recognize the interconnectedness between love for one’s self as well as other people and things that will help the latter grow.
No, Mum has not died. She has simply passed into another form of existence. And her contributions will continue to be played out, in an oh-so-subtle fashion. That was her style.
Finally, at least to me, it seems that, unless she is a celebrity of some sort, when a woman passes, there is not much fanfare as when a man ceases to exist in the living form. Yet, all of that has to do with Male Supremacy which must be abolished from all human societies as does White Supremacy (that affects less people, but is equally despicable).
Besides, men started it (i.e., the battle of the sexes). Consequently, it is we who must end it. Men must stop hiding behind our insecurities and illusions, and accept the fact that the human race is made up of groups of individuals who all have strengths and weaknesses of some sort and, as a result, in that context, we are all equals.
So to whom are you grateful today? To be sure, it is easy to find excuses to be angry with your parent(s). As a matter of fact, excuses are like unpaid bills; that is, you can always find one. Nevertheless, on her 75th birthday, nine years ago (now 12 years), after giving her a small celebration, along with Tia, the youngest of my two daughters, as I walked out of the door to her apartment, I exclaimed to my Mom, “Thanks for bringing me into this world!”
In any case, today, I must “Holla!” - Happy Mother’s Day!!! – to all females who have mothered other people or even non-human animals, whether you birthed them or not.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
