Djata Bumpus is interviewed by radio personalit JD Houston about "Domestic Violence"

"...the bullying husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend who appears to suddenly change from nice to violent has lost confidence in his or her ability to effectively defend or justify his or her own selfishness, so s/he resorts to "changing the rules", in order to control the situation."

Interview with JD Houston of http://www.weibfm.com/ about Domestic Violence
(originally aired on Nov. 11, 2009)

JD: Good morning Djata.

Djata: Say Brother. How ya doin’?

JD: Hey Man, it’s all about you.

Djata: Yeah, me and them chickens.

JD: Djata, what is the primary point that people need to appreciate, so that they either stop being victims of domestic violence or so that they don’t become victims of it?

Djata: JD, the most important thing to understand about domestic violence has to do with your relationship with a loved one. That is, if someone loves you, that person never ever thinks of bringing violence your way. Consequently, if you have a beef with someone who you care about and who cares about you, the only thought that either of you will have is to cut off communication. So, you say to yourself, “I’m not gonna answer that phone call or e-mail”, or whatever. In other words, the thought is never to do something hurtful, much less harmful, to the other person. Again, one or both of you just cuts off communication.

In any case, if someone brings violence your way, whatever you thought your relationship was with that person, you were dead wrong. From there, you must deal with it. Otherwise, you’ll be victimized, in some way. And it doesn’t have to be male versus female. As a matter of fact, I’ve taught a number of women, over the years – and still do - who either were or are married to or involved with an abusive partner of either "gender". And we should be clear on how we define violence, since it isn't always “physical”.  It can be emotional, financial, and even spiritual,

Also, people need to understand that motherly, fatherly, sisterly, and brotherly love can be unconditional. However, erotic love can never be, since the whole way that a couple decides to enter into such a relationship is, at once, built on conditions of physical attraction and so forth. Therefore, when talking about domestic violence, we have to consider the fact that there are women marrying women these days. For years, I’ve been getting females at my school who are in abusive relationships or have been, so they want to learn how to fight. So it’s not so much an issue of the gender of the sbuser as it is understanding the nature of “erotic love”.

JD: This whole thing about Rihanna and Chris Brown has really brought the issue of “domestic violence” out into the open. Why do so many women put up with that kind of treatment?

Djata: There are a number of reasons for that, JD. And in fact, it really has less to do with gender, as it were, and more to do with people not having a “sense of self”, because they have not discovered their inner powers.

JD: What do you mean by a “sense of self”?

Djata: A “sense of self” means that you know yourself. That is, you know how you’ll respond to any particular situation that has to do with either helping you or hurting you, because you have the integrity to keep a promise to yourself, so you’re able to distinguish a good mate from a bad one. However, it’s not easy sometimes, even for those who really have a “sense of self”. Sometimes, people try to give a person more benefit of the doubt than he or she deserves.

JD: And what do you mean by inner powers?

Djata: Well, for example, capabilities like concentration, memory, and discipline are actual powers, not some type of character attributes. And if we exercise our powers regularly, we can have them for all of our lives. Of course, we have sensuous powers too that are often trivialized as being the so-called “five senses”.

Also, it’s through the development of their powers and the sense of the value of those powers that people begin to see their own potential to change, for the better, any environment in which they’re a part, not only for themselves but for the ones they either love or may come to love.

JD: Now, back to a “sense of self”, could you elaborate on that a little more?

Djata: Sure. A “sense of self” is a state of being as opposed to a state of possessing, that is based upon two premises. They are: 1) That a person knows what it’s like to be alone. And 2) That you know what it’s like to be alone and accomplish goals on your own. In other words, you have used your inner powers to overcome the lonesomeness and separateness that is an unavoidable part of human life and accomplished something with your own capabilities. That, of course, is about what real independence is. Independence is not a 16 yeas-old girl getting pregnant and getting her own welfare check, which has been the sentiment of far too many young girls, especially those who come from lower middle class families.

Another way of putting it is: you can sleep beside a person for twenty years; however, you each still feel lonesome and separate. After all, no one can either eat or go to the bathroom for you. Moreover, this lonesomeness and separateness makes us constantly attempt to form unions with each other. So, we join gangs. We accept abusive relationships. We give up our independence, just to be part of something that doesn't serve either ourselves or humanity.

So, by having a “sense of self” and using your inner powers, one begins to gain confidence in herself or himself. That allows this person to develop genuine self-esteem. And so in the area of self-defense that means the person will keep a promise to herself or himself not to be victimized by anyone.

JD: Earlier, you mentioned self-esteem. What do you mean by that?

Djata: That’s a good question, JD. A lot of people confuse self-esteem with self-pride. Self-pride is a silly, meaningless mask that people wear, in order to make people think that they are something other than who they truly are. And so the person who is beaming with self-pride wears fancy clothes and maybe has a fancy car or whatever. Yet, that same person may be engaging in the most devious kinds of behavior to pay for that stuff, be s/he a drug dealer or slumlord.

On the other hand, the person with genuine “self-esteem” bases her or his worth on the real contributions that s/he makes to her or his community and society. Do you understand?

Besides, getting back to “self-pride”, as Khalil Gibran insisted and I agree with him, “You can’t control what others think of you; only you can control what you think of you.” Dig?

JD: But what if the person fools them. In other words, what if the guy is usually nice or has never come off so aggressively before? I mean, a lot of times these girlfriend- or wife-beaters seem to be guys whose male co-workers or friends are in disbelief that their friend is that type of violent person. What’s that all about?

Djata: Well, that’s something that I used to wonder about too, JD. The answer came to me, back in the late Nineties. It was during the same time that women’s rights advocates were concerned about the affect that Welfare Reform would have on domestic violence. That is, there was concern that many women would stay in abusive relationships, if they couldn’t get any government support, for example, like welfare, if they left their abusive mates. Consequently, in September of 1997, a national conference was held on that subject on the campus of Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois, right outside of Chicago. I was asked to send an abstract, regarding my take on why abusers are often, especially, are men who don’t seem to be violent, at least with other men, that is. My abstract was accepted and I delivered a paper at the conference.

At any rate, JD, women are, generally-speaking, socialized to “not hit”. That is, they may pitch a fit, throw stuff, or whatever; however, if caught in a vicious physical confrontation with a male, most of the time, the female, unfortunately, will give in to the attacker.

Knowing this, the batterer, female or male, takes on a new role in her or his bid to gain control of the situation. Please remember, the whole battering thing is about control. Well, guess what? Boxing is about “controlled” fear. After all, you never see a boxer come out with the hands down. Rather, the hands are up, hiding the chin.

So, back to the batterer, s/he suddenly becomes either Muhammad or Leila Ali. Moreover, when a boxer is fighting, whether Leila or her father Muhammad Ali, s/he doesn’t just throw punches; rather, the entire time that the round is happening, s/he is thinking of things to do and saying to herself or himself things like, “I’m gonna sit down under that punch and come back with a left hook”, for example. In other words, every move and punch is planned ahead of time, just as one does when playing chess, checkers, or a card or board game. Therefore, just as Leila Ali will say to herself, “All right, I’m gonna slip the jab to my head and come back with a right cross to the temple”, the batterer says to herself or himself, “The next time she says that, I’m gonna knock her upside the head”. In other words, like Ali in the boxing ring, all of the sudden, the batterer sees herself or himself in control.

JD: So how can a woman or girl deal with a seemingly nice boyfriend, lover, or mate who suddenly starts giving off mean and aggressive vibes?

Djata: Well, first of all, never let a mean-looking expression scare you. It’s only a look, nothing else. That look means nothing. The purpose of the look is to intimidate you. If the person thinks that you’re intimidated, s/he may come closer to you, in order to do something. In that case, just stare back at the person, right in his eyes, to show that you’re not intimidated. In other words, “nip it the bud” from Jump Street, as it were, because there are plenty of guys, especially, who will try the same thing with other dudes too, not just females.

Also, at that time, that will make the guy begin considering the fact that there may be consequences, if the situation gets any deeper. There are more responses though. That’s where fighting techniques are good to know. And you can employ the techniques, even if you don’t like to fight. Remember, you have a duty and responsibility to maintain your well-being for all of those who you love and who love you. Again, this is where having a “sense of self” comes in.

JD: But what do you do, if someone just grabs you?

Djata: Well, strangely enough, the only reason that humans can grab is because we have thumbs. And that exposes a real paradox about human life, because apes were here millions of years before us, but they don’t have thumbs. If they did, then the Hollywood trilogy called “Planet of the Apes” would be a documentary, instead of a parody, as it is. Isn’t that funny? It’s an accident of nature. We have thumbs.

However, the laws of physics prevail. Two forces can’t occupy the same space at the same time, so you can break all holds, by simply breaking the hold at the point of the thumb. And it doesn’t require any more strength than that of a first-grader, in many cases, no matter how big the assailant is.

Moreover, whether it’s someone grabbing you or striking you with their hands or a weapon, please remember, whether you fight back or not, your opponent will still attack you. Therefore, you have to fight back, because, by doing so, the attacker has to be concerned about defense – not just offense. Ya, dig?

I mean, you may just run. However, you must never cower and beg! It’s better to risk being harmed by fighting back, than allowing yourself to be violated. I can assure you that you will feel good about yourself for doing so. You will be empowered! Plus, fighting back means that you’ll be harmed less, if at all.

By the way, anyone interested in learning some fighting techniques can contact me by phone at (413) 341-5550 or hit up my Website www.westernmassboxing.com and secure my e-mail address.

JD: Do you have many female boxers training with you right now?

Djata: Yes, I have a number of female students, right now. I usually do. In fact, out of over 2600 individuals who I’ve taught over the past 21-plus years, and that doesn’t include the troops that I trained in Iraq a few years back, I’ve taught over 600 females, ages 6 to 57, from “shrinking violets” to karate black belts. All of them can fight now, of course. As a matter of fact, when the award-winning movie “Million Dollar Baby” premiered in Boston several years back, the Boston Herald called me, 100 miles away, even though they have about 200 boxing trainers in the eastern part of New England. At any rate, 40% of the text of the article, which was featured on page 3 of the Herald, was from the interview with me and one of my students at the time, Colleen Ford, about the fighting female.

JD: So what is the message that you want to leave all of our female listeners with?

Djata: JD, women will have to raise their daughters, nieces, and female grandchildren to see themselves as equals to everyone else, male or female. By not feeling lesser, they will learn to take chances both physically and intellectually. That will cause them to develop a “sense of self”. Therefore, they will discontinue any relationship where their love is not appreciated, without fear of losing financial or social status, much less their physical and/or mental health.

JD: What you’re saying then is: the problem for abused women actually begins in childhood. So what should parents, guardians, teachers and other elders do?

Djata: Please remember, young people want to accomplish things because they want to express their love for those who love them. They want to be able to say, "I did good today!" and have someone praise them for it. So there’s no room in this for failure. That is, parents and teachers must not allow their charges to fail. I don’t allow my students to fail! I have never done that! Therefore, all three of my children and all of my thousands of students over the years, whether with academics or boxing, have only experienced success with me.

Most importantly, if a child is in school and trying, it is the responsibility of the teachers and parents to encourage, motivate and inspire that youngster. Doing so will give the child a successful experience. As a result, the child will have something upon which to build.

So, again, young folks need to look at their successes and build on them. It is not about comparing the child to someone else. It is about helping the child develop skills to accomplish something meaningful to herself or himself.

JD: So it’s about building confidence rather than ego.

Djata: That’s right. Besides, ego is something that someone deludes themselves into believing about themselves, based upon what s/he thinks that other people think about her or him. After all, Michael Jackson was struttin’ his stuff for years, then it came out that he was into molesting young boys. Suddenly, he was trying to stay out of the limelight. The ego doesn’t belong to you, because it shrinks real quickly, if you’re exposed in any way to embarrassment.

Confidence, on the other hand, as my brother Eshu likes to say, "provides a place for self- esteem to grow". It is having a sense of how to proceed in a given situation, whether that is defending oneself from violence or defending ones position politically or just accomplishing a task.

JD: Something that I wanted to mention has to do with the images and the ideas that young people are receiving from the mainstream media. Does the media play a role in the proliferation of domestic violence?

Djata: They have to. The main job of the mainstream media, after all, is to promote the entire economic and social system. To be sure, whereas the “market” controls what, where, when, and how people get whatever it is that they need or want, that means that people have to enter into specific relationships with others, in order to acquire those needs and wants just mentioned.

Consequently, everything is defined by the “market”. Therefore, how people relate to one another is included.

Moreover, all relationships in the “market” are based upon power and greed. And when I say greed, I mean sexual greed expecially.

As a result of the greed, many people in this society grow into the "survival mode". They’re barely making it. Y’know what I’m sayin’? So they become selfish and larcenous, trying just to grab whatever corner of the "pie" they can get. It's completely unnecessary.

So, for the most part, unfortunately, we’re raising a generation of "tricksters"; that is, people playing games with others, at the expense of the latter. Of course, it’s the “market” that desires this turn of events, because the “market” is insatiable. Therefore, it wants us to consume at all costs, because that serves the greed of those in control of the “market”, from lottery tickets to casinos to the Stock Exchange to violence against females, whether in the movies, tv, or hip-hop records. To the people in control of that stuff, it doesn't matter if it destroys the society, because greed is always short sighted.

JD: Finally, what message do you want to leave with women who may be listening and are currently suffering in an abusive relationship?

Djata: JD, men and women who play that role are punks. But what is a man and what is a woman? These are silly constructs that reveal nothing about either a person’s character or ability. The two sexes are different, but that difference has no bearing on the ability of someone from either sex to be a competent person for any family, community, or society.

So women should appreciate the fact that they never have to worry about these cowardly batterers to the point where you don’t act upon their aggression towards you. Besides, like my Daddy always told me, “When you’re angry, you can’t respect the other person’s anger”.

Most importantly though, women who are being abused should understand that the bullying husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend who appears to suddenly change from nice to violent has lost confidence in his or her ability to effectively defend or justify his or her own selfishness, so s/he resorts to "changing the rules", in order to control the situation. But, if you can't take the criticism, you deny the other person's right to criticize. And again, it doesn't even have to be “physical” violence. Regardless, it's the same lame game. Ya dig?

JD: All right, brother. Thanks, for stoppin’ by. It was a pleasure having you.

Djata: JD, the pleasure’s mine. I’m sure. Peace. Read full post

Remembering - Interview with the late, great Teddy Pendergrass

He needs no introduction!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSE6QQUHUME Read full post

Dr. Maya Angelou - Still I Rise

Manifesto of ALL Black woman...Long live the African Spirit!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqOqo50LSZ0 Read full post

Interview: Legendary scholar, activist, and author Lloyd Hogan turns 90 (1/23/13 - )

Dear friends,

It is with great honor and pride that I am having the opportunity to present an interview with a man who has been one of the most important teachers in my life, Professor Lloyd Hogan. Moreover, on today, his 90^th birthday, and considering all of the turmoil that still afflicts African American people, we are fortunate to still have his fresh, original thinking at hand Cheers!

Djatajabs: Hey Lloyd…Its been well over 30 years since my brother Eshu introduced us, after several years of him telling me that he had a professor who had become a close friend, at his alma mater, Hampshire College, with whom I would be certain to enjoy sharing ideas while, simultaneously, learning a great deal. To be sure, meeting you back then, and to this very day, has been one of the best things to ever happen, for me. Nevertheless, having been born in 1923, and considering your over 70 years in academia, from student scholar to professor, activist, and author, have there been changes for African American academicians, in both colleges and universities, generally, that have, correspondingly, benefited our people?

Lloyd: During the last 70 years much has changed for the better for African Americans in the institutions of higher learning (academia). In 1943, there were approximately 4 or 5 African American professors teaching in the "white" institutions. Academia had, perhaps, the most white segregated institutions in the U.S. It was so bad that in cities of the South where  African American colleges were located a stone's throw from their white counterparts, the white professors within the same fields kept theirdistance from their black colleagues.

Black students in the white institutions were the most deprived of scholarly camaraderie with their professors and fellow students. They were made to feel that they should be happy to be rubbing elbows with their superior consorts. At the same time, of course, the curricula were steeped in racially distorted nonsense which passed for substantiated knowledge. In short, white academia was subsisting in an atmosphere of distorted scholarship and social stagnation.

It is true that some institutions had exceedingly large black student

enrollments. Institutions like U of Chicago, Columbia U., and New York U. had black enrollments that surpassed most of the southern black colleges.

Closer scrutiny of these institutions revealed that these bloated enrollments were mostly of graduate students in the field of education. These were the southern professors and educational administrators from the black colleges who were studying towards graduate degrees, a condition which they could not pursue within southern institutions due to strictly enforced segregation laws.

Following World War II, with the passage of the GI Bill of Rights, an

increased number of blacks gained admission to the northern white institutions. The largest gains were in the State-supported colleges and universities of the Midwest and Western States. But these enrollments did not result in a corresponding increase in graduation. At the same time a

smattering of institutions employed a relatively few Black professors.

It wasn't until the middle 1960's, when both black and white students began to demonstrate against the corrupted educational system that real progress ensued. As a consequence of black student demands, black studies departments or programs sprang up in a number of white colleges across the land. In many cases, it was a "copy-catting" response to which these institutions paid tribute. Once Harvard had set up a Department of Afro American Studies, the lesser institutions began to follow in lock-step imitation. This led to the employment of a good number of blacks and to the enrollment of significant number of blacks in PhD programs in black history and other black impacted fields of study. So that today it is no longer unusual to see a good number of black students and professors on the campuses of the former segregated white institutions of both north and south. Out of these advances have emerged some important scholarly works by black professors which have influenced the thought processes of people throughout the nation.

But it is time to call for caution. Having been trained by former segregated-minded white scholars it is to be expected that it will take time before there will come into being a truly independent, scholarly, and truthful black intelligentsia. Time and effort are the promoters.

There is a lesson here for current and future African American college and university students. For those who need college degrees as credentials for employment at higher than usual wages, go for it and try

to complete your studies to actual graduation. The degree is your ticket of assurance that you can be a trusted and loyal servant of the capitalists who are your potential employers. They can trust you to count their money, to protect their assets, and to participate with them in exercising control over their work force.

For the relatively few African Americans who want to remain in the knowledge production fields, be aware that much of what goes for knowledge is merely rationalizations of the efficacy and necessity for the existing capitalist social order in which you are now functioning.

The existing knowledge base is flawed and critically fractured. It needs radical revision from its basic formulations up through its fundamental study methodologies. You have important work to do to bring about a change in the approach to the creation of new knowledge. You are truth pioneers. If you don't accept this responsibility you will emerge from these institutions as petty cadets of your intellectual master purveyors of contrived understanding of real world phenomena. Go for it.

Djatajabs: We’ve just experienced the inauguration, for the second time, of Barack Obama, as the President of the United States of America…How do you feel about that, regarding the progress of African American people?

Lloyd: Obama's presidency has been a historical advance in the history of the United States. It certainly has given African Americans an invaluable public relations position. The first time, Obama could not have been elected without the votes of a substantial number of whites. These brave souls went to the polls in revolt against the incompetence of a president who was taking the country to economic and military demise. They were ecstatic about their accomplishment and showed up in person and in television parlors in the millions to witness his inauguration.

A few days later reality set in and they awoke from the dream state. It was as if they said to themselves "what were we thinking..." We should all have known that the President of the United States is the chief executive of the capitalist ruling class. As head functionary of  the capitalist political state his major task is to oversee the promulgation and enforcement of the rules of the capitalist game.

First and foremost among these rules is to insure the continuity of the system...and this means the urgency of preservation of private property rights of capitalists in the ownership of the wage worker's ability to work, which was purchased in market relations; preservation of the property rights of capitalists in the products of wage workers labor, which result from the capitalists use of his private property; preservation of capitalist property rights in the profits derived fromthe sale of his products; and finally preservation of the right of capitalists to reinvest their profits in such a manner as to repeat the process of capitalist activity over and over again without end. There is no way in which African American issues could have been brought to the forefront of Obama's administration in the face of the reality of his major task. As such, it wasn't too long into his tenure that Tea Party and other organizations began to oppose his every action within a posture of concealed and at times overt racist diatribes. Meantime, African Americans and other allies looked on in dismay to witness what appeared to be an administration incapable of any progressive accomplishment. The man is circumscribed by an exploitative political economic system. It is sufficient if he can survive and end his tenure with accomplishments such as a termination of two destructive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a semblance of a health care insurance plan, and with some growth in employment. He should be commended if he can pull off these modest goals.

Djatajabs: Now, apart from education and politics, I always remember, from years back, how important it was to you to have a fairly large garden, during the warm weather, but also, even today, you still have a small porch garden, at your home. What is the role of food for any population group, as it seeks to reproduce itself as a people, through

time?

Lloyd: It is true that I have always tried, whenever possible, to plant a kitchen garden. It is a conscious attempt to keep in touch with the reality of human existence. In my book, Principles of Black Political Economy, I argued that food production and consumption lie at the foundation of every conceivable political economy that has been known throughout the history of humankind. Since then I have been working on development of a theory of human population. A fundamental postulate of that theory is that in every human society two material crops must be produced to form its core. These are an annual crop of food and a corresponding annual crop of human babies. The annual crop of food constitutes the life-time supply for the corresponding annual crop of babies. I can't go into implications of this postulate in this discussion. However, suffice it to say that different social orders are distinguished by the specific way in which the food is made available to the babies over the course of their lifetimes.

That food is essential should be obvious. No person can exist

without ingesting into his/her person a daily dosage of food (including potable water and breathable air). Food is the elixir of human life. Although people consume many other things, food, nonetheless, must also be

an essential part of their consumption bundle.

In exploitative  societies, it is the robbery of the food from the mouth of babies that reduce the potential longevity of the average population member. It is no wonder that death among the poverty stricken comes easy; while death among the material well-off comes hard. The bread is snatched from the mouth of the poor and death easily prevails.

It is no wonder then that I always try to plant a garden. In these days, I am confined to a few planters on my apartment terrace where I concentrate on the standard herbs--thyme, rosemary. basil, oregano, sage, etc. I also work with peppers such as bhut jaloki, trinidad scorpion, habanero, scotch bonnet, etc. I engage in friendly struggle with Earth-mother.

Djatajabs: Is there a reason to for us to continue the African American experience in a so-called “post-racial” society? I mean, exactly what conditions must exist, in order for a group to become a distinct body for generations, and when is it favorable for them to do so?

Lloyd: I must state at the outset that "race" is a corrupt and corruptible concept. It immediately involves a superiorityinferiority configuration. It was invented by slave hunters and slave

masters to justify to their gods and their evil consciences the wanton control of other human beings as their private property.

"Post-racial" is a related term which has no essential meaning, but provides talking points for charlatans, television commentators, and the unthinking

layman.

African Americans are a distinctive population by dint of their long historical period of reproducing among themselves to the exclusion of all other people.

No individual African American consciously made the decision to be a member of this distinct population. The social and

political economic circumstances under which these people existed in North America are the decisive factors. Black slavery, black

sharecropping in a Jim Crow environment, and late coming to the wage labor class are the historical groundings which cemented African Americans as an identifiable sub-population within the larger U.S. population. As such, it will be an extremely long time in the future before these people will be physically and socially integrated into the larger U.S. population. One shouldn't make plans for this event any time soon.

I must also remind you that African Americans have been physically integrated with a segment of the white population for quite a long time, in the past. If one observes these people closely it becomes, at once, obvious that they have shed a decisive identifying African attribute.

Blackness as a color that is characteristic of African people has almost disappeared from African Americans. They span all colors of the rainbow. Their blood has been tainted with the venom of the vermin slave masters who forcibly injected their polluted seeds into black slave women's wombs. The rape of black womanhood now appears visibly in the panorama of colors among black people. But the power of blackness is such that one droplet of black blood still marks the offspring as black.

The message to African Americans is to savor that history and the cultural entanglements which surround it. There is no escape. After all, it is out of the struggles of African Americans for liberation from all the restrictions they faced throughout their history which made the important democratic advances in the U.S. at large. The nation owes these people a great debt of gratitude for whatever semblance of democracy now prevails. African American struggle and developing U.S. democracy are synonymous events.

Djatajabs: What relationships do you think need to exist between African American men and women for the prospects of our future growth as a people?

Lloyd: I have no substantive knowledge of interpersonal relationships. My only advice to any African American in this regard is to remember that

people are highly specialized and exotic formations of the Earth's

surface. As such they have an obligation far beyond themselves to preserve and improve the species of which they are an essential part.

Be good to each other...love the other better than you love yourself...never do to the other what you would not want done to you, while at the same time always defending the right of the other to do whatever he/she proposes to do. But since the Earth-mother is the source of our being, then preservation and improvement of her is a number 1 activity. That is

all I have to contribute to this most important topic.

Djatajabs: Thanks for sharing your wisdom today, as you have been doing for three generations, Lloyd…and Happy 90^th!...Much Love!

Read full post

A short interview/discussion with legendary jazz singer/bandleader Nicki Mathis

"I'm interested in singing songs about my family, my people, the motherland, joy, happiness..."

Djata: Nicki, I must first say that it's an honor for me to be having this discourse with you. At any rate, from where did the lyrics come in your early years and how have they evolved?

Nicki: Thanks, Djata. For the first lyrics I wrote to my 1st jazz pianist's Sabrina, the words came from the real story; Sabrina was his & his wife's 1st born, and the story came from a collection of words I thought told how he must have felt about her beauty, his responsibility to protect her, his wishes for her happiness in life. His music was/is so beautiful, I wanted to sing along, so I wrote words.

For the 1st music & lyrics I wrote for Make Some Kind of Magic, it came from a comment I made to a poet who had signed me to sing accapella on her poetry show- something I don't know how to do performance-wise - I ended up telling her, don't worry, we'll make some kind of magic. When I heard the words out my mouth, I thought, “Hmmmm…that sounds like a song”. I proceeded to put notes to the cadence of the words, and told the story of my first trip to Africa. Usually, a phrase, or a scene will conjure up a story, then I have to find melody to match words.

Djata: You’ve told me that when you do a song, you have to like the story. What do you mean by that?

Nicki: I'm interested in singing songs about my family, my people, the motherland, joy, happiness. I'm not interested in singing sad, violent songs, songs about people mistreating people.
Djata: You were a single Mom who raised two sons to adulthood. You’ve been involved in music, literally, all of your life. But, Nicki, as a basis for all that you’ve done and still do, I’m curious, at this point in your life, what really makes you tick?

Nicki: Love of life makes me tick; learning makes be happy, I love people, artists, art, nature.

Djata: Is there or are there either benefits or detriments, or both, to being a female performer?

Nicki: I'm still looking for benefits outside of self actualization/fulfillment; gender determents are a way of life. Women are not viewed as equal human beings.

Djata: Do you believe that there is any one thing or are there several things that female artists, of all kinds, can do to help bring humanity to a tangibly higher level where people will be able to relate to each other on many levels, as opposed to so much of the division between cultural groups and sexes that is so prevalent today?

Nicki: Many things can be done to bring humanity to a higher level, go back to kindergarten like behavior, and treat people like we want to be treated with respect and consideration. . Understand that r-a-c-e is a make believe word which means nothing, and immediately stop applying it to reality.

stay tuned… Read full post

Another superb interview/discussion w/legendary jazz leader NIcki Mathis

"Try to perform with musicians who will also listen to you, know your song's story, and allow you to tell it your way."



Djata: NIcki, exactly what distinguishes jazz singers from other music genres like opera, rhythm and blues, country, and so forth?

NIcki: For me, jazz is in the moment, kind of evolving as it is delivered - free, or at least it's supposed to be; I believe opera is entirely structured, as in note for note the way someone wrote it & doesn't allow for individually inspired changes; rhythm and blues have what it suggests, a different rhythm, and blues, a sort of a wailing of despair, and can be sassy; country, I don't know much about, but I enjoy Willie Nelson, and think he's pretty hip & jazzy at times, and look what Gladys Knight did to Neither One of Us. I think the difference in each is time and feel...soul?

Djata: Do you think that any particular phrasing or texture of a song’s interpretation is gender specific?

NIcki: No. I read that Luther Vandross was inspired by Dionne Warwick; Frank Sinatra's phrasing was inspired by a black female singer who's name escapes me at the moment…

Djata interrupts, “Josephone Baker?”…NIcki: No, but she was one of Josephine's peers, & not Bricktop. I remember now. Her name was Mable Mercer‏. She was famous in France for many years before she came back to the states, in the late Seventies. She was still thrilling NYC audiences with her delivery from her chair/throne.

Djata: In terms of relating with other musicians, both male and female, in creating music, what is the history of female jazz singers as either members with or leaders of orchestras and groups of whatever size?

NIcki: ...History of female jazz singers? time doesn't permit me to begin to express, but let's just say they were involved every step of the way, but hardly mentioned/recalled - while their male counterparts are. Who knows that in the beginning, Lucile Armstrong played in the band with Louis, and later encouraged him to go out on his own?

Djata: NIcki, is there anything that you would like to say to young females who may be entertaining the idea of being a jazz singer?

NIcki: The same thing Eric Dolphy said to me: Sing everyday. I would add, sing everything, jazz, rhythm and blues, opera, country. . . be conscious of the story you're telling, and listen to yourself. Try to perform with musicians who will also listen to you, know your song's story, and allow you to tell it your way.

please stay tuned… 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

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

Bumpus interviews/discusses the present "mess" in Gaza - with a Jewish educator, activist, and scholar (originally posted 1/3/09)

I am coming to believe that there is a type of zero-sum game of discussion about Palestine and Israel that needs rethinking. Do you know what I mean by this? A half-century or more of Israelis bad/Palestinians good, or Arabs bad/Israelis good rhetoric leaves people nothing to do but react predictably to the latest crisis...


Dear friends,

The current blood-letting that is going on in the Gaza Strip, particularly, should, at least to me, raise questions in all of us, regarding our genuine belief in human freedom, dignity, and justice.

I am honored to begin a series of discussions about the constant mess that represents the life experiences of our brothers and sisters, of all groups, in the Middle East. Neil Zagorin, a brilliant thinker, who has appeared on this blog in the past, brings a wealth of scholarship and goodwill to the dialogue that appears below.

One Love, One Heart, One Spirit!
G. Djata Bumpus
*******************************************
Djata: Neil, in our attempt to bring more clarity to the current view of what is going on in the Middle East generally, how do you think we should approach it? In other words, is it the “terms” of the discussion or the “facts” of same that we need to consider?

Neil: I want to put it out there that our written exchange stems from a meal we shared recently, when there happened to be disturbing news about Israel’s military operation in Gaza. We’re both citizens of the U.S. You’re an African American with family roots in Barbados. I’m an Ashkenazic Jew with family roots in the Czarist Empire. It was the kind of situation in which probing discussion of the Palestinian-Israeli impasse often goes nowhere, yet we shared outrage, dismay, and sadness in many of the same ways. More importantly, we explored areas where we might differ without personal venom, and most importantly, did so while resisting the temptation to resort to dehumanizing narratives about either side, Palestinian or Israeli. I think this is too rare: do you agree?

So, I am coming to believe that there is a type of zero-sum game of discussion about Palestine and Israel that needs rethinking. Do you know what I mean by this? A half-century or more of Israelis bad/Palestinians good, or Arabs bad/Israelis good rhetoric leaves people nothing to do but react predictably to the latest crisis: anti-Israel as usual, anti-Arab/Palestinian as usual, or anti-both as usual. It’s a horrendously complicated situation. Israel is much stronger than the Palestinians, but they’re both small and diverse groups of angry, scared, confused people in a world where small nations – and they’re both small nations – can sway in the wind created by bigger powers.

Djata: Okay. But is calling Israel a small nation in the same context as one does Palestine a false abstraction? Israel does have nuclear weapons, after all. More significantly I must ask, at what point does the government of Israel pull a Nagasaki and Hiroshima, as the US did in becoming a world power?

Neil: Israel is a military giant compared to Palestine, but not compared to the entire Arab world. Don’t forget that Israel has also relied heavily on U.S. support for decades to maintain its tenuous position in the world. So I’ll maintain that Israel is a small country.

I observe that it’s common for critics of Israel to view Israel as some huge monolith that always sets the agenda. For all of Israel’s resolution in pursuing its aims, I challenge you to acknowledge the many ways that efforts by Jews to build a Jewish state have been influenced and conditioned heavily by outside factors. That is,the Ottoman Empireʼs colonial policy allowed Palestinian land to be legally acquired for Jewish settlement in the late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries.

The British and French Empires controlled the Middle East after World War 1, and redrew the map, physically and politically, in ways that endure today. The British Empire made differing promises about Palestine to Jews and Arabs, and, in dissolution after World War 2, dropped the conflict into the lap of the fledgling United Nations. The Nazi campaign to kill Jews, and the world’s reaction to it, had a huge impact on the movement to create a Jewish state. The West and Soviet Bloc both conducted Cold War conflict by proxy in the Middle East.

It’s still an area in which governments and non-governmental actors from abroad support one side or another for financial or political gain. There are governments or movements that support one side or another as minor players in some larger conflict. There are governmental and non-governmental organizations in other places that profit from munitions expended in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I’m willing to bet that there are smaller and larger military organizations in many places that have some involvement in what’s going on in Gaza to draw lessons for their own use about waging asymmetric warfare. There are governments or movements beside Hamas that anticipate political gain if Hamas continues to lob rockets randomly at Israel to precipitate continued military conflict in which Gazans will suffer the most. Do you think I’m badly wrong in these observations?

As for nukes, they say that Israel has them. If so, I pray they never use them, but I’m a lot more worried about the possibility of nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India.

Djata: I think that what you’re doing here is keeping with the facts, but not with the terms. And that’s fine. Yet, based upon our initial premise, how do we keep the dialogue in "terms" as opposed to "facts", in light of the obvious domination by the Israelis over Palestinians? Additionally, since the violence (rocket launches) of Hamas is mostly symbolic, as are the rocks thrown at both real and imagined planes in the sky, by small Palestinian boys, when does the reality of "moral superiority" defeat the Israelis, regardless of the benefits of this conflict to bigger powers?

Neil: Djata, when thinking of the difference between “terms” and “facts,” I’m thinking of the zero-sum game of judgment that we’re seeing even now. There’s a nightmare occurring in Gaza. Lots of people are quick to point to one side or the other as the villain, forgoing a deeper discussion that this tangled tragedy deserves. By contrast, I think thereʼs responsibility in many places, both in Israel/Palestine and outside. .

In physical confrontation between Palestinians and Israelis, hatred and murderous intent exist on both sides, though I have to reject the stereotyping of either group. In my understanding, Israelis have shed much more Palestinian blood than Palestinians have shed Israeli blood. Am I wrong in thinking this? In trying to find a way forward, this will make reconciliation, if this will ever happen, a complicated as well as painful process. Somewhere along the way, Israel should expect to be judged for the number of casualties it has caused.

I do not agree that Hamas' targeting of Israeli civilians can be entirely categorized as "symbolic". Why launch rockets at Ashkelon when the thousands of Israeli soldiers massed at the borders of Gaza are available as a foe against whom one can symbolically resist with dignity and honor? Yes, part of what's going on is an oppressed people demonstrating its uncompromising resistance to subjugation in the modest ways possible to it. Another part of it is that the spilling of Jewish (not just Israeli) blood as an end in itself beyond national self-determination is one of the goals for many of the militants in Hamas, and analagous groups. Some of these people are real religious zealots, and do not operate within the moral or political framework of the national liberation movements that struggled in many parts of the world for justice and liberation when we were younger.

Justice needs to be achieved in the Middle East. I ain't King Solomon, and I don't know to achieve it, though the two-state solution, with the world insisting, watching, and supporting so that it works in some real way, seems like the way to go. More funerals of Palestinian children will not bring justice. I do not want to believe that most Palestinians, and Arabs and Muslims in a wider sense, as angry as they might be with Israel, would really view more funerals of Jewish children as a triumph. Some of the militants who launch rockets at Israeli cities, when they already have the world's full attention, would. They should be judged accordingly.
None of this is to claim that there is equivalence between the suffering of Gazans and whatever atmosphere of fear Hamas is able to achieve in Israel. I don't think that Israel is morally superior; many of its views, goals, and methods are morally troubling, in my opinion.

Do you think that all of Hamas' views, goals, and methods are really morally superior to those of Israel? Something I'd like us to look at together over the coming months is how Palestinians look at Hamas; I'm getting the sense that it's increasingly not with tremendous pride and pleasure.

Djata: I think that we can discuss solutions in a future discourse. Your points are certainly well-taken. To be sure, we hear a lot about the involvement of the United States with Israel. Some have even called Israel our 51st state. Yet, are there any other countries or bodies who share culpability in the mess that has been proliferating for much of the 20th Century -and beyond, in Palestine/Israel?

Neil: You’re right, we hear a lot about the involvement of the U.S. with Israel, here in the U.S. It follows predictable patterns: either you hear about an admirable bond of solidarity between two good nations, or you hear about a partnership in which the U.S. supports, or is manipulated to support, Israel’s unjust domination of Palestinians.

For our purposes, I’d like to respond to the latter view. In my opinion, Israel should be held accountable for its actions, and this includes an accounting for the current nightmare in Gaza. With that said, I am hesitant to assume that Israel has been and continues to be in confident control of its own destiny.

To those who feel that Israel should bear responsibility for what’s happening in Gaza, I say “you’re right.” I’d say the same thing to those who feel that Hamas should bear responsibility. I want to add to this that responsibility should be borne by those, neither Israeli nor Palestinian, who pursue their own interests in the Middle East without regard to the interests of millions of frightened, despairing people who live between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.

Djata: Yes, but let us not forget that during the apartheid era in South Africa, the US circumvented restrictions imposed by the UN embargo against South Africa, by funneling both financial and technical assets to apartheid South Africa through Israel – a country that ignored the aforementioned UN sanctions. At any rate, in speaking out for justice for Palestinians, when is it right to acknowledge the failures of their leaders? Likewise, in acknowledging Israel's vulnerabilities, as Western media outlets so commonly do, at some point, is it either proper or improper to recognize Israel’s use of military and political force, as well, such as bombing the homes of Hamas leaders? Israeli leaders are never targeted it seems, after all.

Neil: Defenders of Palestine or Israel acknowledge the moral and political failings of the side they support incidentally, if at all. That’s my observation. More honesty is necessary to bring greater understanding and less dehumanization of both Israelis and Palestinians. That’s my conclusion.

Concerning South Africa and Palestine, Nelson Mandela has made the point of acknowledging the steadfast support of Palestinians during the anti-apartheid struggle. I admire and honor Palestinians for this.

Concerning South Africa and Israel, it’s an anti-Israel orthodoxy to underscore Israel’s role in working with the apartheid regime. Yes, Israel did this, and should answer for it, but we both know that there were many governments world-wide during the apartheid years that paid lip-service to justice while quietly doing business with Pretoria. The Israel-South Africa connection has been of undoubted value to those seeking to present the Palestinian cause to the world, but does continuing to stress it as has been commonly done come into conflict with the spirit of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation process, which seeks honesty and openness about what actually transpired during the apartheid era?

Djata: While apartheid is gone in “code”, unfortunately, a new social uprising has begun there against injustice and impropriety. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure Neil, as always. Until next time, my final thought is: Militarily-speaking, why do you think that the Bush administration finds it reasonable for the Israeli government to attack the Palestinians in Gaza, when our own government sought no such reprisal, of any kind, against Saudi Arabia, when 19 of their citizens killed thousands of Americans in one day - on 9/11?

Neil: Oil is precious and blood is cheap. I think it’s the responsibility of citizens here in the U.S. to prevent our government from acting as if this is true.

Look, man, this has been great. We’ve been wrangling with some thorny, complicated issues, trying to be moral in our judgments and analysis, without oversimplifying, and without resorting to any of the racist discourses about Arabs and Jews that often poison discussions about the Middle East. To me, that’s heartening.

Djata: Cool, Bro’. Peace.

Read full post

Another brief interview/discussion with Neil Zagorin about recent developments in Palestine/Israel

"Neil: The Israeli body politic is complicated. Leaving aside what the approximately 25% of Israeli citizens who aren’t Jewish think about Palestinian independence, there is a spread of opinion among Israeli Jews about Palestinian independence."

Djata: Neil, recently, I saw a news clip that featured the mayor of Hebron boasting about how he and his constituents are looking forward to expanding Jewish settlements, especially due to the return of Benjamin Netanyahu as the Prime Minister of Israel. Is this an anti-peace position that that mayor is taking?

Neil: A two-state solution in which Palestine becomes independent in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel withdraws to its 1949-1967 borders has been discussed and negotiated for the past 15 years or so. It’s not the same thing as peace, but it’s a political resolution that might make peace possible someday – or that’s the hope. The two-state solution assumes that Jewish communities built in the West Bank since the Six-Day War of 1967 will be dismantled to make an independent Palestine possible. Expanding Jewish settlement in the West Bank complicates the process of removing Jewish communities from the West Bank. This in turn complicates the prospect of some type of two-state solution.

Djata: Does it seem that, at least, some political Zionists do not recognize the right of Palestinians to exist as a free and autonomous people within the present geographical domain of Palestine/Israel?

Neil: The Israeli body politic is complicated. Leaving aside what the approximately 25% of Israeli citizens who aren’t Jewish think about Palestinian independence, there is a spread of opinion among Israeli Jews about Palestinian independence. There’s a small group of Israeli Jews who believe that Palestinian independence is the right thing to support no matter the risks involved. There’s a much larger group, possibly a majority, who would support Palestinian independence if they felt it brought them security and peace. At this point many of these Israeli Jews are despairing that Palestinian independence would bring Israel security and peace. There are some other Israeli Jews who favor or would support Palestinian independence, but view this as a settlement to be unilaterally imposed by Israel. Avigdor Lieberman, the new Foreign Minister, exemplifies this. His platform calls for Israel to annex the large Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank, while insisting that a number of Arab-majority areas of Israel adjacent to the West Bank leave Israel to become part of some type of Palestinian state.

Then there are groups of Israeli Jews who have a vision of Israel as a Jewish nation-state stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. Such visions may be based on political nationalism (many early Zionists held this view,) a fundamentalist reading of the bible (God gave all the Land of Israel to the Jews,) or some combination of the two. So, yes, there are Israeli Jews who oppose any kind of Palestinian political independence between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. Political parties informed by these beliefs predominate in the new Israeli government. Their current electoral strength stems partly from the fact that many Israeli Jews who formerly were willing to negotiate for Palestinians independence and Israeli security now despair of that option, and support political parties that take a hard-line stance on maintaining Israeli control of the West Bank.
Read full post