Dear friends,
Have you ever been asked the super dumb question, " Do you believe in evolution?". After all, if we hadn't evolved as a species, then one wouldn't be able to ask that question, because s/he would still be only grunting, as our earliest ancestors did.
Moreover, just as there is a biological mechanism/drive to make us eat for self-preservation, for reproduction we have a sexual drive for heterosexual sex (i.e., between the opposite sexes of our species). In other words, there cannot possibly be a "natural" gene or any kind of mechanism for homosexual sex, because that would have meant that we would have ceased to exist as a species long ago.
To be sure, at this point of the discourse there will be some reader who attacks me with a kind of moral terrorism by calling me "homophobic". However, my response to that is: that person is being "heterophobic" - afraid that s/he is really not a homosexual at all.
Finally, sex has been so cheapened in our advanced corporate capitalist political economy or process of social reproduction that far too many people are willing to relinquish their humanity, just as some folks do when they have sex with cows, horses, dogs, and chickens (called "zoo"), in order to have a cheap thrill, then argue that what they are doing is "natural".
One Love!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Showing posts with label Sexual identity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexual identity. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Do We Need Sexual Liberation for all, or "Gay" Liberation for a few?
“Moreover, and paradoxically, the “spirit” of sexism - the euphemism for Male Supremacy, is male homosexuality.”
Dear friends,
The Gay Liberation Movement which was actually endorsed first, on a national level, by the Black Panther Party, as I remember, around the early spring of 1971, today, is not the same movement, by any stretch of the imagination, as the one that we supported back then. Likewise, neither is its Women's Liberation counterpart that would officially establish itself as a force, much to the dismay of many, if not most, men, during the summer of 1971, when Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, Myrlie Evers, and U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm, along with others like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug founded the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC). We (the Black Panther Party) vigorously supported that group just mentioned, as well.
Unfortunately, the leadership of both the Gay and Women's Liberation Movements in this country started “digressing” as opposed to “progressing”, within a couple of years, after losing their control to, for the most part, mean-spirited European American women, calling themselves “lesbians”, whose agenda had nothing to do with liberating anyone.
Oddly enough, it has been the specter of Male Supremacy that has been at the heart of these two movements becoming misdirected away from “liberation”, and, instead, being trivialized as, for instance, with women - “equal pay for equal work” - and for so-called “gays”, gay marriage. (By the way, who in this society has marriage equality?)
Moreover, and paradoxically, the “spirit” of sexism - the euphemism for Male Supremacy, is male homosexuality. Therefore, at least to me, it is, at best, insincere for either gay men or lesbians to proclaim to be sharing similar paths, let alone goals. If that’s not true, then why is that, perhaps, the most common lament by gay guys is: I don’t trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn’t die. (By the way, a number of non-human animals bleed longer and more frequently than female humans...smh)
Additionally, whereas the original Women's Liberation Movement confronted Male Supremacy head on, the earlier-mentioned “lesbians” usurped that movement, as well as the Gay Liberation one, long ago. Then, they distanced themselves from the large presence of the African American pioneers who were mentioned earlier and their sisters - great artists/educators like Barbara Love, Nicki Mathis, Toni Cade Bambara, Sonya Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, Audre Lorde, hundreds of Panther sisters, and so many others. Does anyone hear White Supremacy? Euphemistically, it is called racism, And, in fact, it is the racist arrogance of Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas that makes them trivialize the centuries-long oppression and exploitation of African American people, particularly, by comparing the plight of so-called gays to our circumstances.
Therefore, another problem is: In a socially-stratified society like ours, one can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group at the same time. the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle proved that point quite adequately. Likewise, males and females who call themselves both "gay" and "white" fit that bill. Consequently, again, in their racist arrogance, such "white" people trivialize our historical struggle for freedom, justice, and equality, as being analogous to two males piercing and thrusting their erections inside each other's anuses as if they are a "loving" pair, thus deserving of the same respect as heterosexual couples, when it is actually an expression of power and sexual greed in its extreme form, which itself is also, at best, a form of voluntary rape.
So, instead of strengthening the recognition of the need for all of us to have sexual freedom, the Gay Liberation Movement became the Gay Rights Movement and ceased to recognize the connection between the various cultural institutions in our country such as those of religion, the mainstream media and our schools, in relation to how they tie in with the overwhelming majority of Americans being sexually-repressed (especially those who call themselves “homosexual”).
Considering all that has been mentioned thus far, both movements have become little more than silly petty-bourgeois causes that do not recognize the fact that it is, essentially, the lack of appreciation for our very “human” identity as sexual beings that allows females to be treated, in a variety of ways, that males would never accept for themselves. In fact, the multi-billions of dollars porn industry recognizes males as sexual beings, but females as sexual objects.
Still, it is the disallowing of the right of females to be fully human, due to the fact that, from birth, for the most part, their own female elders brainwash them into believing their destinies are best served in relation to how skilled they are at deferring to equally brainwashed males (who have so foolishly deluded themselves into thinking that they are "superior" to anyone or anything) that is the cause of this whole situation. That’s the real deal! It is not simply a matter of demanding “equal pay for equal work”.
Proof: Named Steve Harvey, an African American, semi-literate, self-hating buffoon who makes Steppinfetchit look like Malcolm X, recently had a best-selling book called “Act like a Lady-Think like a Man”. Ouch!
The worst part of all that just mentioned is: both African- and European American women purchased such idiocy. [It’s funny. I doubt that any reputable publisher would have let a European American male have a book with such a disgusting title.] Moreover, I remember, during the Black Consciousness Era (roughly 1965 - 85), when speaking to Black men who had just moved Up South to places like Philly, NYC, and Boston from Down South (places like Baltimore, ATL, and Houston), it was not uncommon to hear such fellows advise, “Man, you gotta think like the white man.” Not to put any brothers from the South in the same category, Harvey, obviously of the same pedigree as those aforementioned Black men, somehow, saw a similar solution for all women. Wow!
At any rate, issues like abortion are only given recognition in the context of anti- and pro-, because women are not considered to be sexual beings - as men are. Worse yet, and unfortunately, in their intelligent response of feeling resentment towards Male Supremacy, far too many women, especially middle-aged European American ones, feeling that they are no longer part of the personality market, conveniently, have declared themselves to be “lesbians”, a totally reactionary stance against human progress that has nothing to do with sexuality, much less liberation.
In fact, I have found few things more humorous, but pathetic, than to see female European American Octogenarians holding signs at so-called “Pride” parades that read: I am a lesbian. What? Huh? When was the last time that that person had sex with someone else, of either gender?
Still, many argue that they do not "choose" to be gay; they just are. It is not a matter of behavior, they say. First of all, aside from the fact that a proposition cannot be proof of itself, behavior is anything that we do. Period. It involves a "choice" that people make. For instance, the greatest natural urges are those that remind us that we are hungry and/or thirsty. In our society, unless one lives in abject poverty in a desert or on the hills, s/he, usually, has access to, at least, water - whether clean or dirty. To be sure, the "choice" to eat and/or drink, is a wise one, since without consuming nutrients of some sort in periodic intervals a person would succumb.
Another strong "natural" urge is the sexual one. Yet, no one needs another person or outside element like food or drink to satisfy that frustration. Everyone has the ability to solve that problem by himself or herself – and everyday, billions do. Therefore, said one makes a "choice" to go to someone else in hopes of having that person or persons join in the sexual activity. Unfortunately, this urge, because it is so strong and can be satisfied, often, at so little cost - if any, has had a great deal to do with both power and sexual greed becoming the basis for sexual/social relationships in this society.
Of course, "choice" requires a conscious decision rooted in "will, judgment, and commitment". After all, one cannot "naturally" feel a certain way towards a potential sexual partner. Not even prostitutes take on any "John". Those who do are, unfortunately, at least, sometimes, the ones who are murdered.
Nevertheless, regarding one's "sexual" orientation, what difference does the gender, so-called "race", income level or any other orientation make, if, once you are with the type of person to whom you claim to be "oriented", either you wish that you weren't there - or s/he wishes that YOU weren't there?
In other words, can the complexities of creating mature personal relationships be trivialized so easily? In fact, other than some type of "tattle-tale" or "kiss-n-tell" revelation, how does one know what anyone has done sexually, or whether or not a person is "gay"? Even then, rumor is not enough, since a person does not have any idea what has happened with another sexually, unless s/he witnessed the act. Besides, due to the tug-of-war interactions that often happen in the bedrooms in any society, who knows what went down? Dig?
Sexual preference? We already have a name for such people. We call them rapists. One does not have sex with whom s/he prefers. Rather, a whole set of interactions must occur, approved consensually, by all parties involved. Otherwise., there is violation going on which, at that point, falls within the purview of law enforcement.
And then there are those, particularly males, who insist that they are "a woman inside of a man's body". This is a serious mental health issue. However, there are low-life surgeons, the descendants of the pre-legal abortion butchers, who will provide such psychotic individuals with "counseling", then an operation that gives the latter an artificial vagina, for example The problem with that is: The surgeon never informs the "patient", beforehand, that what distinguishes a woman from a man is not a vagina, but her monthly periodicity (although I must qualify that some females do not menstruate). No man can ever imagine what it feels like to menstruate. Such mistreatment of the patient's psychosis is in no small measure due to the fact that, for the most part, the US health care industry - one of the very worst in the world - mostly recognizes "physical" - not "mental" health. Did someone say "the market"?
At any rate, generally, it can be said that the inability to share erotic love with someone of the other sex comes largely from either a lack of ability to be a loving person or fear and mistrust. Additionally, erotic love is, sometimes, combined with either brotherly or sisterly love. Psychologically, that makes many homosexual relationships a form of incest. Moreover, as social relationships presently stand, in this society, most of the people pushing the gay agenda are women, particularly, European American ones - who call themselves "lesbians". While women as a whole justly resent men for society's patriarchy and sexism, it should be remembered that those same two evils exist and are perpetuated by so-called "gay" men as well. As a matter of fact, that's why, as I stated earlier, I believe that the spirit of sexism is male homosexuality.
Nevertheless, it appears that what sometimes occurs when two women, for example, sit around and commiserate with each other about what men have done to them or two men cry on each others' shoulders about what women have done to them, before long, one person ends up putting her or his face in the other one's lap. To be sure, that type of action breaks social custom. Worse yet, when people are breaking social customs, in order for such behavior to proliferate, the practitioners must necessarily develop obsessive and perverted habits, in order to motivate themselves and justify their very being. Otherwise, the aforementioned practitioners will cease the behavior, having no incentive to continue it.
In his now famous manifesto called "Letter from Birmingham Jail", the great Dr. King wrote, in part, " In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action." None of this ever happens with the so-called Gay Rights Movement. In fact, regarding their claim of being "homosexual", dialogue never happens, in any form. Instead, gay “pride” parades and other pathetic and obnoxious activities are thrust upon the public. We are simply told to accept this group, without any recognition or respect for the rest of the community. The so-called homosexual community is not a "community within a community". Rather, it is people who want to sit on both sides of the fence, when it comes to "inclusion".
Finally, those who oppose "gay culture", as it were, are personally attacked and childishly lambasted with a kind of moral terrorism, as gays use words and phrases such as "homophobia" and "mob rule". Also, gays use phrases like "straight allies". In other words, we have a national security issue here, since a certain amount of the population is at war with the rest of us. Gay violence has surfaced in New York City where, a few years back, a group of four women who call themselves "lesbians" brutally attacked a man, and have since been convicted of the heinous crime. There was even talk about a Korean American young man who murdered 32 people, at Virginia Tech, as claiming to be a tortured homosexual. Not a peep, about either incident just mentioned has been denounced by the "gay" community. The reason for their silence, at least to me, is due to the fact that their so-called Gay Rights Movement is not about sexual liberation at all. Rather, it is about sexual repression and destruction of the commonweal. Peace.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Dear friends,
The Gay Liberation Movement which was actually endorsed first, on a national level, by the Black Panther Party, as I remember, around the early spring of 1971, today, is not the same movement, by any stretch of the imagination, as the one that we supported back then. Likewise, neither is its Women's Liberation counterpart that would officially establish itself as a force, much to the dismay of many, if not most, men, during the summer of 1971, when Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, Myrlie Evers, and U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm, along with others like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, and Bella Abzug founded the National Women's Political Caucus (NWPC). We (the Black Panther Party) vigorously supported that group just mentioned, as well.
Unfortunately, the leadership of both the Gay and Women's Liberation Movements in this country started “digressing” as opposed to “progressing”, within a couple of years, after losing their control to, for the most part, mean-spirited European American women, calling themselves “lesbians”, whose agenda had nothing to do with liberating anyone.
Oddly enough, it has been the specter of Male Supremacy that has been at the heart of these two movements becoming misdirected away from “liberation”, and, instead, being trivialized as, for instance, with women - “equal pay for equal work” - and for so-called “gays”, gay marriage. (By the way, who in this society has marriage equality?)
Moreover, and paradoxically, the “spirit” of sexism - the euphemism for Male Supremacy, is male homosexuality. Therefore, at least to me, it is, at best, insincere for either gay men or lesbians to proclaim to be sharing similar paths, let alone goals. If that’s not true, then why is that, perhaps, the most common lament by gay guys is: I don’t trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn’t die. (By the way, a number of non-human animals bleed longer and more frequently than female humans...smh)
Additionally, whereas the original Women's Liberation Movement confronted Male Supremacy head on, the earlier-mentioned “lesbians” usurped that movement, as well as the Gay Liberation one, long ago. Then, they distanced themselves from the large presence of the African American pioneers who were mentioned earlier and their sisters - great artists/educators like Barbara Love, Nicki Mathis, Toni Cade Bambara, Sonya Sanchez, Nikki Giovanni, Audre Lorde, hundreds of Panther sisters, and so many others. Does anyone hear White Supremacy? Euphemistically, it is called racism, And, in fact, it is the racist arrogance of Europeans and their offshoots in the Americas that makes them trivialize the centuries-long oppression and exploitation of African American people, particularly, by comparing the plight of so-called gays to our circumstances.
Therefore, another problem is: In a socially-stratified society like ours, one can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group at the same time. the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill debacle proved that point quite adequately. Likewise, males and females who call themselves both "gay" and "white" fit that bill. Consequently, again, in their racist arrogance, such "white" people trivialize our historical struggle for freedom, justice, and equality, as being analogous to two males piercing and thrusting their erections inside each other's anuses as if they are a "loving" pair, thus deserving of the same respect as heterosexual couples, when it is actually an expression of power and sexual greed in its extreme form, which itself is also, at best, a form of voluntary rape.
So, instead of strengthening the recognition of the need for all of us to have sexual freedom, the Gay Liberation Movement became the Gay Rights Movement and ceased to recognize the connection between the various cultural institutions in our country such as those of religion, the mainstream media and our schools, in relation to how they tie in with the overwhelming majority of Americans being sexually-repressed (especially those who call themselves “homosexual”).
Considering all that has been mentioned thus far, both movements have become little more than silly petty-bourgeois causes that do not recognize the fact that it is, essentially, the lack of appreciation for our very “human” identity as sexual beings that allows females to be treated, in a variety of ways, that males would never accept for themselves. In fact, the multi-billions of dollars porn industry recognizes males as sexual beings, but females as sexual objects.
Still, it is the disallowing of the right of females to be fully human, due to the fact that, from birth, for the most part, their own female elders brainwash them into believing their destinies are best served in relation to how skilled they are at deferring to equally brainwashed males (who have so foolishly deluded themselves into thinking that they are "superior" to anyone or anything) that is the cause of this whole situation. That’s the real deal! It is not simply a matter of demanding “equal pay for equal work”.
Proof: Named Steve Harvey, an African American, semi-literate, self-hating buffoon who makes Steppinfetchit look like Malcolm X, recently had a best-selling book called “Act like a Lady-Think like a Man”. Ouch!
The worst part of all that just mentioned is: both African- and European American women purchased such idiocy. [It’s funny. I doubt that any reputable publisher would have let a European American male have a book with such a disgusting title.] Moreover, I remember, during the Black Consciousness Era (roughly 1965 - 85), when speaking to Black men who had just moved Up South to places like Philly, NYC, and Boston from Down South (places like Baltimore, ATL, and Houston), it was not uncommon to hear such fellows advise, “Man, you gotta think like the white man.” Not to put any brothers from the South in the same category, Harvey, obviously of the same pedigree as those aforementioned Black men, somehow, saw a similar solution for all women. Wow!
At any rate, issues like abortion are only given recognition in the context of anti- and pro-, because women are not considered to be sexual beings - as men are. Worse yet, and unfortunately, in their intelligent response of feeling resentment towards Male Supremacy, far too many women, especially middle-aged European American ones, feeling that they are no longer part of the personality market, conveniently, have declared themselves to be “lesbians”, a totally reactionary stance against human progress that has nothing to do with sexuality, much less liberation.
In fact, I have found few things more humorous, but pathetic, than to see female European American Octogenarians holding signs at so-called “Pride” parades that read: I am a lesbian. What? Huh? When was the last time that that person had sex with someone else, of either gender?
Still, many argue that they do not "choose" to be gay; they just are. It is not a matter of behavior, they say. First of all, aside from the fact that a proposition cannot be proof of itself, behavior is anything that we do. Period. It involves a "choice" that people make. For instance, the greatest natural urges are those that remind us that we are hungry and/or thirsty. In our society, unless one lives in abject poverty in a desert or on the hills, s/he, usually, has access to, at least, water - whether clean or dirty. To be sure, the "choice" to eat and/or drink, is a wise one, since without consuming nutrients of some sort in periodic intervals a person would succumb.
Another strong "natural" urge is the sexual one. Yet, no one needs another person or outside element like food or drink to satisfy that frustration. Everyone has the ability to solve that problem by himself or herself – and everyday, billions do. Therefore, said one makes a "choice" to go to someone else in hopes of having that person or persons join in the sexual activity. Unfortunately, this urge, because it is so strong and can be satisfied, often, at so little cost - if any, has had a great deal to do with both power and sexual greed becoming the basis for sexual/social relationships in this society.
Of course, "choice" requires a conscious decision rooted in "will, judgment, and commitment". After all, one cannot "naturally" feel a certain way towards a potential sexual partner. Not even prostitutes take on any "John". Those who do are, unfortunately, at least, sometimes, the ones who are murdered.
Nevertheless, regarding one's "sexual" orientation, what difference does the gender, so-called "race", income level or any other orientation make, if, once you are with the type of person to whom you claim to be "oriented", either you wish that you weren't there - or s/he wishes that YOU weren't there?
In other words, can the complexities of creating mature personal relationships be trivialized so easily? In fact, other than some type of "tattle-tale" or "kiss-n-tell" revelation, how does one know what anyone has done sexually, or whether or not a person is "gay"? Even then, rumor is not enough, since a person does not have any idea what has happened with another sexually, unless s/he witnessed the act. Besides, due to the tug-of-war interactions that often happen in the bedrooms in any society, who knows what went down? Dig?
Sexual preference? We already have a name for such people. We call them rapists. One does not have sex with whom s/he prefers. Rather, a whole set of interactions must occur, approved consensually, by all parties involved. Otherwise., there is violation going on which, at that point, falls within the purview of law enforcement.
And then there are those, particularly males, who insist that they are "a woman inside of a man's body". This is a serious mental health issue. However, there are low-life surgeons, the descendants of the pre-legal abortion butchers, who will provide such psychotic individuals with "counseling", then an operation that gives the latter an artificial vagina, for example The problem with that is: The surgeon never informs the "patient", beforehand, that what distinguishes a woman from a man is not a vagina, but her monthly periodicity (although I must qualify that some females do not menstruate). No man can ever imagine what it feels like to menstruate. Such mistreatment of the patient's psychosis is in no small measure due to the fact that, for the most part, the US health care industry - one of the very worst in the world - mostly recognizes "physical" - not "mental" health. Did someone say "the market"?
At any rate, generally, it can be said that the inability to share erotic love with someone of the other sex comes largely from either a lack of ability to be a loving person or fear and mistrust. Additionally, erotic love is, sometimes, combined with either brotherly or sisterly love. Psychologically, that makes many homosexual relationships a form of incest. Moreover, as social relationships presently stand, in this society, most of the people pushing the gay agenda are women, particularly, European American ones - who call themselves "lesbians". While women as a whole justly resent men for society's patriarchy and sexism, it should be remembered that those same two evils exist and are perpetuated by so-called "gay" men as well. As a matter of fact, that's why, as I stated earlier, I believe that the spirit of sexism is male homosexuality.
Nevertheless, it appears that what sometimes occurs when two women, for example, sit around and commiserate with each other about what men have done to them or two men cry on each others' shoulders about what women have done to them, before long, one person ends up putting her or his face in the other one's lap. To be sure, that type of action breaks social custom. Worse yet, when people are breaking social customs, in order for such behavior to proliferate, the practitioners must necessarily develop obsessive and perverted habits, in order to motivate themselves and justify their very being. Otherwise, the aforementioned practitioners will cease the behavior, having no incentive to continue it.
In his now famous manifesto called "Letter from Birmingham Jail", the great Dr. King wrote, in part, " In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action." None of this ever happens with the so-called Gay Rights Movement. In fact, regarding their claim of being "homosexual", dialogue never happens, in any form. Instead, gay “pride” parades and other pathetic and obnoxious activities are thrust upon the public. We are simply told to accept this group, without any recognition or respect for the rest of the community. The so-called homosexual community is not a "community within a community". Rather, it is people who want to sit on both sides of the fence, when it comes to "inclusion".
Finally, those who oppose "gay culture", as it were, are personally attacked and childishly lambasted with a kind of moral terrorism, as gays use words and phrases such as "homophobia" and "mob rule". Also, gays use phrases like "straight allies". In other words, we have a national security issue here, since a certain amount of the population is at war with the rest of us. Gay violence has surfaced in New York City where, a few years back, a group of four women who call themselves "lesbians" brutally attacked a man, and have since been convicted of the heinous crime. There was even talk about a Korean American young man who murdered 32 people, at Virginia Tech, as claiming to be a tortured homosexual. Not a peep, about either incident just mentioned has been denounced by the "gay" community. The reason for their silence, at least to me, is due to the fact that their so-called Gay Rights Movement is not about sexual liberation at all. Rather, it is about sexual repression and destruction of the commonweal. Peace.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Weinergate?...What's Next?
"The great Wilheim Reich insisted, 'The pleasure of living and the pleasure of the orgasm are identical. Extreme orgasm anxiety forms the basis of the general fear of life.'"
Dear friends,
The great Wilheim Reich insisted, "The pleasure of living and the pleasure of the orgasm are identical. Extreme orgasm anxiety forms the basis of the general fear of life." In a culture where people are starving from a lack of positive emotional energy from their very relatives, much less the rest of society, is it possible that the voyeuristic tales from the mainstream media are borderline pornographic, with no other substance?
Even worse, American sexuality is very confusing. There is now, in fact, a whole group of people who estrange themselves from the rest of society - and humanity - by defining themselves by something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. Should these folks instead join their fellows in overcoming the alienation from which all of us suffer as humans in the modern world? Moreover, regarding Anthony Weiner and his playmates, why is there any surprise that the useless government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media has made this exaggerated tale of visual, literary, and audio masturbation a news item?
Additionally, in a society that, through racist arrogance, compares the centuries-old struggle of African Americans to people who deny the precariousness of the human sexual appetite, as mentioned above, and declare an "identity", as it were, that is based upon unsubstantiated claims about with whom they are having sex, what meaningful way to look at life should we expect from our youth?
It seems, at least to me, that people in this society are so used to conforming, that is, not "making waves", as well as having a "go along to get along" attitude/mentality, that they've never really taken any chances that require them to confront their inadequacies and insecurities. For that reason, something as inconsequential as someone else's activities involving consensual sex seems exciting. How sad.
I say this, because for all of the plans that are announced for the future, regarding both "economic development" and "education reform", we never see programs that are specifically designed for young people, much less the actual involvement of the aforesaid young people, that will include them in the process of building for our nation's future. Is their future going to be one of sorting through what should be the destiny of people who either tattle-tale or are "squealed on" about their sexual lives, or will it have more to do with solving the problems of our nation - and world?
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
The great Wilheim Reich insisted, "The pleasure of living and the pleasure of the orgasm are identical. Extreme orgasm anxiety forms the basis of the general fear of life." In a culture where people are starving from a lack of positive emotional energy from their very relatives, much less the rest of society, is it possible that the voyeuristic tales from the mainstream media are borderline pornographic, with no other substance?
Even worse, American sexuality is very confusing. There is now, in fact, a whole group of people who estrange themselves from the rest of society - and humanity - by defining themselves by something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. Should these folks instead join their fellows in overcoming the alienation from which all of us suffer as humans in the modern world? Moreover, regarding Anthony Weiner and his playmates, why is there any surprise that the useless government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media has made this exaggerated tale of visual, literary, and audio masturbation a news item?
Additionally, in a society that, through racist arrogance, compares the centuries-old struggle of African Americans to people who deny the precariousness of the human sexual appetite, as mentioned above, and declare an "identity", as it were, that is based upon unsubstantiated claims about with whom they are having sex, what meaningful way to look at life should we expect from our youth?
It seems, at least to me, that people in this society are so used to conforming, that is, not "making waves", as well as having a "go along to get along" attitude/mentality, that they've never really taken any chances that require them to confront their inadequacies and insecurities. For that reason, something as inconsequential as someone else's activities involving consensual sex seems exciting. How sad.
I say this, because for all of the plans that are announced for the future, regarding both "economic development" and "education reform", we never see programs that are specifically designed for young people, much less the actual involvement of the aforesaid young people, that will include them in the process of building for our nation's future. Is their future going to be one of sorting through what should be the destiny of people who either tattle-tale or are "squealed on" about their sexual lives, or will it have more to do with solving the problems of our nation - and world?
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Kobe Bryant's mumblings bring protest - a double standard?
“The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name…”
Dear friends,
The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name, as said media try to compete with the far more informative worldwide Internet, to me, is actually another case of the unclothed emperor attempting to cover himself up.
Bryant’s mumblings were offensive to a certain body of citizens. The powers-that-be of the NBA fined the young man $100.000. For all of the recording cowards like Chris Rock and African American hip-hoppers who are allowed by record companies to glamorize the use of the word “nigger”, I wonder what would have happened to him, if Kobe Bryant had called the ref a “cracker”? Did someone say “double standard”?
Nevertheless, while a proposition cannot possibly be proof of itself, this is the basis upon which many, if not most, of those who identify themselves as “gay” operate. “I’m just gay; that’s all to it.”, they say. Moreover, theirs is a bogus claim that they make about having such a staunch “sexual identity” as it relates to something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. And it is better study for a psychologist than sociologist.
Let’s face it. As the great Freud insisted, and I agree with him, our “identity” is an “emotional tie”. That first identity, of course, develops with our original nurse (mother). Additionally, this “identity”, as it were, is obviously an acknowledgement of one’s humanity. So, at least to me, the real question about “homosexuality” and “identity” then becomes: At what point does a person both alienate and disconnect himself or herself from the rest of humanity, by demanding to be recognized as gay?
To be sure, the “market” is responsible for this turn of events. You see, capitalism has been so attractive, because it is the only political economy, or process of social reproduction, that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip a bird" at the boss, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. So-called socialist (actually state capitalist) countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since almost everyone works for the State and must work where he or she is assigned, more or less.
In any case, the downside of the total political freedom of capitalism is: The "market” controls all economic and, therefore, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (commodities). Most importantly, the chief rewards that motivate people to thrive in the market are power and sexual greed.
Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture, with possession as the strongest desire. As a result, the definition of culture, which historically, has referred to all of the actions by a specific population group, has become anything that the market determines it to be. Consequently, the notion of a “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers and ads sold by them, books and book stores, fashions, gay this-gay that, and so forth), is, totally, a market construct.
Invading other countries (military/industrial complex) and locking up citizens and immigrants (prison/industrial complex) is not enough. The market is greedy! Greed, to be sure, is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf or the Exxon/Mobil oil spill on the Niger Delta of West Africa.
Moreover, culture has no meaning once taken out of the context of a reproductive process. A people who cannot reproduce themselves as a people will cease to exist as a people and become part of something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. For example, the culture that held Africans in slavery, in this society, could no longer reproduce itself in that form and had to change, because of the well-deserved hostility and resistance it engendered.
Still, African American people have an actual cultural and historical experience. As well, the claim to being African American has both historical and social criteria that make a person an African American. So-called "gay" people do not enjoy such an identity. Therefore, perhaps, it may be instructive for someone to come up with criteria that define just what makes a person "gay". Besides, considering what has just been said, is there any reason why one should wonder that it is extremely inconsiderate and insulting to many African Americans when so-called “gays” compare their plight to ours?
Worse yet, it should be no surprise that one of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, at the same time. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle. Except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white". Therefore, for example, the attempt by these same women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians", is disingenuous, at best.
After all, one need only recall 1974 and the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, as we watched our televisions, in both horror and anger, at scores of "white" women, daily, uninterrupted, as police stood watching, throwing rocks and other objects at buses carrying the brand new incoming African American children who were being transported to, especially, South Boston neighborhood schools. Additionally, from working in and living around Northampton, Massachusetts, a so-called lesbian stronghold, my own personal experience is that both the venomous vibes and actions of lesbian racists permeate the atmosphere here so thickly that one can cut said air with a knife.
Finally, in a healthy and sane society, people will not alienate themselves from the rest of us by calling themselves “gay”. (After all, imagine the mental health trauma that must be experienced, if one is incapable of making love with someone of the opposite sex.) Instead, folks will think of their communities first and help us all - and everything around us - proliferate with love and prosperity. As a result, males and females alike will engage themselves in nature’s symmetry of heterosexual bonding, as birds and bees do.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
The recent frenzy caused by the pitiful, opinion-making, US government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, when an African American celebrity called a referee out of his name, as said media try to compete with the far more informative worldwide Internet, to me, is actually another case of the unclothed emperor attempting to cover himself up.
Bryant’s mumblings were offensive to a certain body of citizens. The powers-that-be of the NBA fined the young man $100.000. For all of the recording cowards like Chris Rock and African American hip-hoppers who are allowed by record companies to glamorize the use of the word “nigger”, I wonder what would have happened to him, if Kobe Bryant had called the ref a “cracker”? Did someone say “double standard”?
Nevertheless, while a proposition cannot possibly be proof of itself, this is the basis upon which many, if not most, of those who identify themselves as “gay” operate. “I’m just gay; that’s all to it.”, they say. Moreover, theirs is a bogus claim that they make about having such a staunch “sexual identity” as it relates to something as precarious, if not frivolous, as the human sexual appetite. And it is better study for a psychologist than sociologist.
Let’s face it. As the great Freud insisted, and I agree with him, our “identity” is an “emotional tie”. That first identity, of course, develops with our original nurse (mother). Additionally, this “identity”, as it were, is obviously an acknowledgement of one’s humanity. So, at least to me, the real question about “homosexuality” and “identity” then becomes: At what point does a person both alienate and disconnect himself or herself from the rest of humanity, by demanding to be recognized as gay?
To be sure, the “market” is responsible for this turn of events. You see, capitalism has been so attractive, because it is the only political economy, or process of social reproduction, that has afforded total political freedom to its participants, as workers. That means that a person can "flip a bird" at the boss, and walk away, being "free" to find another opportunity for employment. This was certainly not the case in either slave or feudalistic societies. So-called socialist (actually state capitalist) countries do not allow that kind of freedom either, since almost everyone works for the State and must work where he or she is assigned, more or less.
In any case, the downside of the total political freedom of capitalism is: The "market” controls all economic and, therefore, social relationships, based upon the notion of "supply and demand", whether for the human commodity - labor, or non-human ones (commodities). Most importantly, the chief rewards that motivate people to thrive in the market are power and sexual greed.
Unfortunately, since, the end of World War 1 or so, the "market" has taken control of what we see as culture, with possession as the strongest desire. As a result, the definition of culture, which historically, has referred to all of the actions by a specific population group, has become anything that the market determines it to be. Consequently, the notion of a “gay" culture (weddings, nightclubs, exclusive recreational venues, magazines and newspapers and ads sold by them, books and book stores, fashions, gay this-gay that, and so forth), is, totally, a market construct.
Invading other countries (military/industrial complex) and locking up citizens and immigrants (prison/industrial complex) is not enough. The market is greedy! Greed, to be sure, is always short-sighted, from the cheating spouse to BP’s oil spill in the Gulf or the Exxon/Mobil oil spill on the Niger Delta of West Africa.
Moreover, culture has no meaning once taken out of the context of a reproductive process. A people who cannot reproduce themselves as a people will cease to exist as a people and become part of something else. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. For example, the culture that held Africans in slavery, in this society, could no longer reproduce itself in that form and had to change, because of the well-deserved hostility and resistance it engendered.
Still, African American people have an actual cultural and historical experience. As well, the claim to being African American has both historical and social criteria that make a person an African American. So-called "gay" people do not enjoy such an identity. Therefore, perhaps, it may be instructive for someone to come up with criteria that define just what makes a person "gay". Besides, considering what has just been said, is there any reason why one should wonder that it is extremely inconsiderate and insulting to many African Americans when so-called “gays” compare their plight to ours?
Worse yet, it should be no surprise that one of the real dilemmas of a society that is socially-stratified such as ours, lies in the fact that a person can be a member of an oppressor group and an oppressed group, at the same time. This was adequately proven, with the Clarence Thomas - Anita Hill debacle. Except for African American women, but not limited to them, particularly women who call themselves "white", are oppressed as women, but, also, serve as oppressors, as part of the artificial "majority" group that calls itself "white". Therefore, for example, the attempt by these same women to form an artificial "minority" group, by calling themselves "lesbians", is disingenuous, at best.
After all, one need only recall 1974 and the desegregation of Boston Public Schools, as we watched our televisions, in both horror and anger, at scores of "white" women, daily, uninterrupted, as police stood watching, throwing rocks and other objects at buses carrying the brand new incoming African American children who were being transported to, especially, South Boston neighborhood schools. Additionally, from working in and living around Northampton, Massachusetts, a so-called lesbian stronghold, my own personal experience is that both the venomous vibes and actions of lesbian racists permeate the atmosphere here so thickly that one can cut said air with a knife.
Finally, in a healthy and sane society, people will not alienate themselves from the rest of us by calling themselves “gay”. (After all, imagine the mental health trauma that must be experienced, if one is incapable of making love with someone of the opposite sex.) Instead, folks will think of their communities first and help us all - and everything around us - proliferate with love and prosperity. As a result, males and females alike will engage themselves in nature’s symmetry of heterosexual bonding, as birds and bees do.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Marriage Equality and the Bush Family
"...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love."
Dear friends,
It's funny that marriage equality , as it were, has been trivialized to being synonymous with same-sex marriage, just as feminism has been trivialized to "equal pay for equal work". After all, within the context of "rights", where is marriage equality in so-called heterosexual marriages?
Still, on the link below, the younger Barbara Bush, daughter of the former president - a man who I knew when I was a Black Panther some 40 years ago, insists, "...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love." That's reasonable. I guess. However, the identity issue, at least to me, becomes cloudy, since it begs for the question: How can anyone make such a staunch claim of sexual identity such as being "gay" - or "straight" for that matter, when the human sexual appetite is so precarious, if not frivilous?
It would seem that the only relevant identity between sex partners lies somewhere between two poles. They are: 1) Sexual liberation. 2) Sexual repression. Most people seem to fit somewhere between the two afprementioned poles. Besides, if the significance of a lover's gender is so important to a person in his or her abilty to express himself or herself intimately, then it seems that one is suggesting that s/he is somehow certain to be pleased with another, based solely upon her or his gender (as if all males and females are sexually enjoyable when they are mated with someone of the same gender). That type of reasoning is called "intellectual acrobatics" in the company that I enjoy.
Let's keep it real!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110201/ts_yblog_theticket/breaking-with-her-father-barbara-bush-voices-support-for-gay-marriage
Read full post
Dear friends,
It's funny that marriage equality , as it were, has been trivialized to being synonymous with same-sex marriage, just as feminism has been trivialized to "equal pay for equal work". After all, within the context of "rights", where is marriage equality in so-called heterosexual marriages?
Still, on the link below, the younger Barbara Bush, daughter of the former president - a man who I knew when I was a Black Panther some 40 years ago, insists, "...everyone should have the right to marry the person that they love." That's reasonable. I guess. However, the identity issue, at least to me, becomes cloudy, since it begs for the question: How can anyone make such a staunch claim of sexual identity such as being "gay" - or "straight" for that matter, when the human sexual appetite is so precarious, if not frivilous?
It would seem that the only relevant identity between sex partners lies somewhere between two poles. They are: 1) Sexual liberation. 2) Sexual repression. Most people seem to fit somewhere between the two afprementioned poles. Besides, if the significance of a lover's gender is so important to a person in his or her abilty to express himself or herself intimately, then it seems that one is suggesting that s/he is somehow certain to be pleased with another, based solely upon her or his gender (as if all males and females are sexually enjoyable when they are mated with someone of the same gender). That type of reasoning is called "intellectual acrobatics" in the company that I enjoy.
Let's keep it real!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110201/ts_yblog_theticket/breaking-with-her-father-barbara-bush-voices-support-for-gay-marriage
Read full post
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Bumpus on "Inalienable Rights" and Gay marriage
"... the concept of "rights" is a human creation that has only been around Western civilization since the 18th Century..."
Dear friends,
Just the other day, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, regarding an article by nationally-syndicated columnist George Will about gay marriage. Considering the recent defeat that African Americans helped to give to proponents of gay marriage in California, on the same day they voted for Barack Obama to become our nation's 44th president, I thought that it is time that I comment on this subject. As well, hearing our new president make a reference to "inalienable rights", during his inauguration speech, seemed to make this post fitting. The letter appears below.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
**********************************************
To the Editor:
George Will's piece called " 'Natural justice' and gay marriage", posted 1/15/09, reveals the discussion of gay marriage to be exactly what it is: A total distraction, if not a red herring.
The idea of "inalienable rights", much less "natural justice" ignores reality, sending us into the murky world of mysticism and illusion. That is, the concept of "rights" is a human creation that has only been around Western civilization since the 18th Century.
"Rights" are fought for - not bestowed upon a person, by either the State or Providence. They are not “inalienable". Proof? For most of human history, people socially reproduced themselves as slaves and serfs (called "share-croppers” in America). To be sure, in the aforementioned societies, people had no “rights”. Moreover, being either a slave or serf had more to do with military puissance than blood line. To make an extra point about why "rights" are not inalienable, The Patriot Act, endorsed by politicians like former President George Bush and then Senator Barack Obama, has taken away all of our rights as private citizens. For example, that law now allows any person in this country to be secretly taken into custody, without a warrant or even access to an attorney, and no one even has to know where the abducted person/citizen is.
In any case, drivel by Will and his ilk, about marriage being defined as a union between a "man" and a "woman" circumvents what we know as human logic. After all, these notions of "gender" (man and woman) mean nothing, aside from their uses as social constructs that deny half of the population equal “rights”.
As my oldest daughter, a medical scientist, has insisted to me, for years: Gender is much different than sex and we have to eliminate it. Sex is, of course, biologically relevant but gender roles are social constructions that are completely out-dated. We cannot be okay with getting rid of some and not getting rid of others. There are obvious biological differences between males and females. Certainly, males and females are not the same. However, those differences have no bearing on my ability or responsibility with regard to paying a mortgage, dinner bill or engaging in service to my community and society.
Moreover, two relevant questions, regarding all civil rights issues seems to be: Why is it that ever since 1866, every thirty or forty years, the US Congress finds itself passing more civil rights legislation? In other words, why don’t they “get it”?
Mr. Will - and others like him, may consider starting dialogue about - and trying to resolve - real issues like human exploitation and oppression (e.g., violence against all women and non-European American men, as well as poverty - in terms of food, clothing, housing and health care), instead of apologizing for them (i.e., exploitation and oppression) with fantasies that help make these injustices proliferate.
Finally, while I am still quite confused about the concept of "sexual identity", I encourage all of those who describe themselves as being “gay” to continue fighting, vigorously, for their rights, as all other groups before them have had to do in order to acquire them. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
Just the other day, I sent a letter to my local newspaper, regarding an article by nationally-syndicated columnist George Will about gay marriage. Considering the recent defeat that African Americans helped to give to proponents of gay marriage in California, on the same day they voted for Barack Obama to become our nation's 44th president, I thought that it is time that I comment on this subject. As well, hearing our new president make a reference to "inalienable rights", during his inauguration speech, seemed to make this post fitting. The letter appears below.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
**********************************************
To the Editor:
George Will's piece called " 'Natural justice' and gay marriage", posted 1/15/09, reveals the discussion of gay marriage to be exactly what it is: A total distraction, if not a red herring.
The idea of "inalienable rights", much less "natural justice" ignores reality, sending us into the murky world of mysticism and illusion. That is, the concept of "rights" is a human creation that has only been around Western civilization since the 18th Century.
"Rights" are fought for - not bestowed upon a person, by either the State or Providence. They are not “inalienable". Proof? For most of human history, people socially reproduced themselves as slaves and serfs (called "share-croppers” in America). To be sure, in the aforementioned societies, people had no “rights”. Moreover, being either a slave or serf had more to do with military puissance than blood line. To make an extra point about why "rights" are not inalienable, The Patriot Act, endorsed by politicians like former President George Bush and then Senator Barack Obama, has taken away all of our rights as private citizens. For example, that law now allows any person in this country to be secretly taken into custody, without a warrant or even access to an attorney, and no one even has to know where the abducted person/citizen is.
In any case, drivel by Will and his ilk, about marriage being defined as a union between a "man" and a "woman" circumvents what we know as human logic. After all, these notions of "gender" (man and woman) mean nothing, aside from their uses as social constructs that deny half of the population equal “rights”.
As my oldest daughter, a medical scientist, has insisted to me, for years: Gender is much different than sex and we have to eliminate it. Sex is, of course, biologically relevant but gender roles are social constructions that are completely out-dated. We cannot be okay with getting rid of some and not getting rid of others. There are obvious biological differences between males and females. Certainly, males and females are not the same. However, those differences have no bearing on my ability or responsibility with regard to paying a mortgage, dinner bill or engaging in service to my community and society.
Moreover, two relevant questions, regarding all civil rights issues seems to be: Why is it that ever since 1866, every thirty or forty years, the US Congress finds itself passing more civil rights legislation? In other words, why don’t they “get it”?
Mr. Will - and others like him, may consider starting dialogue about - and trying to resolve - real issues like human exploitation and oppression (e.g., violence against all women and non-European American men, as well as poverty - in terms of food, clothing, housing and health care), instead of apologizing for them (i.e., exploitation and oppression) with fantasies that help make these injustices proliferate.
Finally, while I am still quite confused about the concept of "sexual identity", I encourage all of those who describe themselves as being “gay” to continue fighting, vigorously, for their rights, as all other groups before them have had to do in order to acquire them. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
