"...whether you have actually birthed a child or not, the biological process that we call “pregnancy” is hardly a sufficient condition for claims of being a mother, nor is it even a necessary one..."
Dear friends,
We are all familiar with the longstanding adage: Behind every great man is a great woman. But that woman, as it were, is not always a wife or “soul mate”. In other words, she can be a mother, aunt, sister, daughter, or even a female cousin, in-law, or friend and colleague, as well.
Moreover, sometimes, a person can serve a role in your successes in life that are not easily discernible. This often happens in the lives of parents, because we are sometimes unaware of the contributions that others have quietly made to the progress of our offspring, since such folks are acting out of genuine love and expecting nothing in return, so they don’t bother to remind us of what they have done for us.
Beginning in my early childhood and lasting throughout my adult life until now, Mildred Haynes, the wife and lifelong partner of the late and great Cameron Vincent Haynes (who passed in 2003) and mother to my lifelong and oldest friend, Kenny Haynes, played a consistent role as my second mother. And the range of that role, both emotionally and intellectually, was as wide as that which my own mother has and continues to play. That is, from the look at me of disappointment to the glee and supportive words of encouragement, Mum, as I call her (just as all four of her own children do) reached into herself and showed real love and concern for me as a child, and, into my older years, as an adult.
While there are many examples, I have two specific incidents that occurred between us that I have never shared with any other person before now. I have never talked about them to my mother, my father - who I knew briefly during my late teenage years, a single one of my siblings or friends, neither of my first or second wives, or any of my children. The first incident happened during the summer of 1971. It was a hot day in July. I was going through some serious life changes at the time. Having spent the past couple of years as a very active member of the Black Panther Party, I had just only a few weeks or so earlier left the Panthers.
Now, I must say that a couple of my very close friends had informed me over those two years that their mothers et al. had told them to stay away from me, because I was a Panther (please recall that the F.B.I.’s J. Edgar Hoover had called us the number one threat to internal security in America) Yet, I always felt welcome in the Haynes’ house and around all of the family members. After all, they had known me ever since I was about eight years old, when I anxiously joined the Cub Scout troop of Vinny Haynes (who I called always “Pop”, beginning in my early adult life). Also, growing up, I had gone on trips with the Haynes family, from Boston to New York City. Again, my activism in the Black Panther Party did not affect their relationship with me one bit.
But here I was, on a hot July day in 1971. I had another friend with me. We stopped by the Haynes’ old house on Haskins Street, in the Roxbury section of Boston, Mass. After speaking briefly to Mum, my buddy and I went upstairs and hung out with Kenny, for about an hour or so, listening to music and rappin’ with each other. As my other buddy and I were leaving, with him stepping outside first, I turned to say goodbye to Mum as she started to walk up the stairs to the second floor of the house. She stopped and looked at the brown paper shopping bag that I held in my hand. I already had the bag in my hand when I first came in the house. But, apparently, she had funny vibes about the bag. So she glared into my eyes. Many thoughts were running through my mind at that point. I had never seen that look on her face before – or since. She said nothing. The two of us had ours eyes locked into each other’s and we were in a kind of Twilight Zone that lasted for about ten seconds. She looked angry and disappointed, but she also transferred the idea and feeling to me that she knew that I was better than that. I was embarrassed. And I was ashamed of myself. She turned and continued upstairs and I walked out of the house.
As I said earlier, this is the very first time that I have shared that experience with anyone. I was 17 years-old then. In the coming years, I would take some very positive steps towards returning to and maintaining my social activism as well as enhancing my scholarship, building a family and having a productive future for myself, my family, and my community.
Additionally, while I moved from Boston in 1978, when boxing legend Joe Frazier brought me to Philadelphia and signed me as a professional boxer, my friendship with Kenny and the rest of the Haynes family remained just as strong. When I moved back to Massachusetts in 1987, I settled down with my own family of a wife and three children in Amherst. Whenever we visited Boston - which was only once or twice per year, because it is 100 miles away, almost always, we would be sure to stop by Perrin Street and see Mum and Pop Haynes. And so my/our children grew up knowing them.
In any case, one day, during the early-Nineties, I called their house in order to see whether or not Pop had received copies of some published articles of mine that I had sent to him. Mum answered the phone that day. She told me, gleefully, “Vinny’s not here, but he got your package”. Then she said something that no one else who has known me since my early childhood, except my own mother, had ever expressed to me. She said, “You finally found something that you like.” She continued, “You’ve tried everything. Now you have something that you really like doing.” She was talking about my writing, of course.
I found Mum’s observation to be incredibly profound. While it has never been much of a source of income for me, writing has been one of my primary passions. Certainly, more than anything else, as an artist, a writer wants to be “read”. So I am overjoyed that the appreciation for what I have to share is revealed by the fact that on any given day, this blog, Djatajabs.com, that I only started 10 months ago, is being read worldwide, by people in 39 (now over 80) countries (not including the US) - and growing, daily. My motivation is in no small part due to the encouragement of loved ones like my Mother ad Mum Haynes.
So on this day that we honor mothers, even though I will no longer be able to, as I occasionally did, send cards or flowers to this great woman, Mildred “Mum” Haynes, those like me who have had the personal fortune of actually receiving her care and concern - her love - will acknowledge her too. Additionally, as Mum made it so clear to me long ago, if you truly love your own children, then you must love your neighbors’ children as well. For it is only through our relatedness to others that we can love at all, which includes the capacity for us to love ourselves.
Moreover, as Mum proved with her deeds, whether you have actually birthed a child or not, the biological process that we call “pregnancy” is hardly a sufficient condition for claims of being a mother, nor is it even a necessary one. Rather, only by actively engaging in and sharing the power of love with others, regardless of blood lines, is a person then able to recognize the interconnectedness between love for one’s self as well as other people and things that will help the latter grow.
No, Mum has not died. She has simply passed into another form of existence. And her contributions will continue to be played out, in an oh-so-subtle fashion. That was her style.
Finally, at least to me, it seems that, unless she is a celebrity of some sort, when a woman passes, there is not much fanfare as when a man ceases to exist in the living form. Yet, all of that has to do with Male Supremacy which must be abolished from all human societies as does White Supremacy (that affects less people, but is equally despicable).
Besides, men started it (i.e., the battle of the sexes). Consequently, it is we who must end it. Men must stop hiding behind our insecurities and illusions, and accept the fact that the human race is made up of groups of individuals who all have strengths and weaknesses of some sort and, as a result, in that context, we are all equals.
So to whom are you grateful today? To be sure, it is easy to find excuses to be angry with your parent(s). As a matter of fact, excuses are like unpaid bills; that is, you can always find one. Nevertheless, on her 75th birthday, nine years ago (now 12 years), after giving her a small celebration, along with Tia, the youngest of my two daughters, as I walked out of the door to her apartment, I exclaimed to my Mom, “Thanks for bringing me into this world!”
In any case, today, I must “Holla!” - Happy Mother’s Day!!! – to all females who have mothered other people or even non-human animals, whether you birthed them or not.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Honoring Mothers' Day and the passing of Mildred “Mum” Haynes (February 18, 1921 - April 16, 2009) [originally posted 5/6/09]
Saturday, May 12, 2012
A Manifesto about the female human that all people should embrace
Dear friends,
On the link below is an incredible manifesto, as it were, by, for, and about the female human
that, to me, all people should embrace.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Friday, May 11, 2012
the good ship Jesus
"I first heard about this enslavers' vessel a little over 30 years ago..."
Dear friends,
I first heard about this enslavers' vessel a little over 30 years ago, while reading the classic text, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, written by the late, great Walter Rodney. Additionally, I remember that, as far back as those days, hearing from one of my chief mentors in life, the great Professor Lloyd Hogan, author of The Principles of Black Political Economy. has often noted that, "Black folks are always looking for Jesus". If we look way back, with Marcus Garvey, and later Martin King, and now Barack Obama, this theory still holds.
At any rate, on the link below, is a short article about the first of the enslavers' ships to be used by the British (who were the last of the Europeans to become involved in the Atlantic Slave Trading Operations), and how Sir John Hawkins was commissioned by Queen Elizabeth the 1st, the half-sister of Queen "Bloody" Mary (they were both daughters of Henry the 8th) to embark upon the heinous enterprise of what Professor W.E.B. DuBois called, "the hunting of Black skins".
"Liberation!" - Dr, Barbara Love
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241597.0.html Read full post
Dear friends,
I first heard about this enslavers' vessel a little over 30 years ago, while reading the classic text, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, written by the late, great Walter Rodney. Additionally, I remember that, as far back as those days, hearing from one of my chief mentors in life, the great Professor Lloyd Hogan, author of The Principles of Black Political Economy. has often noted that, "Black folks are always looking for Jesus". If we look way back, with Marcus Garvey, and later Martin King, and now Barack Obama, this theory still holds.
At any rate, on the link below, is a short article about the first of the enslavers' ships to be used by the British (who were the last of the Europeans to become involved in the Atlantic Slave Trading Operations), and how Sir John Hawkins was commissioned by Queen Elizabeth the 1st, the half-sister of Queen "Bloody" Mary (they were both daughters of Henry the 8th) to embark upon the heinous enterprise of what Professor W.E.B. DuBois called, "the hunting of Black skins".
"Liberation!" - Dr, Barbara Love
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241597.0.html Read full post
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
What Good is Online Education?
"The purpose of education is inquiry." - Dr. Molefi Asante
Dear friends,
The online education thing has gotten out of hand now. That is, just as Facebook and other"social networks" allow people to find union with others, without ever having any genuine contact, the necessarily impersonal relationships into which people must enter, in order to acquire their material means of survival - called a political economy or process of social reproduction (in our case "capitalism"), under the guise of "automation", has two major educational institutions, Harvard and MIT, now offering an online forum that will help them "corner", as it were, a part of the market. This will, invariably, justify the demise of higher education as we know it. Worse yet, please imagine learning how to work in a lab without a real professor present.
"The purpose of education is inquiry." - Dr. Molefi Asante
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/general/view.bg?articleid=1061128740 Read full post
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Please Stop Calling People "WHITE"!!!
Dear Friends,
As long as enlightened people like yourself use the word "minorities" and spell our cultural identity in lower case "black", as opposed to upper case, then we're, unwittingly, agreeing upon our mistreatment. For example, even in California, where Mexicans overwhelmingly are the "majority", that group still accepts the moniker "minority".
The term "white" is a mean-spirited and phony claim that people make, in order to be part of an artificial "majority" group, in this fraudulent so-called "democracy". For instance, even some Asians and Latins call themselves "white"...The former KKK leader, David Duke, now uses the term "European American", so what's your excuse?.
Finally, please stop loud-mouthing on Facebook and other places about Trayvon's murder and racism, when you don't even have the guts to stand up for yourselves, by stop berating yourselves with the term "minorities"!!!...Besides, who wants to be a "minority"?...So let's insist upon using the word "European American"...You will see that the amount of "white" folks in this country, much less the world, is a lot less...Moreover, if there isn't a privilege to claiming "whiteness", then why do so many European Americans protest about NOT calling themselves "white"?...Guess why?...Because that makes them feel disempowered...Ya dig?...One Love!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
As long as enlightened people like yourself use the word "minorities" and spell our cultural identity in lower case "black", as opposed to upper case, then we're, unwittingly, agreeing upon our mistreatment. For example, even in California, where Mexicans overwhelmingly are the "majority", that group still accepts the moniker "minority".
The term "white" is a mean-spirited and phony claim that people make, in order to be part of an artificial "majority" group, in this fraudulent so-called "democracy". For instance, even some Asians and Latins call themselves "white"...The former KKK leader, David Duke, now uses the term "European American", so what's your excuse?.
Finally, please stop loud-mouthing on Facebook and other places about Trayvon's murder and racism, when you don't even have the guts to stand up for yourselves, by stop berating yourselves with the term "minorities"!!!...Besides, who wants to be a "minority"?...So let's insist upon using the word "European American"...You will see that the amount of "white" folks in this country, much less the world, is a lot less...Moreover, if there isn't a privilege to claiming "whiteness", then why do so many European Americans protest about NOT calling themselves "white"?...Guess why?...Because that makes them feel disempowered...Ya dig?...One Love!
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Smith on Race & Politics (originally posted 9/24/08)
Dear friends,
In light of the current Trayvon Martin tragedy, and the fact that African Americans are standing together for the first time in 150 years, when we fought, along with our European American counterparts, and ended chattel slavery, during the North American Civil War, with his piece on the link below, posted on 9/23/08, my long time and very dear friend, Elmer Smith, now "formerly" of the Philadelphia Daily News, made the crucial point of reminding us that we should not let either polls or "pundits" convince us that then Senator Obama would not win the election.
As Elm reveals, quite adequately, in the piece, what will really matter, ultimately, is whether or not people act in their own best interests.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080923_Elmer_Smith__Race_alone_won_t_derail_Obama.html
Read full post
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Cultural Development for African American Youth in Philly, and elsewhere
"In fact, even our five "senses" are culturally-defined. That is, Our perceptions, regarding what we feel, taste, hear, smell, and see, are determined by our cultural experiences."
Dear friends,
The history of humankind is the revelation of lots of stories about generational activities, among particular groups. It is not a chronology of the tales of either “great” individuals or “great” events. Additionally, because we are social beings, our existence is based upon two conditions. They are: 1) A cooperative effort to co-exist. 2) Shared responsibility to engage in activities that are regulated by specific rules which allow the continuation of the particular group for hundreds or even thousands of years. The aforementioned generational activities are more commonly referred to as “culture".
In Our society, culture is a word that is often used to refer to the higher achievements of a particular group - like painting and music. However, it (culture) involves everything that We do. Therefore, it even has a physiological significance. This is easily identifiable by recognizing the actual mental and motor reflexes that are initiated when a European American (so-called white person) who is sitting in a car pushes down the lock button as an African American approaches the vicinity of the former’s vehicle.
The notion of the initiating of both mental and motor reflexes also explains the cultural differences in the way that people draw, dance, sing, and so forth. In fact, even Our five "senses" are culturally-defined. That is, our perceptions, regarding what We feel, taste, hear, smell, and see, are determined by Our cultural experiences. We live in a racist culture (where racism, is defined as it was first used to mean White Supremacy)
Additionally, our culture determines the manner in which we transmit and share both behavior and ideas to present and future generations. However, the first thing that we must understand about culture is that it is largely tied to a people's resources. That is, social status and income as well as materials to produce what people need or desire determine how, why and through what medium folks can express themselves as a distinct group.
African American culture has contributed quite positively, and in a large way, to the development of the United States of America. However, the legacy of chattel slavery that was bestowed upon us by both European American enslavers and their, albeit fewer, African American counterparts has left our culture in shambles. Worse yet, much of the problem of the lack of community amongst us is based upon cultural habits that are made all too obvious by the sense of disenfranchisement that many of our youth both feel and display.
Now, there’s an African proverb that goes, " To live together is to have a common fate." In other words, as a community, in the grand scheme of things, as it were, we need each other, regardless of whatever extent that we are physically-able or whatever social differences that we have - like gender and age. But if people, in any specific community, share a common fate, then it only seems fair that all parties involved should have a voice in their destinies. Unfortunately, for all of America’s "brave words" of "freedom and democracy", when do our children ever experience either of these lofty ideals, particularly, democracy?
Worse yet, while the quintessence of "democracy" is non-violent conflict resolution, in terms of the self-destructive deeds of our youth that were just mentioned, our responses to anti-social behavior by said young people are often expressed with violence, destructiveness, counter-productiveness, and mean-spiritedness, and, therefore, quite undemocratic, aside from being totally useless. For example, more police to monitor and/or dominate them, " zero tolerance" in schools, and harsher sentences for youthful offenders may feel good to some, but not even those punishments or "more jobs" will change the present circumstances. As a matter of fact, if either punishment or reward changed behavior, then there would not be such high recidivism rates in the prisons or so many lottery winners who end up broke in short time.
We must convince our young (and allow them) to not only share in controlling their own destinies, but, as well, to prepare for the generations that will follow them. That is all about what culture is.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
The history of humankind is the revelation of lots of stories about generational activities, among particular groups. It is not a chronology of the tales of either “great” individuals or “great” events. Additionally, because we are social beings, our existence is based upon two conditions. They are: 1) A cooperative effort to co-exist. 2) Shared responsibility to engage in activities that are regulated by specific rules which allow the continuation of the particular group for hundreds or even thousands of years. The aforementioned generational activities are more commonly referred to as “culture".
In Our society, culture is a word that is often used to refer to the higher achievements of a particular group - like painting and music. However, it (culture) involves everything that We do. Therefore, it even has a physiological significance. This is easily identifiable by recognizing the actual mental and motor reflexes that are initiated when a European American (so-called white person) who is sitting in a car pushes down the lock button as an African American approaches the vicinity of the former’s vehicle.
The notion of the initiating of both mental and motor reflexes also explains the cultural differences in the way that people draw, dance, sing, and so forth. In fact, even Our five "senses" are culturally-defined. That is, our perceptions, regarding what We feel, taste, hear, smell, and see, are determined by Our cultural experiences. We live in a racist culture (where racism, is defined as it was first used to mean White Supremacy)
Additionally, our culture determines the manner in which we transmit and share both behavior and ideas to present and future generations. However, the first thing that we must understand about culture is that it is largely tied to a people's resources. That is, social status and income as well as materials to produce what people need or desire determine how, why and through what medium folks can express themselves as a distinct group.
African American culture has contributed quite positively, and in a large way, to the development of the United States of America. However, the legacy of chattel slavery that was bestowed upon us by both European American enslavers and their, albeit fewer, African American counterparts has left our culture in shambles. Worse yet, much of the problem of the lack of community amongst us is based upon cultural habits that are made all too obvious by the sense of disenfranchisement that many of our youth both feel and display.
Now, there’s an African proverb that goes, " To live together is to have a common fate." In other words, as a community, in the grand scheme of things, as it were, we need each other, regardless of whatever extent that we are physically-able or whatever social differences that we have - like gender and age. But if people, in any specific community, share a common fate, then it only seems fair that all parties involved should have a voice in their destinies. Unfortunately, for all of America’s "brave words" of "freedom and democracy", when do our children ever experience either of these lofty ideals, particularly, democracy?
Worse yet, while the quintessence of "democracy" is non-violent conflict resolution, in terms of the self-destructive deeds of our youth that were just mentioned, our responses to anti-social behavior by said young people are often expressed with violence, destructiveness, counter-productiveness, and mean-spiritedness, and, therefore, quite undemocratic, aside from being totally useless. For example, more police to monitor and/or dominate them, " zero tolerance" in schools, and harsher sentences for youthful offenders may feel good to some, but not even those punishments or "more jobs" will change the present circumstances. As a matter of fact, if either punishment or reward changed behavior, then there would not be such high recidivism rates in the prisons or so many lottery winners who end up broke in short time.
We must convince our young (and allow them) to not only share in controlling their own destinies, but, as well, to prepare for the generations that will follow them. That is all about what culture is.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Sunday, March 25, 2012
In light of Trayvon Martin's murder, the white" press continues to re-define racism
"Moreover, as long as the people who started using racism against us are able to define it, then they can, very conveniently, sweep their atrocities against us under the rug. Plain and Simple."
Dear friends,
I was watching Meet the Press this morning, about Trayvon's murder. As usual, the man that was supposed to be the "Black" voice, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, made no comment about White Supremacy. Moreover, as long as the people who the racist rulers put in front of cameras (Al Sharpton and his ilk) are too cowardly to state that this is a White Supremacist nation, then our enemies will get to define what racism is (a disease and other such nonsense). Hence, our violators are able to keep their culpability to a minimum.
Yet, the reality is: "white" is a phony, mean-spirited claim that people make in order to pit themselves against us, and form an artificial "majority" group. Worse yet, a woman can come from Norway yesterday (and I've seen it right on Facebook), call herself "white" (which won't mean anything in Norway), and inherit a history that is not hers, as well as privilege over me and those who look like me - along with the common racist arrogance that allows European Americans to murder us without concern for justice being brought against them. That's why the U.S. is a white Supremacist nation.
Moreover, as long as the people who started using racism against us are also able to define it, then they can, very conveniently, sweep their atrocities against us under the rug. Plain and Simple.
Please remember, it was not until the mid-Seventies that the term racism gained any real use in this society, even among Blacks. That is, back in the mid-Sixties and after, and it was only so-called Black militants like myself and some of my elders who used the term. Before that, even Dr. King and others used the term "racial prejudice" - NOT "racism"..and King and those other cats deliberately stayed away from using that word (racism), as not to "offend" European Americans or so-called "whites"...In fact, it was only during the Reagan era of the 80s that Uncle Toms started to cozy up to his administration, and the mainstream media started to use it as well, did it even get used (the term racism).
and then, again, racism, conveniently, became this nonsense about being a xenophobia and disease. and if my timetable of the evolution of that term being used in society isn't a fact about the use of the word racism, then one must ask, "Why did King and others shy away from using that term as early as brothers (and sisters) like Malcolm, and others did?", therefore, rejecting its original definition and use. Let's not get it twisted up in here.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
I was watching Meet the Press this morning, about Trayvon's murder. As usual, the man that was supposed to be the "Black" voice, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, made no comment about White Supremacy. Moreover, as long as the people who the racist rulers put in front of cameras (Al Sharpton and his ilk) are too cowardly to state that this is a White Supremacist nation, then our enemies will get to define what racism is (a disease and other such nonsense). Hence, our violators are able to keep their culpability to a minimum.
Yet, the reality is: "white" is a phony, mean-spirited claim that people make in order to pit themselves against us, and form an artificial "majority" group. Worse yet, a woman can come from Norway yesterday (and I've seen it right on Facebook), call herself "white" (which won't mean anything in Norway), and inherit a history that is not hers, as well as privilege over me and those who look like me - along with the common racist arrogance that allows European Americans to murder us without concern for justice being brought against them. That's why the U.S. is a white Supremacist nation.
Moreover, as long as the people who started using racism against us are also able to define it, then they can, very conveniently, sweep their atrocities against us under the rug. Plain and Simple.
Please remember, it was not until the mid-Seventies that the term racism gained any real use in this society, even among Blacks. That is, back in the mid-Sixties and after, and it was only so-called Black militants like myself and some of my elders who used the term. Before that, even Dr. King and others used the term "racial prejudice" - NOT "racism"..and King and those other cats deliberately stayed away from using that word (racism), as not to "offend" European Americans or so-called "whites"...In fact, it was only during the Reagan era of the 80s that Uncle Toms started to cozy up to his administration, and the mainstream media started to use it as well, did it even get used (the term racism).
and then, again, racism, conveniently, became this nonsense about being a xenophobia and disease. and if my timetable of the evolution of that term being used in society isn't a fact about the use of the word racism, then one must ask, "Why did King and others shy away from using that term as early as brothers (and sisters) like Malcolm, and others did?", therefore, rejecting its original definition and use. Let's not get it twisted up in here.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Good kids and Bad kids alike get killed these days
"We tend to want to classify — the bad families and the good families, the violent kids and the victims…It's much more complex than that, but our discomfort leads us into overly simplistic thinking,..We withdraw rather than confront the complexities." - Nancy Erbe
Dear friends,
On the heels of the murder of Trayvon Martin, I thought of an article that I posted almost two years ago, regarding the notion of teenage homicides - its victims and suspects. Moreover, the idea that an African American, male or female, poses a threat, when wearing a "hoodie" suggests that White Supremacy, euphemistically-called racism has so rendered us to be less than human that we kill our own as senselessly as George Zimmerman did Trayvon - as if he were killing an insect.
Consequently, with all of the community support, nationwide, for the Martins at this time, let us hope to embrace this new found Black Love. That means that our "hip-hop" artists will have to stop using the word "niggah" in their discourse, for example, in order to stop showing such a lack of respect for themselves and hatred for themselves that is so easily acceptable to both Jewish and Italian recording moguls.
In any case, on the link below is a thoughtful story by Sandy Banks of the Los Angeles Times that shows one of the ways that the Crime Industry devastates our communities. However, because of our own inadequacies, as Sandy points out, we may have a distorted vision about both the victims and perpetrators of crime.
Cheers!
G.Djata Bumpus
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks-20100629,0,7982683,full.column
Read full post
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Dr. Clarke on origin of "Jews"
"The same thing goes for both Jewish and non-Jewish US ruling corporations, for example, who under the guise of being "Americans", oppress and exploit people here and abroad daily, in the name of everyday American citizens."
Dear friends,
One f the biggest contradictions going on in Western media is: If you say anything about any Jew, then you are subjected to a kind of moral terrorism, being called "anti-Semitic". But one must ask "Are Jews the only Semites, much less the majority of Semites?"
Still, we have to be careful about pointing fingers at Jewish exploiters and oppressors, since it is only the ruling class of Jews, not the everyday person who identifies himself or herself as a Jew that is guilty of constant atrocities towards humanity. The same thing goes for both Jewish and non-Jewish US ruling corporations, for example, who under the guise of being "Americans", oppress and exploit people here and abroad daily, in the name of everyday American citizens.
Nevertheless, on the link below, the now late great Dr. John Henrik Clarke provides us with some history about Jewish heritage.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbMvSdGloW0
Read full post
Dear friends,
One f the biggest contradictions going on in Western media is: If you say anything about any Jew, then you are subjected to a kind of moral terrorism, being called "anti-Semitic". But one must ask "Are Jews the only Semites, much less the majority of Semites?"
Still, we have to be careful about pointing fingers at Jewish exploiters and oppressors, since it is only the ruling class of Jews, not the everyday person who identifies himself or herself as a Jew that is guilty of constant atrocities towards humanity. The same thing goes for both Jewish and non-Jewish US ruling corporations, for example, who under the guise of being "Americans", oppress and exploit people here and abroad daily, in the name of everyday American citizens.
Nevertheless, on the link below, the now late great Dr. John Henrik Clarke provides us with some history about Jewish heritage.
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbMvSdGloW0
Read full post
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Jen Armstrong on HIV and women at 50-plus (originally posted 5/4/11)
"The story holds an important message in these days of happy-go-lucky hook-ups."
Dear friends,
This piece on the link below actually came out this past March (2011), during Women's History Month. It was written by my dear friend and colleague, award-winning journalist Jenice Armstrong of the Philadelphia Daily News. The story holds an important message in these days of happy-go-lucky hook-ups. Check it out!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/jenice_armstrong/20110310_Jenice_Armstrong__Coping_with_HIV_at_50_.html?ref=facebook.com
Read full post
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
South Africa is Hardly Free
"Today, however, the ANC is not the organization that it claimed to be then..."
Dear friends,
In the spring of 1983, I brought David Ndaba (now known as Dr. Samuel Gulabe - Nelson Mandela's personal physician) to speak at Temple University. He was the assistant to and replacement for the now late Johnny Makatini, then the official representative to the United Nations (UN) for the African National Congress (ANC) who had to return to South Africa at the last minute.
It was the very first time that the ANC had been invited to Philly (or any other major US city, of which I'm aware), as it was considered to be a "terrorist" organization by the Ronald Reagan administration, because of its stance for the total liberation of South Africa. Therefore, the White Supremacist governments of the US, Israel, and South Africa were not interested in anyone hearing about the ANC's side of the issue.
Today, however, the ANC is not the organization that it claimed to be then. Moreover, as I read in an interview with him not long ago, even Gulabe himself admits that genuine change has not occurred in South Africa.
At any rate, the short piece on the link below gives an example.
>Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://blackagendareport.com/content/south-africa-buries-its-freedom-charter
Read full post
Dear friends,
In the spring of 1983, I brought David Ndaba (now known as Dr. Samuel Gulabe - Nelson Mandela's personal physician) to speak at Temple University. He was the assistant to and replacement for the now late Johnny Makatini, then the official representative to the United Nations (UN) for the African National Congress (ANC) who had to return to South Africa at the last minute.
It was the very first time that the ANC had been invited to Philly (or any other major US city, of which I'm aware), as it was considered to be a "terrorist" organization by the Ronald Reagan administration, because of its stance for the total liberation of South Africa. Therefore, the White Supremacist governments of the US, Israel, and South Africa were not interested in anyone hearing about the ANC's side of the issue.
Today, however, the ANC is not the organization that it claimed to be then. Moreover, as I read in an interview with him not long ago, even Gulabe himself admits that genuine change has not occurred in South Africa.
At any rate, the short piece on the link below gives an example.
>Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://blackagendareport.com/content/south-africa-buries-its-freedom-charter
Read full post
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
Friday, February 3, 2012
The Prison/Industrial Complex (originally posted 10/2010)
“The fastest growing form of incarceration in the United States is immigration detention…”
Dear friends,
In the past, I’ve written about the Crime Industry. Well, just as 19th Century oil conglomerates would be the predecessors of today’s Automotive/Aerospace/Oil Complex, the aforementioned Crime Industry has led to te development of the “Prison/Industrial Complex”.
To be sure, this all keeps us aware of the reality that, in a society where our values are a reflection of the market, instead of vice versa, new markets must constantly be created in order to feed the insatiable greed of the market as it now stands.
In any case, on the link below is a Website that provides some very important takes on the durrent role of prisons in our particular advanced political economy - or process of social reproduction, as it were. Please check it out.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.diversityinc.com/article/8063/The-Prison-Industrial-Complex-Biased-Predatory-and-Growing/
Read full post
Dear friends,
In the past, I’ve written about the Crime Industry. Well, just as 19th Century oil conglomerates would be the predecessors of today’s Automotive/Aerospace/Oil Complex, the aforementioned Crime Industry has led to te development of the “Prison/Industrial Complex”.
To be sure, this all keeps us aware of the reality that, in a society where our values are a reflection of the market, instead of vice versa, new markets must constantly be created in order to feed the insatiable greed of the market as it now stands.
In any case, on the link below is a Website that provides some very important takes on the durrent role of prisons in our particular advanced political economy - or process of social reproduction, as it were. Please check it out.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.diversityinc.com/article/8063/The-Prison-Industrial-Complex-Biased-Predatory-and-Growing/
Read full post
Thursday, February 2, 2012
A True Warrior in African American History
>"At about 3 a.m. Smalls commandeered the 147-foot vessel from a dock fronting General Ripley’s home and office. Smalls and his crew sailed to a nearby dock, collected family members from another ship and headed toward sea..."
Dear friends,
There seems to be a tendency for people to ignore the heroism of individuals who represent a part of the struggle of African American people to resist oppression. The Civil Rights Movement was a brief period where accommodating, instead of resisting gained a lot of attention. However, the story on the link below defies that notion.
Moreover, one point to be remembered is: Our Black forebears, along with European American troops, fought for their freedom - with guns. No one "freed" them! In other words, they weren't just sitting around singing and waiting to be freed, as most school literature and the government- and corporate-controlled media outlets love to portray it.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.robertsmalls.org/
Read full post
Monday, January 30, 2012
Georgia, Georgia, no peace I find... (Originally posted 8/17/08)
Dear friends,
When Ray Charles sang "Georgia on my mind", the listener cannot imagine any other place than from where some sweet Southern peaches originate - as well as, "strange fruit", unfortumately. Certainly, in recent years, Aaron Neville has "covered" Brother Ray's classic more than effectively.
However, there is another sound about Georgia, on the minds of millions, right now, that is becoming more familiar these days. It comes from Eastern Europe. And, it is from a country - not a state. Not long ago, it was part of the Soviet Union. Now, after the dispersement of that communist federation which started in Russia, it seems, at least to me, that Russians may be moving back towards the direction that their original founders intended...
Yet, one of the problems that average citizens have, when they try to understand recent events, is: the entire US educational system, its teachers and professors, as well as many of our journalists and politicians, especially since the late-Reagan era, have been analyzing the experiences of the Russians as the latter have simply gotten smart and embraced capitalism. This is the lie or sheer naivete that all of the abovementioned have been claiming.
A genuine revolution is a process. It is not an event that concludes with the change of the personalitiies who represent a government. The North American Civil War, almost one hundred years after the "founding" of this nation, by the so-called American Revolution, proves that simple truism adequately. Let us face it. There were only thirteen colonies after our forebears ran out the British rulers, and they were largely in what is now called the "Northeast Corridor". However, unlike in the beginning of our nation's history, most of the territory that was the United States, seventy years later, was in the South.
Additionally, durng that time, the enslaved of African descent had outgrown those of European descent, in the South. It was not like that, at the founding of the nation and before, when it has been estimated that 75% of the Europeans who came here did so as "indentured servants". That is, those people sold themselves into slavery, usually for a period of four years, in order to pay the transportation cost to the ship's captain who brought them here.
As a matter of fact, in the Commonwealth History of Massachusetts, Vol.1, it is pointed out about early New Englanders, including the famous "Pilgrim" group, that landed at Cape Cod, that there was a small servile population among them. “Both Indian and Negro, besides white servants were bound out to a master for a term of years and received no wages. Of these there were a few in the Pilgrim group.”
Now, since there was no one here to accept the aforementioned Pilgrims other than the Early American Natives (so-called Indians), then that means that the slavemasters were aboard the Mayflower too. So it is obvious that the lie that our schools deliberately pass on to American children, generation after generation, about the "Pilgrims" coming here for religious freedon, is no different than the lie that the 1917 revolution in Russia was a conclusive event.
But what about revolutions? The intellectual giant Franz Fanon confided (paraphrased here), "I don't trust revolution. Revolution means fire. And I don't trust fire, because it is too difficult to control." I agree with our belated brother. I myself was once a revoluutionary, as a member of the Black Panther Party. I know, firsthand, the "fire" that revolutionnary activities make happen, in any given society.
However, for the past three decades, I have embraced conservative innovation, instead of revolution, and, thus, consider myself a conservative innovationist - not a revolutionary. Of course, by conservative, I do not mean what so many of these reactionary right-wingers, so-called Christian fundamentalists and their ilk who means-spiritedly promote "going back" to the period in our history when injustice for many was rampant. Rather, my understanding of the word conservative means that one takes informed risks. In other words, I do not just jump into anything, without careful thought and consideration. As well, I am an innovationist, in the literal sense, inasmuch as I choose to vigorously engage new ideas, that are based upon real experiences, as well as experimentation, in order to improve that which is already established; in other words, that which already exists.
In any case, the forward motion of the process that is the Russian Revolution was interrupted and made a "counter-revolution" by the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and his supporters. But others have done that before, and to a worse extent. A man named Joseph Stalin, in fact, changed the whole direction of the initial process that was started by Vladmir Lenin, Leon Trotsky,, and their more faithful (than Stalin) Bolshevik comrades. To be sure, men like Stalin and, later, Gorbachev (colluding with multi-national corporations), even though counter-revolutionists, were/are part of the revolutionary "process" as well. Still, it seems, at least to me, that, today, the Russian people may have decided to take a different course than they did during the Gorbachev years. And so, the process (i.e., the Russian Revolution) continues...
Therefore, meaningless tough talk by George Bush, and his mouthpiece, Condoleeza Rice, will not change the fact that, aside from the reality that the Russian Revolution has not ended, the United States has its hands full already. I, therefore, suspect that it would be wise for the Bush administration to keep talking tough, but doing nothing. Right now, the game that the Bushies are playing, with their tough talk, is not much different than the incessant posturing and pontificating that we see between the "Democrats" and "Republicans" of the US Congress amongst themselves.
Moreover, we are dealing with two bodies (Russia's government and that of the US) who, under no circumstances, will engage one another militarily. Besides, many Americans are already asking: Why is it wrong for the Russians to invade a country but not the US? In other words, with unconscionable greed, at the expense of US soldiers and our tax dollars, the oil man Bush's administration has continued allowing: 1) The useless invasion of Afghanistan. 2) The yet-to-be defined "War on terror". 3) The "oil grab" in Iraq - along with that country's colonization by the US; and 4) An Iranian nuclear program for which the Russians will surely provide capacity if the president and the US Congress become too belligerent and send our courageous young warriors into the Georgia conflict. (And I am sure that Israel shudders at that thought.)
The United States needs to seek a different course. Perhaps, if the Bush administration considers joining with other nations, not as the usual "bully", but as a true partner, they may be able to gain enough support to make Russia back down. Nevertheless, with Russia positioned inside of Georgia at present, there are cries being made, by some, for the US to become involved and stop Russia from advancing further into Georgian territory. However, at least to me, the Russians have more to gain, in terms of their citizens backing them, than the Bushies do. When are the American people going to get tired of the lies and get rid of the Bushes, the McCains, the Clintons, and the rest of those to whom Brother Malcolm X referred as being nothing more than "Jesse James, Frank James, and the what-you-ma-call-it brothers"?
This whole concern for Georgia is more than just a huge contradiction for the US. Let us not forget that 19 Saudis invaded this country with plane-bombs, murdered thousands of people, injured tens of thousands more, and destroyed many billions of dollars worth of property, along with causing thousands of businesses to close permanently. Yet, not one hair on one head of any person from the oil-rich Saudi Arabia has been touched. Puh-leez. Still, President Bush, who himself refuses to set a timetable for when US troops wil leave Iraq, even though that is what the Iraqis want, says, "The United States stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected." Right.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
When Ray Charles sang "Georgia on my mind", the listener cannot imagine any other place than from where some sweet Southern peaches originate - as well as, "strange fruit", unfortumately. Certainly, in recent years, Aaron Neville has "covered" Brother Ray's classic more than effectively.
However, there is another sound about Georgia, on the minds of millions, right now, that is becoming more familiar these days. It comes from Eastern Europe. And, it is from a country - not a state. Not long ago, it was part of the Soviet Union. Now, after the dispersement of that communist federation which started in Russia, it seems, at least to me, that Russians may be moving back towards the direction that their original founders intended...
Yet, one of the problems that average citizens have, when they try to understand recent events, is: the entire US educational system, its teachers and professors, as well as many of our journalists and politicians, especially since the late-Reagan era, have been analyzing the experiences of the Russians as the latter have simply gotten smart and embraced capitalism. This is the lie or sheer naivete that all of the abovementioned have been claiming.
A genuine revolution is a process. It is not an event that concludes with the change of the personalitiies who represent a government. The North American Civil War, almost one hundred years after the "founding" of this nation, by the so-called American Revolution, proves that simple truism adequately. Let us face it. There were only thirteen colonies after our forebears ran out the British rulers, and they were largely in what is now called the "Northeast Corridor". However, unlike in the beginning of our nation's history, most of the territory that was the United States, seventy years later, was in the South.
Additionally, durng that time, the enslaved of African descent had outgrown those of European descent, in the South. It was not like that, at the founding of the nation and before, when it has been estimated that 75% of the Europeans who came here did so as "indentured servants". That is, those people sold themselves into slavery, usually for a period of four years, in order to pay the transportation cost to the ship's captain who brought them here.
As a matter of fact, in the Commonwealth History of Massachusetts, Vol.1, it is pointed out about early New Englanders, including the famous "Pilgrim" group, that landed at Cape Cod, that there was a small servile population among them. “Both Indian and Negro, besides white servants were bound out to a master for a term of years and received no wages. Of these there were a few in the Pilgrim group.”
Now, since there was no one here to accept the aforementioned Pilgrims other than the Early American Natives (so-called Indians), then that means that the slavemasters were aboard the Mayflower too. So it is obvious that the lie that our schools deliberately pass on to American children, generation after generation, about the "Pilgrims" coming here for religious freedon, is no different than the lie that the 1917 revolution in Russia was a conclusive event.
But what about revolutions? The intellectual giant Franz Fanon confided (paraphrased here), "I don't trust revolution. Revolution means fire. And I don't trust fire, because it is too difficult to control." I agree with our belated brother. I myself was once a revoluutionary, as a member of the Black Panther Party. I know, firsthand, the "fire" that revolutionnary activities make happen, in any given society.
However, for the past three decades, I have embraced conservative innovation, instead of revolution, and, thus, consider myself a conservative innovationist - not a revolutionary. Of course, by conservative, I do not mean what so many of these reactionary right-wingers, so-called Christian fundamentalists and their ilk who means-spiritedly promote "going back" to the period in our history when injustice for many was rampant. Rather, my understanding of the word conservative means that one takes informed risks. In other words, I do not just jump into anything, without careful thought and consideration. As well, I am an innovationist, in the literal sense, inasmuch as I choose to vigorously engage new ideas, that are based upon real experiences, as well as experimentation, in order to improve that which is already established; in other words, that which already exists.
In any case, the forward motion of the process that is the Russian Revolution was interrupted and made a "counter-revolution" by the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and his supporters. But others have done that before, and to a worse extent. A man named Joseph Stalin, in fact, changed the whole direction of the initial process that was started by Vladmir Lenin, Leon Trotsky,, and their more faithful (than Stalin) Bolshevik comrades. To be sure, men like Stalin and, later, Gorbachev (colluding with multi-national corporations), even though counter-revolutionists, were/are part of the revolutionary "process" as well. Still, it seems, at least to me, that, today, the Russian people may have decided to take a different course than they did during the Gorbachev years. And so, the process (i.e., the Russian Revolution) continues...
Therefore, meaningless tough talk by George Bush, and his mouthpiece, Condoleeza Rice, will not change the fact that, aside from the reality that the Russian Revolution has not ended, the United States has its hands full already. I, therefore, suspect that it would be wise for the Bush administration to keep talking tough, but doing nothing. Right now, the game that the Bushies are playing, with their tough talk, is not much different than the incessant posturing and pontificating that we see between the "Democrats" and "Republicans" of the US Congress amongst themselves.
Moreover, we are dealing with two bodies (Russia's government and that of the US) who, under no circumstances, will engage one another militarily. Besides, many Americans are already asking: Why is it wrong for the Russians to invade a country but not the US? In other words, with unconscionable greed, at the expense of US soldiers and our tax dollars, the oil man Bush's administration has continued allowing: 1) The useless invasion of Afghanistan. 2) The yet-to-be defined "War on terror". 3) The "oil grab" in Iraq - along with that country's colonization by the US; and 4) An Iranian nuclear program for which the Russians will surely provide capacity if the president and the US Congress become too belligerent and send our courageous young warriors into the Georgia conflict. (And I am sure that Israel shudders at that thought.)
The United States needs to seek a different course. Perhaps, if the Bush administration considers joining with other nations, not as the usual "bully", but as a true partner, they may be able to gain enough support to make Russia back down. Nevertheless, with Russia positioned inside of Georgia at present, there are cries being made, by some, for the US to become involved and stop Russia from advancing further into Georgian territory. However, at least to me, the Russians have more to gain, in terms of their citizens backing them, than the Bushies do. When are the American people going to get tired of the lies and get rid of the Bushes, the McCains, the Clintons, and the rest of those to whom Brother Malcolm X referred as being nothing more than "Jesse James, Frank James, and the what-you-ma-call-it brothers"?
This whole concern for Georgia is more than just a huge contradiction for the US. Let us not forget that 19 Saudis invaded this country with plane-bombs, murdered thousands of people, injured tens of thousands more, and destroyed many billions of dollars worth of property, along with causing thousands of businesses to close permanently. Yet, not one hair on one head of any person from the oil-rich Saudi Arabia has been touched. Puh-leez. Still, President Bush, who himself refuses to set a timetable for when US troops wil leave Iraq, even though that is what the Iraqis want, says, "The United States stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected." Right.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Red Tails - Is it about Black Consciousness or Black Apathy?
"...will we be as excited, if Obama has Black pilots bombing out our kin folks in Africa.."
Dear friends,
There seems to be a lot of frenzy about the newly-released Hollywood flick called Red Tails, particularly among many African Americans. The idea that courageous African American men fought valiantly against fascism during the Second World War is surely something of which to be proud, especially in a society that deliberately goes out of its way to ignore the relevance of the existence of African American people to either the past or present of this country.
However, aside from the fact that there are never either television shows or movies made that show Black Resistance, such as the many "slave" rebellions, or assaults against White Supremacy by Black warriors like Nat Turner or the men who burned down the house of Confederate leader Stonewall Jackson, much less our female freedom fighters like Ida B. Wells or Black Panther leader Elaine Brown who still fights for social justice to this very day, what should we really expect from Hollywood, regarding our story?
Moreover, is it not peculiar that: at a time when the US Military/Industrial Complex, supposedly lead by the so-called "Black" president, is under increasingly greater scrutiny than ever before, that a film about Black fighter pilots from the United States is being given so much honor and attention? If that's not the case, then why not show a movie about the War of Independence where Black soldiers fought overwhelmingly FOR the British against the new "Americans". In fact, most of our ancestors fought by a ratio of 4:1 in comparison to those Blacks who fought on George Washington's side, because Lord Dunmore had promised the former fighters freedom from slavery, if Britain won the war. Additionally, why not show that thousands upon thousands of Black Confederate soldiers fought against the Union during the Civil War (as opposed to those in the 54th Calvary that the movie "Glory" showed), because slavery was a class institution - NOT a "race" one. Please go to your local libraries or type "Black Slave masters" in your browsers!
Finally, will we be as excited, if Obama has Black pilots bombing out our kin folks in Africa, as he and his administration continue to set up shop in Africa through AFRICOM, as the United States sets up military bases throughout the Motherland? Let's keep all of this in perspective, please.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
There seems to be a lot of frenzy about the newly-released Hollywood flick called Red Tails, particularly among many African Americans. The idea that courageous African American men fought valiantly against fascism during the Second World War is surely something of which to be proud, especially in a society that deliberately goes out of its way to ignore the relevance of the existence of African American people to either the past or present of this country.
However, aside from the fact that there are never either television shows or movies made that show Black Resistance, such as the many "slave" rebellions, or assaults against White Supremacy by Black warriors like Nat Turner or the men who burned down the house of Confederate leader Stonewall Jackson, much less our female freedom fighters like Ida B. Wells or Black Panther leader Elaine Brown who still fights for social justice to this very day, what should we really expect from Hollywood, regarding our story?
Moreover, is it not peculiar that: at a time when the US Military/Industrial Complex, supposedly lead by the so-called "Black" president, is under increasingly greater scrutiny than ever before, that a film about Black fighter pilots from the United States is being given so much honor and attention? If that's not the case, then why not show a movie about the War of Independence where Black soldiers fought overwhelmingly FOR the British against the new "Americans". In fact, most of our ancestors fought by a ratio of 4:1 in comparison to those Blacks who fought on George Washington's side, because Lord Dunmore had promised the former fighters freedom from slavery, if Britain won the war. Additionally, why not show that thousands upon thousands of Black Confederate soldiers fought against the Union during the Civil War (as opposed to those in the 54th Calvary that the movie "Glory" showed), because slavery was a class institution - NOT a "race" one. Please go to your local libraries or type "Black Slave masters" in your browsers!
Finally, will we be as excited, if Obama has Black pilots bombing out our kin folks in Africa, as he and his administration continue to set up shop in Africa through AFRICOM, as the United States sets up military bases throughout the Motherland? Let's keep all of this in perspective, please.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Is Suicide neccesarily a "Bad Thing"?
"Of course, our government, which declares that it has sole authority over who lives or dies, including the individual citizen, conveniently makes committing suicide a crime, while the aforesaid government's execution of people is legal."
Dear friends,
At this particular time of the year, at least in this country, the holiday season brings a lot of feelings of celebration. However, there are many people who are reminded of loved ones who are no longer part of the living. No mood for celebrating.
Now, to be sure, human beings are the only creatures on this planet who are even aware of our existence. That's why the maintenance of cemeteries is strictly a human undertaking (pun intended. Other creatures have no need for them, since they have no idea that they even exist. That is, all of their actions are instinctual, even though some have the ability to reason and follow orders from humans. Additionally, this world, including people, exists whether any particular human being is alive or not. Ask any mortician.
Nonetheless, the desire to maintain one's status as a living being is reinforced by both mental and motor reflexes for self-preservation. So why do people sometimes consciously bypass the aforementioned mechanisms and take their own lives? Moreover, in a market-driven, possession-oriented society such as ours, where people alienate themselves from both themselves and the fruits of their labor, by surrendering such products or services just mentioned to an employer who will ultimately be the one making the profits from the hard work of the former, how do people persevere? This is especially disturbing, because people in our society are also alienated from each other. For instance, in the newer wealthy neighborhoods, they do not even bother to build sidewalks anymore. We need "community" in this country, more than ever.
To be sure, there is a generation raising children that is so steeped in this possession-oriented culture that ideas of community, and so forth, represent the folklore of generations past. Additionally, it is hard to steer the imagination towards humanity, community, and the common good in a society that holds individualism as paramount. Individualism has its place, but given too much emphasis, it can encourage greed, selfishness and petty materialism, creating serious identity problems along the way.
Therefore, and ultimately, if our youth are to be our future, then it will only happen if we as adults, particularly parents, take the reins of this present culture and provide our children with both an historical and social conscience, and set the example for them, by informing identity through recognition of the connection between generations and defining human life in a meaningful way (as opposed to basing who they are upon claims that cannot even be substantiated, regarding with whom they are having sex, or what "gang colors" they're wearing). That way, our society will benefit from the "leadership" of our youth. As well, the "market" will then be a function of the values of the society, and not vice versa.
Still, suicide is the word used to acknowledge self-murder. However, because we look at everything geometrically, that is, we give shape, form, and substance to phenomena, whether physically, intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually, then our understanding of all things is based upon "dialectical" vision or a "unity of opposites". That means that we cannot know what "hot" is, unless we know what "cold" is. We cannot know what "yes" is, unless we can relate to the concept of "no". Likewise, how can there be murder of others, without self-murder? And each time a person murders has s/he, at least partially, murdered her or his own humanity?
Moreover, is suicide necessarily a bad thing? For example, if an adult warrior, especially a male one, like a soldier or police officer, learns that he has a terminal illness and chooses not to be a burden to his loved ones or anyone else, is it wrong for him to end his life? After all. that it is an old tradition in all cultures and happens all of the time. Besides, that is a decision that has been made by a mature, responsible adult who. apparently, has a genuine "sense of self", and has made a final decision, of his own volition. Of course, our government, which declares that it has sole authority over who lives or dies, including the individual citizen, conveniently makes committing suicide a crime, while the aforesaid government's execution of people is legal. Huh?
At any rate, when children commit suicide other issues come into the dialogue. I mean, unlike the earlier-mentioned warriors, a child has not adequately developed a "sense of self" as an adult has to make that kind of decision about his or her life. That is, "sense of self" requires two criteria to be realized. The are: 1) The person knows what it is like to live alone on his or her own. and 2) The person knows what it is like to accomplish goals on his or her own.
Consequently, being under the care of an adult, a child who kills himself or herself brings great feelings of guilt to the caretaker(s). But is pointing fingers at the aforementioned caretaker(s) fair? For example, when I told her about writing this piece, one of my two daughters, Dr. Namandje N. Bumpus of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, insisted that I should mention that Prozac, the popular anti-depressant drug, is directly responsible for many adolescent suicides these days. Also, she says that both freshmen and sophomore teens at schools like Cal Tech and MIT are still high on the list of teen suicides.
On the link below, renowned journalist Sandy Banks of the Los Angeles Times shares some ideas that are quite thought-provoking, regarding this subject. Cheers!
G. Djata Banks
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1119-banks-20111119,0,3621640,full.column
Read full post
Dr. Chika Ezeanya exposes Obama administration's lack of Integrity
" 'So, shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public, that’s what I expect from you.' That was an unhappy Hilary Clinton..."
Dear friends,
As usual, one of Africa's premier journalists, Dr. Chika Ezeanya of Nigeria, provides us with a brilliant, "no-holds-barred" analysis of the enemies of Africa from both within and outside of our Mother continent that reminds me of the work of the late, great Dr. Walter Rodney. Enjoy!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://saharareporters.com/article/support-oil-subsidy-removal-shame-you-united-states
Read full post
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
School bullying in the headlines (originally posted 4/9/10)
“…we are all sickened by the notion of an “anti-bullying” law. Both the thought of it and any subsequent actions are useless! Let’s be serious. At what point is a person being bullied or vice versa – that is, at what point is a person bullying another?”
Dear friends,
The obituary reads, in part, “Phoebe leaves behind her mother Anne Obrien Prince, father Jeremy Prince, sisters Lauren, Tessa and Bridget and brother Simon.” Recent reports, regarding the unfortunate suicide of the former South Hadley, Mass. high school freshman Phoebe Prince seem, mostly, to be concentrating on alleged “bullies”, while disregarding the fact that Prince had an older sibling (a senior, at that) attending the exact the same school.
Apparently, Phoebe couldn’t appeal to this older sister for help. What was going on in the Prince household that such a lack of connection between siblings was happening, much less allowed? I mean, two siblings may have their differences; however, they will still defend each other against outsiders.
And what of the claim by an aunt from Northampton, Mass. that school administrators had been warned earlier in the school year of the now dead girl’s vulnerability to bullies? Does that aunt’s claim suggest that Phoebe Prince was some kind of “bully magnet”? If that is true, then it also means that she had learned to engage in masochistic behavior that would either draw bullies to her, or make people want to bully her. Duh. The question then would seem to be, “With what kind of people was she living?” As a matter of fact, was she being bullied at home by one or more of her four siblings too? It happens.
Additionally, not only to me, but to several other educators, as well, with whom I’ve connected about this whole mess, we are all sickened by the notion of an “anti-bullying” law. Both the thought of it and any subsequent actions are useless! Let’s be serious. At what point is a person being bullied or vice versa – that is, at what point is a person bullying another? Children can be cruel. Therefore, what law will stop that! Moreover, from where do kids learn to be cruel?
Finally, what’s all of the talk about a lawsuit? Who will pay? Our cash-strapped school system? It’s an easy payday for lawyers. Any trial will be a field day for even the most inept defense attorney. In any case, will any lawyer complain? After all, it’s the client’s money. Right?
On the link below is a piece that I sent back in 2009 to the Philadelphia Daily News about school violence. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://articles.philly.com/2009-12-29/news/25270484_1_school-safety-safe-place-students
Read full post
Dear friends,
The obituary reads, in part, “Phoebe leaves behind her mother Anne Obrien Prince, father Jeremy Prince, sisters Lauren, Tessa and Bridget and brother Simon.” Recent reports, regarding the unfortunate suicide of the former South Hadley, Mass. high school freshman Phoebe Prince seem, mostly, to be concentrating on alleged “bullies”, while disregarding the fact that Prince had an older sibling (a senior, at that) attending the exact the same school.
Apparently, Phoebe couldn’t appeal to this older sister for help. What was going on in the Prince household that such a lack of connection between siblings was happening, much less allowed? I mean, two siblings may have their differences; however, they will still defend each other against outsiders.
And what of the claim by an aunt from Northampton, Mass. that school administrators had been warned earlier in the school year of the now dead girl’s vulnerability to bullies? Does that aunt’s claim suggest that Phoebe Prince was some kind of “bully magnet”? If that is true, then it also means that she had learned to engage in masochistic behavior that would either draw bullies to her, or make people want to bully her. Duh. The question then would seem to be, “With what kind of people was she living?” As a matter of fact, was she being bullied at home by one or more of her four siblings too? It happens.
Additionally, not only to me, but to several other educators, as well, with whom I’ve connected about this whole mess, we are all sickened by the notion of an “anti-bullying” law. Both the thought of it and any subsequent actions are useless! Let’s be serious. At what point is a person being bullied or vice versa – that is, at what point is a person bullying another? Children can be cruel. Therefore, what law will stop that! Moreover, from where do kids learn to be cruel?
Finally, what’s all of the talk about a lawsuit? Who will pay? Our cash-strapped school system? It’s an easy payday for lawyers. Any trial will be a field day for even the most inept defense attorney. In any case, will any lawyer complain? After all, it’s the client’s money. Right?
On the link below is a piece that I sent back in 2009 to the Philadelphia Daily News about school violence. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://articles.philly.com/2009-12-29/news/25270484_1_school-safety-safe-place-students
Read full post
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Why doesn't the media show Elaine Brown?
Dear Friends,
At this point of the "Occupy" Movement that has begun to spread across America, we are now seeing and hearing from some of the people who made names for themselves, years ago, not for actually doing real work, but, instead, for simply being a "celebrity" of the Movement. Now such folks are back in the spotlight. However, one person who the mainstream government- and corporate-controlled media has not been publicizing is Elaine Brown, my former Panther comrade.
Nevertheless, on the link below, is a seven minutes-long video that will introduce you to this longtime warrior.
All power to the people!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roGNxckardg Read full post
Thursday, October 20, 2011
More on Occupy Wall Street - what is hapening?
"what sympathy are the Occupy Wall Street folks going to get, if they start taking over buildings in order to provide shelter and work for themselves?"
Dear friends,
Recently, I questioned the effectiveness of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, in bringing change to our country.
Ultimately, in order for a group to sustain themselves, they have to acquire a means to produce their material means of survival. In other words, there's more to building community than people getting together and being nice to each other. Moreover, many of these people are basically destitute. Consequently, alien marauders can then move in and take advantage. That's what happened to African Americans after we fought with guns and freed ourselves during the North American Civil War or what's been called the First War of Black Liberation. (see Lloyd Hogan's Principles of Black Political Economy)
Instead of using such great energy to protest (and freeload), folks should combine to, for example, take over abandoned factory buildings (structures like that are abundant in this country), and organize both housing and business facilities. There are many carpenters, plumbers, and electricians who would surely help them. There may even be some artisans and others among them.
Please remember that the people themselves are the economy. That is, human beings both make and consume the products of their combined labor. It (the aforesaid economy) is not some mystical, anthropomorphic phenomenon that grows and recesses. That's a silly idea that is the kind of blather constantly spouted by North American so-called journalists and equally unprincipled college professors who defer any notion of integrity in their work, in order to keep their jobs.
So here another point is raised. That is, the type of "jobs", as it were, at which North Americans are most often employed, just as they are for the so-called journalists and professors just mentioned, are merely exercises in human acquiescence to superior authority. Worse yet, in order to endure the charade, folks alienate, not only themselves from their work, but themselves from themselves and their fellow workers. Ouch!
Additionally, it is here where the escape from all of the misery mentioned above, that is, drugs, sex, religion, you name it, take firm hold. People need to forget about themselves and life in general. This running from one's self is also essential, because being human is a very lonesome experience. After all, one can sleep beside another person for any number of years. Still, you are both lonely. After all, no one can eat for you or go to the bathroom for you. Of course, this escapism is very convenient and profitable for those who control the market that results from the products and services the aforementioned workers produce.
Hence, finding union with others is a way to alleviate some of the pain of lonesomeness. However, one has to be careful of the religious marauders. They prey on such folks. And so, the Occupy Wall Street Movement provides some positive union, but how long will it last, unless those folks establish plans for long term survival that doesn't require begging? And in an environment where poor people, like Tea Partyers, complain about the government wanting to tax the rich more, while, simultaneously, we see the US government, with its "Black" president, raiding Africa and the Middle East, claiming to be "liberators", what sympathy are the Occupy Wall Street folks going to get, if they start taking over buildings in order to provide shelter and work for themselves? That's what's been happening everywhere else. Will our government "help" Americans. as they did for the Egyptians and Libyans?
"Dare to struggle - dare to win" - Fredrick Douglass
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
Recently, I questioned the effectiveness of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, in bringing change to our country.
Ultimately, in order for a group to sustain themselves, they have to acquire a means to produce their material means of survival. In other words, there's more to building community than people getting together and being nice to each other. Moreover, many of these people are basically destitute. Consequently, alien marauders can then move in and take advantage. That's what happened to African Americans after we fought with guns and freed ourselves during the North American Civil War or what's been called the First War of Black Liberation. (see Lloyd Hogan's Principles of Black Political Economy)
Instead of using such great energy to protest (and freeload), folks should combine to, for example, take over abandoned factory buildings (structures like that are abundant in this country), and organize both housing and business facilities. There are many carpenters, plumbers, and electricians who would surely help them. There may even be some artisans and others among them.
Please remember that the people themselves are the economy. That is, human beings both make and consume the products of their combined labor. It (the aforesaid economy) is not some mystical, anthropomorphic phenomenon that grows and recesses. That's a silly idea that is the kind of blather constantly spouted by North American so-called journalists and equally unprincipled college professors who defer any notion of integrity in their work, in order to keep their jobs.
So here another point is raised. That is, the type of "jobs", as it were, at which North Americans are most often employed, just as they are for the so-called journalists and professors just mentioned, are merely exercises in human acquiescence to superior authority. Worse yet, in order to endure the charade, folks alienate, not only themselves from their work, but themselves from themselves and their fellow workers. Ouch!
Additionally, it is here where the escape from all of the misery mentioned above, that is, drugs, sex, religion, you name it, take firm hold. People need to forget about themselves and life in general. This running from one's self is also essential, because being human is a very lonesome experience. After all, one can sleep beside another person for any number of years. Still, you are both lonely. After all, no one can eat for you or go to the bathroom for you. Of course, this escapism is very convenient and profitable for those who control the market that results from the products and services the aforementioned workers produce.
Hence, finding union with others is a way to alleviate some of the pain of lonesomeness. However, one has to be careful of the religious marauders. They prey on such folks. And so, the Occupy Wall Street Movement provides some positive union, but how long will it last, unless those folks establish plans for long term survival that doesn't require begging? And in an environment where poor people, like Tea Partyers, complain about the government wanting to tax the rich more, while, simultaneously, we see the US government, with its "Black" president, raiding Africa and the Middle East, claiming to be "liberators", what sympathy are the Occupy Wall Street folks going to get, if they start taking over buildings in order to provide shelter and work for themselves? That's what's been happening everywhere else. Will our government "help" Americans. as they did for the Egyptians and Libyans?
"Dare to struggle - dare to win" - Fredrick Douglass
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Is Quaddafy's Stand against White Supremacy and political Zionism his biggest offense? (originally posted 3/29/11)
“…should we not wonder who really wins with Quaddafy’s ouster?”
Dear friends,
While the African Holocaust, which is worldwide in its nature and scope, has been going on ever since Columbus’ first infamous voyage across the Ocean Sea, the cry for a United States of Africa is more necessary than ever.
Originally having been introduced by the great Marcus Garvey, then Drs. Kwame Nkrumah and W.E.B. DuBois, along with others, some 50-plus years ago, a concept that Quaddafy tried to re-introduce with the African Union two years ago (2009), Pan Africanism and its insistence upon a United States of Africa is the only valid philosophy for African peoples around the world.
After all, whether in New York City or Lagos, Nigeria, we will not be respected as a people until Africa is finally respected again, as it once was. Period! Moreover, now with so many African Americans drugging themselves with this “black president” nonsense, those who deny us our humanity everyday are wreaking havoc on the great continent.
Nevertheless, on the link below is an article by one Robert Downie, obviously, a C.I.A. – supported opinion maker, who tells of some of the generosity that Quaddafy has shown towards his African neighbors. The “analysis”, at least to me, leaves far too many questions. Therefore, it is extremely censored.
Still, in a time when the cowardly Obama snivels up to every right wing and political Zionist exploiter around, AFRICOM (the United States expansionist program that currently has the US military all over Africa), should we not wonder who really wins with Quaddafy’s ouster? After all, why does the US support Israel, a murderous enemy of humankind, as both of the aforementioned countries colluded with the former regime of apartheid South Africa, (now a neo-colony of European rulers and their offshoots in the Americas) with financial and technical resources?
G. Djata Bumpus
http://csis.org/blog/qaddafis-tangled-legacy-africa
Read full post
Dear friends,
While the African Holocaust, which is worldwide in its nature and scope, has been going on ever since Columbus’ first infamous voyage across the Ocean Sea, the cry for a United States of Africa is more necessary than ever.
Originally having been introduced by the great Marcus Garvey, then Drs. Kwame Nkrumah and W.E.B. DuBois, along with others, some 50-plus years ago, a concept that Quaddafy tried to re-introduce with the African Union two years ago (2009), Pan Africanism and its insistence upon a United States of Africa is the only valid philosophy for African peoples around the world.
After all, whether in New York City or Lagos, Nigeria, we will not be respected as a people until Africa is finally respected again, as it once was. Period! Moreover, now with so many African Americans drugging themselves with this “black president” nonsense, those who deny us our humanity everyday are wreaking havoc on the great continent.
Nevertheless, on the link below is an article by one Robert Downie, obviously, a C.I.A. – supported opinion maker, who tells of some of the generosity that Quaddafy has shown towards his African neighbors. The “analysis”, at least to me, leaves far too many questions. Therefore, it is extremely censored.
Still, in a time when the cowardly Obama snivels up to every right wing and political Zionist exploiter around, AFRICOM (the United States expansionist program that currently has the US military all over Africa), should we not wonder who really wins with Quaddafy’s ouster? After all, why does the US support Israel, a murderous enemy of humankind, as both of the aforementioned countries colluded with the former regime of apartheid South Africa, (now a neo-colony of European rulers and their offshoots in the Americas) with financial and technical resources?
G. Djata Bumpus
http://csis.org/blog/qaddafis-tangled-legacy-africa
Read full post
Why is Obama maintaining AFRICOM - and the war against Libya? (originally posted 8/3/11)
“He has an African name and purports to be African American. In other words, with such a ‘head of state’, I knew that that would be a strong basis for US multinational business to be able to open up markets in Africa.”
Dear friends,
Ever since he first started running for the presidential office, I have insisted that the only reason that Barack Obama was a good choice for the racist rulers of this country is: He has an African name and purports to be African American. In other words, with such a "head of state", I knew that that would be a strong basis for US multinational businesses to be able to open up markets in Africa.
After all, the days of European colonial rule are not that far in the past. Therefore, while China has opened up solid business relationships with a number of African countries, one can only imagine that some of the offshoots of the aforementioned European colonists, i.e., European American businesspeople, would find it difficult to meet welcoming arms there. I wonder why?
At any rate, after first using the flimsy excuse of fighting a “war on terror”, in early 2007, the person who was the president at the time, George W. Bush, instituted The United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM).
However, Africans were not so lovey-dovey with the idea of having such a strong US military presence there. So, the headquarters of AFRICOM ended up being placed just outside of Stuttgart, Germany.
Nevertheless, AFRICOM has been involved in activities that make it apparent there is an ulterior motive for having military bases set up all over Africa’s 54 countries – oil.
Now, while some Black folks are concerned about the term “tar baby” being used in the same sentence as a reference to Barack Obama’s actions, at least to me, a much more important question is: Why is President Obama maintaining AFRICOM?
Additionally, why are Black journalists from around the country, who are meeting in Philadelphia beginning this week, wondering why, as a body, they are becoming more and more inconsequential, when African American people are not even informed about, for example, the actions of this president and inspired to demand meaningful representation from him?
Please check out the info on the link below. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://peoplesworld.org/africom-and-the-libya-war/
Read full post
Dear friends,
Ever since he first started running for the presidential office, I have insisted that the only reason that Barack Obama was a good choice for the racist rulers of this country is: He has an African name and purports to be African American. In other words, with such a "head of state", I knew that that would be a strong basis for US multinational businesses to be able to open up markets in Africa.
After all, the days of European colonial rule are not that far in the past. Therefore, while China has opened up solid business relationships with a number of African countries, one can only imagine that some of the offshoots of the aforementioned European colonists, i.e., European American businesspeople, would find it difficult to meet welcoming arms there. I wonder why?
At any rate, after first using the flimsy excuse of fighting a “war on terror”, in early 2007, the person who was the president at the time, George W. Bush, instituted The United States Africa Command (USAFRICOM or AFRICOM).
However, Africans were not so lovey-dovey with the idea of having such a strong US military presence there. So, the headquarters of AFRICOM ended up being placed just outside of Stuttgart, Germany.
Nevertheless, AFRICOM has been involved in activities that make it apparent there is an ulterior motive for having military bases set up all over Africa’s 54 countries – oil.
Now, while some Black folks are concerned about the term “tar baby” being used in the same sentence as a reference to Barack Obama’s actions, at least to me, a much more important question is: Why is President Obama maintaining AFRICOM?
Additionally, why are Black journalists from around the country, who are meeting in Philadelphia beginning this week, wondering why, as a body, they are becoming more and more inconsequential, when African American people are not even informed about, for example, the actions of this president and inspired to demand meaningful representation from him?
Please check out the info on the link below. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://peoplesworld.org/africom-and-the-libya-war/
Read full post
Friday, October 7, 2011
"Occupy Wall Street" makes NO sense
“…it is not the banks that are totally, or even mostly, at fault for their failures. Rather, it is our federal government that has continued to “bailout” a banking system that does not work well.”
Dear friends,
Lately, everyday, at least through the government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, we have been both seeing and hearing about protesters occupying Wall Street, and now even their equally angry fellows have been appearing at banking and other establishments nationwide. However, it is not the banks that are totally, or even mostly, at fault for our current economic problems. Rather, it is, for example, our federal government that has continued to “bailout” a banking system that does not work well.
Moreover, how can citizens expect this government to faithfully behave in our interests, when its agents (in the form of politicians), from the White House to Capitol Hill, are so promiscuous with our trust, let alone our tax dollars, when conducting business affairs with corporations of all kinds? I mean, if one had such disrespect shown to him or her by a spouse, then divorce court would have already become a memory.
Consequently, the solution to the constant cycles of repression and depression in this political economy or process of social reproduction has to be found by all of us combining our inner and outer energies or powers in order to build genuine “communities”, where our banks are community-owned institutions that allow for the funding of businesses, home building, and even more importantly, provide the capital, as it were, for us to maintain value judgments that are based upon relationships that are independent yet cooperative, along with showing care and concern for our fellows, instead of power and, particularly, sexual greed, as all economic/social relations exist now, under the value judgments of a market-driven, possession-oriented society.
By the way, please note that when I say “sexual greed”, I am not simply referring to males who have more sexual interactions outside of their marriages than they do with their own wives, although that is not to be overlooked. Rather, I am talking about Male Supremacy, euphemistically called sexism, as females are expected to contribute vigorously to the proliferation of this or any other society, while they are not given the same access to, much less benefits of, the equality to become fully human, just for being of the “different“ sex. Meanwhile, males in all societies hog it all! In real communities, that would not be the case, and females would be raised to be as competent as males are, as opposed to trivializing their divine potentials so that they do not make males feel intimidated (thus, simultaneously, making males feel superior). Besides, from the cheating spouse to the BP oil spill, greed is always short-sighted.
Finally, the current spate of protests means nothing. It’s a waste of valuable energy. If anything, the “occupation” should be on the steps of White House and Capitol Hill, especially since it has been those federal politicians, ever since the end of the Civil War, who keep bailing out the failing banks and corporations.
Cheers!
G Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
Lately, everyday, at least through the government- and corporate-controlled mainstream media, we have been both seeing and hearing about protesters occupying Wall Street, and now even their equally angry fellows have been appearing at banking and other establishments nationwide. However, it is not the banks that are totally, or even mostly, at fault for our current economic problems. Rather, it is, for example, our federal government that has continued to “bailout” a banking system that does not work well.
Moreover, how can citizens expect this government to faithfully behave in our interests, when its agents (in the form of politicians), from the White House to Capitol Hill, are so promiscuous with our trust, let alone our tax dollars, when conducting business affairs with corporations of all kinds? I mean, if one had such disrespect shown to him or her by a spouse, then divorce court would have already become a memory.
Consequently, the solution to the constant cycles of repression and depression in this political economy or process of social reproduction has to be found by all of us combining our inner and outer energies or powers in order to build genuine “communities”, where our banks are community-owned institutions that allow for the funding of businesses, home building, and even more importantly, provide the capital, as it were, for us to maintain value judgments that are based upon relationships that are independent yet cooperative, along with showing care and concern for our fellows, instead of power and, particularly, sexual greed, as all economic/social relations exist now, under the value judgments of a market-driven, possession-oriented society.
By the way, please note that when I say “sexual greed”, I am not simply referring to males who have more sexual interactions outside of their marriages than they do with their own wives, although that is not to be overlooked. Rather, I am talking about Male Supremacy, euphemistically called sexism, as females are expected to contribute vigorously to the proliferation of this or any other society, while they are not given the same access to, much less benefits of, the equality to become fully human, just for being of the “different“ sex. Meanwhile, males in all societies hog it all! In real communities, that would not be the case, and females would be raised to be as competent as males are, as opposed to trivializing their divine potentials so that they do not make males feel intimidated (thus, simultaneously, making males feel superior). Besides, from the cheating spouse to the BP oil spill, greed is always short-sighted.
Finally, the current spate of protests means nothing. It’s a waste of valuable energy. If anything, the “occupation” should be on the steps of White House and Capitol Hill, especially since it has been those federal politicians, ever since the end of the Civil War, who keep bailing out the failing banks and corporations.
Cheers!
G Djata Bumpus
Read full post
For Whom is Obama's Economic Plan? (originally posted Jan. 10, 2009)
"We know that 'Power corrupts.' Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same..."
Dear friends,
Will President Obama's “make-work”/economic plan effort be much better than the ineffective welfare-to-work schemes that have popped up all over the country, during the past two decades? Why do we need a federal, centralized bureaucracy to manage our economic affairs anyway? And who is going to be building roads and bridges, Mr. Obama? That is hard and dangerous work. How will responsibilities be distributed? In securing work, what opportunities will African American males, much less other males who also look like you, as well as all female workers, have? Moreover, will not all of those laborers involved need to be fairly young?
In order to attract a large amount of young people, Mr. Obama will have to convince them that the work itself, not the paycheck, is the reward. Yet, in our possession-oriented, market-driven culture, most young people have no interest in doing hard labor. Besides, these days, the paycheck means more to them than having done the job well.
To be sure, the idea of appreciating our own ability to work has been one that has often escaped youth throughout human history. After all, it is hard as a young person to hear that the satisfaction of a job well done is its own reward, when s/he sees the inequities of the distribution of the harvesting of the "fruits" of labor all around us - from bankers to businesspeople to politicians and many others. “Work is the reward!” is one of those notions that would be fine if everyone believed it, but hard to swallow when you know others are getting away with doing so little. Hence, it is the unfairness that eats away at our resolve to do our best in society.
Still, President Obama must push forward in getting our youth to appreciate work. That will require leadership. Unfortunately, about this notion of work being the reward, as mentioned above, I have not heard one peep from the mouth of either our incoming president or the one going out, or the guy before that one. There is no leadership.
Rather, the only sense of urgency that President Obama seems to have is how quickly he can get some money into the hands of the big banks and companies. After all, who but big banks and companies will really be benefiting from this make-work venture that Mr. Obama is passing off as his "Economic Plan"? Heck, Halliburton will leave Iraq. Their contractors will make the money here, with less chance of losing their lives. Also, with Obama’s “make-work” enterprise, people will be able to buy DVDs and other electronic goods from the big national chain stores. They will be able to buy designer clothes from the national clothing chains, and so forth. The economy will be doing great! Right?
Thus far, we have only been considering blue collar workers. But what will become of the millions of laid-off office and white collar workers? How many will want to build bridges and roads? How many have the physical strength or emotional will to do so? How will a person who has been an account executive for the past fifteen years experience economic progress by doing “make-work” jobs to feed the family? Is that not a huge loss in his or her standard of living, by itself?
In another area of economic concern, instead of “Bail-outs” for incompetent executives and their gullible investors, how about the United Auto Workers themselves taking over the Big Three, in a similar context as the Avis workers did back in the 90s. To be sure, the former employees-now employers will not mind pay or other benefit cuts, because they will be developing an enterprise that belongs to them. As well, that particular union, UAW, with its, historically, suspect leadership, will, in effect, dissolve itself, since with the workers as the owners, they will not need anyone to represent them other than themselves. Currently, of course, like all workers, they need a union, because the employer and employees do not have the same interests. In other words, it is not in the interests of employers to represent the interests of the workers. If they did, then there would never be disputes or strikes, much less lay-offs and benefit cuts. Most importantly, if the workers take over the companies, it will be Americans making better cars for themselves/us and we will buy their products from them, because it will actually benefit all of us.
Ultimately, all capable people will have to discover the divine powers within themselves that will make them both creative and productive. As a matter of fact, at least to me, the best results of strong economic development are revealed by humans being able to spend their leisure time engaging in both personal and group interactions where one’s relatedness to himself or herself - and others – as opposed to the trinkets and baubles that one possesses – allows each citizen to cooperatively co-exist with his or her fellows in peace. It will require a leader who has wisdom, experience, and courage to guide the citizenry in that direction. Re-doing Bill Clinton’s administration will, predictably, "lead" us right back to where we are. Considering the make-up of Obama’s Cabinet as it now stands (of mostly Clinton people), and for all of the present hoopla about the “inauguration”, this is all sad – if not pathetic.
We know that “Power corrupts.” Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same. Consequently, Americans need to scrap the kleptomaniacs who make up our federal government officials and Obama needs to “change” his current course, by becoming a leader who guides the American people in a way that helps us create our own industries, and build our own self-sufficient, loving, and, therefore, prosperous communities.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Dear friends,
Will President Obama's “make-work”/economic plan effort be much better than the ineffective welfare-to-work schemes that have popped up all over the country, during the past two decades? Why do we need a federal, centralized bureaucracy to manage our economic affairs anyway? And who is going to be building roads and bridges, Mr. Obama? That is hard and dangerous work. How will responsibilities be distributed? In securing work, what opportunities will African American males, much less other males who also look like you, as well as all female workers, have? Moreover, will not all of those laborers involved need to be fairly young?
In order to attract a large amount of young people, Mr. Obama will have to convince them that the work itself, not the paycheck, is the reward. Yet, in our possession-oriented, market-driven culture, most young people have no interest in doing hard labor. Besides, these days, the paycheck means more to them than having done the job well.
To be sure, the idea of appreciating our own ability to work has been one that has often escaped youth throughout human history. After all, it is hard as a young person to hear that the satisfaction of a job well done is its own reward, when s/he sees the inequities of the distribution of the harvesting of the "fruits" of labor all around us - from bankers to businesspeople to politicians and many others. “Work is the reward!” is one of those notions that would be fine if everyone believed it, but hard to swallow when you know others are getting away with doing so little. Hence, it is the unfairness that eats away at our resolve to do our best in society.
Still, President Obama must push forward in getting our youth to appreciate work. That will require leadership. Unfortunately, about this notion of work being the reward, as mentioned above, I have not heard one peep from the mouth of either our incoming president or the one going out, or the guy before that one. There is no leadership.
Rather, the only sense of urgency that President Obama seems to have is how quickly he can get some money into the hands of the big banks and companies. After all, who but big banks and companies will really be benefiting from this make-work venture that Mr. Obama is passing off as his "Economic Plan"? Heck, Halliburton will leave Iraq. Their contractors will make the money here, with less chance of losing their lives. Also, with Obama’s “make-work” enterprise, people will be able to buy DVDs and other electronic goods from the big national chain stores. They will be able to buy designer clothes from the national clothing chains, and so forth. The economy will be doing great! Right?
Thus far, we have only been considering blue collar workers. But what will become of the millions of laid-off office and white collar workers? How many will want to build bridges and roads? How many have the physical strength or emotional will to do so? How will a person who has been an account executive for the past fifteen years experience economic progress by doing “make-work” jobs to feed the family? Is that not a huge loss in his or her standard of living, by itself?
In another area of economic concern, instead of “Bail-outs” for incompetent executives and their gullible investors, how about the United Auto Workers themselves taking over the Big Three, in a similar context as the Avis workers did back in the 90s. To be sure, the former employees-now employers will not mind pay or other benefit cuts, because they will be developing an enterprise that belongs to them. As well, that particular union, UAW, with its, historically, suspect leadership, will, in effect, dissolve itself, since with the workers as the owners, they will not need anyone to represent them other than themselves. Currently, of course, like all workers, they need a union, because the employer and employees do not have the same interests. In other words, it is not in the interests of employers to represent the interests of the workers. If they did, then there would never be disputes or strikes, much less lay-offs and benefit cuts. Most importantly, if the workers take over the companies, it will be Americans making better cars for themselves/us and we will buy their products from them, because it will actually benefit all of us.
Ultimately, all capable people will have to discover the divine powers within themselves that will make them both creative and productive. As a matter of fact, at least to me, the best results of strong economic development are revealed by humans being able to spend their leisure time engaging in both personal and group interactions where one’s relatedness to himself or herself - and others – as opposed to the trinkets and baubles that one possesses – allows each citizen to cooperatively co-exist with his or her fellows in peace. It will require a leader who has wisdom, experience, and courage to guide the citizenry in that direction. Re-doing Bill Clinton’s administration will, predictably, "lead" us right back to where we are. Considering the make-up of Obama’s Cabinet as it now stands (of mostly Clinton people), and for all of the present hoopla about the “inauguration”, this is all sad – if not pathetic.
We know that “Power corrupts.” Playing “sleight of hand” tricks and performing intellectual acrobatics, through tax cuts, with the “fruits” of citizens’ labor is simply more of the same. Consequently, Americans need to scrap the kleptomaniacs who make up our federal government officials and Obama needs to “change” his current course, by becoming a leader who guides the American people in a way that helps us create our own industries, and build our own self-sufficient, loving, and, therefore, prosperous communities.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
