Dear friends,
Considering the fact that the Olympic Games, to be held in China, are only a few weeks away, perhaps, it is instructive for us to pay attention to some of our proud and distinguished athletes. Moreover, with all of the talk about "patriotism" this presidential election year, what about cheering for our fellow citizens who work so hard at revealing both their physical and intellectul powers to us through sports? At the link below, legendary LA Times columnist Sandy Banks makes us aware of an athlete, who represents our nation, to whom we should pay close attention...
Cheers!!!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks19-2008jul19,0,5611847.column
Read full post
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Pledging Allegiance to Immigrants' Citizenry
Dear friends,
The link below is to a piece by a young man, Damon Williams, who I hold in deep regard. In my own biased opinion, he is a rising star in journalism. That is quite refreshing, because, except for female African American journalists/writers (some of whom have been featured on this blog), at least to me, especially since the Eighties, the overwhelming proponderance of their male countrerparts, although the latter often have had a longer history of being employed in the field of journalism, spend far too much of their time being in deference to both the views and wishes of their publishers and editors, while, simultaneously, engaging in intellectual acrobatics, to even recognize truth, much less share it with others. And there is such a thing (i.e., truth). After all, as myself and others have been insisting for decades, "If there is no such a thing as truth, then why do so many benefit by hiding it?"...
To be sure, although capitalism has contributed tremendously to our country's development in many areas, in its present "advanced" state, our economic system is having trouble insuring that all of our fellow citizens even have food and housing. That is, whereas USA capitalism has created great amounts of food and, thus, a large population, it has not been able to provide sufficient resources for a good many of its citizens.
Some of our fellows attribute the lack of the aforementioned resources of food, and so forth, for all of our citizenry to "immigrants" acquiring too great a share of the nation's income. However, the facts prove differently. The truth is: Most low income people in this country are European Americans or so-called “whites”; therefore, it is they (said EuropeanAmericans) who receive the largest share of benefits from government programs. Consequently, the argument that Caribbeans, Latinos, Asians, Africans, or other non-European groups are taking anything away from "native" citizens is a complete fabrication, if not s lie.
At any rate, this particular message that Damon is sharing is quite personal. It is, in fact, about his wife, Francina, gaining full American citizenship. Because she comes from Barbados, the same island from which, almost a century ago, my maternal grandparents (the only grandparents who I ever knew) emigrated to the US as adults (they both lived well into their Nineties), I have some personal reasons myself for sharing this piece with you.
Of course, whenever people leave their homes of origin there are always - or, at least, usually - feelings of guilt. Many people, like my grandparents, never return to their former homelands -not even to visit. And so begins the process of self-alienation that is so ingrained in citizens of this largely immigrant - whether voluntary or forced, "advanced" nation.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080719_New_American__A_woman_s_path_to_citizenship.html?adString=pdn.news/local;!category=local;&randomOrd=071908071819
Read full post
The link below is to a piece by a young man, Damon Williams, who I hold in deep regard. In my own biased opinion, he is a rising star in journalism. That is quite refreshing, because, except for female African American journalists/writers (some of whom have been featured on this blog), at least to me, especially since the Eighties, the overwhelming proponderance of their male countrerparts, although the latter often have had a longer history of being employed in the field of journalism, spend far too much of their time being in deference to both the views and wishes of their publishers and editors, while, simultaneously, engaging in intellectual acrobatics, to even recognize truth, much less share it with others. And there is such a thing (i.e., truth). After all, as myself and others have been insisting for decades, "If there is no such a thing as truth, then why do so many benefit by hiding it?"...
To be sure, although capitalism has contributed tremendously to our country's development in many areas, in its present "advanced" state, our economic system is having trouble insuring that all of our fellow citizens even have food and housing. That is, whereas USA capitalism has created great amounts of food and, thus, a large population, it has not been able to provide sufficient resources for a good many of its citizens.
Some of our fellows attribute the lack of the aforementioned resources of food, and so forth, for all of our citizenry to "immigrants" acquiring too great a share of the nation's income. However, the facts prove differently. The truth is: Most low income people in this country are European Americans or so-called “whites”; therefore, it is they (said EuropeanAmericans) who receive the largest share of benefits from government programs. Consequently, the argument that Caribbeans, Latinos, Asians, Africans, or other non-European groups are taking anything away from "native" citizens is a complete fabrication, if not s lie.
At any rate, this particular message that Damon is sharing is quite personal. It is, in fact, about his wife, Francina, gaining full American citizenship. Because she comes from Barbados, the same island from which, almost a century ago, my maternal grandparents (the only grandparents who I ever knew) emigrated to the US as adults (they both lived well into their Nineties), I have some personal reasons myself for sharing this piece with you.
Of course, whenever people leave their homes of origin there are always - or, at least, usually - feelings of guilt. Many people, like my grandparents, never return to their former homelands -not even to visit. And so begins the process of self-alienation that is so ingrained in citizens of this largely immigrant - whether voluntary or forced, "advanced" nation.
One Love,
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20080719_New_American__A_woman_s_path_to_citizenship.html?adString=pdn.news/local;!category=local;&randomOrd=071908071819
Read full post
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
About what is Senator Obama's plan for leaving Iraq?
Dear friends,
Yesterday (7/14) the New York Times had an Op-ed by Senator Barack Obama where he made his case for the United States military leaving Iraq. First of all, personally, I am still not sure of what the purpose of the US being there is. Have thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, let alone the thousands more crippled on both sides, been used as a means to an end to enhance power and profits for various governments and religious institutions (like the Muslim sects at war there)? How is any war going to benefit either American or Iraqi citizens, much less the rest of the world? And what will the war with Afghanistan - or, if included, Iran - do for everyday people here and abroad? Again, if the people are simply being used as means to ends, then it seems, at least to me, that the ends are greater wealth for a few and more power and prestige for institutions like governmental and religious ones - at the expense of people. Please think about it.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Yesterday (7/14) the New York Times had an Op-ed by Senator Barack Obama where he made his case for the United States military leaving Iraq. First of all, personally, I am still not sure of what the purpose of the US being there is. Have thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, let alone the thousands more crippled on both sides, been used as a means to an end to enhance power and profits for various governments and religious institutions (like the Muslim sects at war there)? How is any war going to benefit either American or Iraqi citizens, much less the rest of the world? And what will the war with Afghanistan - or, if included, Iran - do for everyday people here and abroad? Again, if the people are simply being used as means to ends, then it seems, at least to me, that the ends are greater wealth for a few and more power and prestige for institutions like governmental and religious ones - at the expense of people. Please think about it.
G. Djata Bumpus Read full post
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Is troop withdrawal from Iraq coming?
Dear friends,
Exactly what does troop withdrawal from Iraq mean? While Senator Obama has insisted that he will begin bringing troops home, as soon as he is elected, more or less, Senator McCain has been equally adamant that, at least, "some" troops need to stay in Iraq for years to come. President Bush's position has been the same as McCain's, basically.
Now we hear from the Iraqi government that they want a "timetable" for withdrawal of all "foreign" troops (which includes the US). The initial response from the Bush administration is that they still do not want to be limited by a timetable. So what is happening here? There are several possibilities it seems.
They are: 1) The Iraqis, in cahoots with the Iranians, have their own idea about what to do with all of the oil there, profit-wise. 2) The Bush people (and their business partners) have been assured their "cut" or share of future oil profits and are now willing to bow out. (However, that would seem to be a "shaky" contract in which to enter for US oil people.) 3) The claim of the troop withdrawal by Iraqi leaders proves that the US, particularly the Bush administration, has been right on target about "staying the course". (Of course, if McCain wins the election, that hypothesis would be exposed as a sham, immediately, if the war intensified again.) 5) By not attacking Saudi Arabia after nineteen Saudis flew planes into the country and blew up two of our largest symbols of being the world's only "Superpower", the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings, and had another jet on its way to blow up the White House, many of the enemies of the United States (which is most of the world), may now be considering the idea of banding together, in order to counteract decades of economic abuse at the hands of US rulers and their allies.
Meanwhile, the government- and corporate-controlled media, along with our politicians, have the people of this country focusing upon "gay marriage", celebrity divorces, the artistic validity of Will Smith's latest movie, and other such important topics.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Exactly what does troop withdrawal from Iraq mean? While Senator Obama has insisted that he will begin bringing troops home, as soon as he is elected, more or less, Senator McCain has been equally adamant that, at least, "some" troops need to stay in Iraq for years to come. President Bush's position has been the same as McCain's, basically.
Now we hear from the Iraqi government that they want a "timetable" for withdrawal of all "foreign" troops (which includes the US). The initial response from the Bush administration is that they still do not want to be limited by a timetable. So what is happening here? There are several possibilities it seems.
They are: 1) The Iraqis, in cahoots with the Iranians, have their own idea about what to do with all of the oil there, profit-wise. 2) The Bush people (and their business partners) have been assured their "cut" or share of future oil profits and are now willing to bow out. (However, that would seem to be a "shaky" contract in which to enter for US oil people.) 3) The claim of the troop withdrawal by Iraqi leaders proves that the US, particularly the Bush administration, has been right on target about "staying the course". (Of course, if McCain wins the election, that hypothesis would be exposed as a sham, immediately, if the war intensified again.) 5) By not attacking Saudi Arabia after nineteen Saudis flew planes into the country and blew up two of our largest symbols of being the world's only "Superpower", the World Trade Center and Pentagon buildings, and had another jet on its way to blow up the White House, many of the enemies of the United States (which is most of the world), may now be considering the idea of banding together, in order to counteract decades of economic abuse at the hands of US rulers and their allies.
Meanwhile, the government- and corporate-controlled media, along with our politicians, have the people of this country focusing upon "gay marriage", celebrity divorces, the artistic validity of Will Smith's latest movie, and other such important topics.
G. Djata Bumpus
Read full post
Monday, July 7, 2008
Is John McCain a man who believes in Inclusion?
Dear friends,
The link below, written by a longtime estabished and outstanding journalist named George Curry, at least to me, reveals the presumed Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, to be "worse than weak", regarding his vision of the USA as an inclusive society. Does he even understand what the word "democracy" represents? Moreover, if that is the case, that is, if he does not relate to inclusion, then one may consider wondering about the type of relationships that Senator McCain seeks to have with our fellow citizens of the world, as a whole?
Djata
Read full post
The link below, written by a longtime estabished and outstanding journalist named George Curry, at least to me, reveals the presumed Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, to be "worse than weak", regarding his vision of the USA as an inclusive society. Does he even understand what the word "democracy" represents? Moreover, if that is the case, that is, if he does not relate to inclusion, then one may consider wondering about the type of relationships that Senator McCain seeks to have with our fellow citizens of the world, as a whole?
Djata
When it comes to civil rights, McCain has some explaining to do
Read full post
Saturday, July 5, 2008
The longest walk video
Dear friends,
The link below is a short video recording (about five minutes or less long) that shows a group of our fellow citizens, from all cultural and economic backrounds, led by Early American Natives, who are walking to the nation's capital. They began in California, several months ago, and are anticipating that they will reach their destination by July 11th (2008).
Moreover, in a time when the government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media outlets focus our attention on the alleged differences between the two major political parties, rising gasoline prices, the latest summer movies being released, celebrity births and divorces, mass murderers and rapists, along with poorly-parented, uneducated teenage girls making pacts with each other to get pregnant, we should be assured that, while everything is okay here, there are still those who are truly looking towards the future, concerned about where our current course is taking us. Cheers!
Read full post
The link below is a short video recording (about five minutes or less long) that shows a group of our fellow citizens, from all cultural and economic backrounds, led by Early American Natives, who are walking to the nation's capital. They began in California, several months ago, and are anticipating that they will reach their destination by July 11th (2008).
Moreover, in a time when the government- and corporate-controlled mass communications media outlets focus our attention on the alleged differences between the two major political parties, rising gasoline prices, the latest summer movies being released, celebrity births and divorces, mass murderers and rapists, along with poorly-parented, uneducated teenage girls making pacts with each other to get pregnant, we should be assured that, while everything is okay here, there are still those who are truly looking towards the future, concerned about where our current course is taking us. Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MFeCNu0sLoRead full post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Frederick Douglass' speech for July 4th, 1852 (an excerpt)
Dear friends,
Considering the time of the year, and considering the fact that for the first time in this country's history, a Black man will be elected as president, it seems, at least to me, that the following July 4th speech (excerpted here) by the great Frederick Douglass, which was actually said to have been done on July 5th, is quite timely, because we should be able to determine whether or not Senator Obama's election will mean that African Americans, who are, by far, the oldest of the large cultural groups (like Irish, Germans, Italians, and Polish) in this country, are truly being seen as "equals" by all other citizens, in the way that we are treated both now and in the future.
G. Djata Bumpus
************************************
Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions? Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful? For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me.
The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.
Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.
My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery". I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light?
Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!
For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.
What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.
Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852
Read full post
Considering the time of the year, and considering the fact that for the first time in this country's history, a Black man will be elected as president, it seems, at least to me, that the following July 4th speech (excerpted here) by the great Frederick Douglass, which was actually said to have been done on July 5th, is quite timely, because we should be able to determine whether or not Senator Obama's election will mean that African Americans, who are, by far, the oldest of the large cultural groups (like Irish, Germans, Italians, and Polish) in this country, are truly being seen as "equals" by all other citizens, in the way that we are treated both now and in the future.
G. Djata Bumpus
************************************
Fellow citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?
Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions? Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful? For who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me.
The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation (Babylon) whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin.
Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world.
My subject, then, fellow citizens, is "American Slavery". I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing here, identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July.
Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery -- the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate - I will not excuse." I will use the severest language I can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother Abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. Would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. But, I submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? On what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light?
Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment.
What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read and write. When you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then I will argue with you that the slave is a man!
For the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises common to other men -- digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave -- we are called upon to prove that we are men?
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is that a question for republicans? Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to understand? How should I look today in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? To do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong for him.
What! Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? No - I will not. I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. Oh! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be denounced.
What to the American slave is your Fourth of July? I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.
Go search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
Frederick Douglass - July 4, 1852
Read full post
Sunday, June 8, 2008
On Senator Obama's "bitter" remark
Dear friends,
The statement that Barack Obama made recently (April 6th) that both Hillary Clinton and the government- and corporate-controlled media are jumping on is actually quite eloquent. He shouldn't have apologized at all, in my opinion. It appears below.
“It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
At least to me, that's pretty powerful (and I'm not one to always feel that way about what Obama says). It may seem a little over the heads of those about who he is talking. Duh? He's not getting their votes anyway. However, it's quite accurate and eloquent. Cheers!
Djata
********************************
D,
I think you hit the nail on the head that he was talking over some people's heads. Only because we're socialized in this country to be so disinclined to try to understand each other or to look with some modicum of compassion at the motivations of those with whom we disagree.
The part that makes me angry is that people like Clinton are cruel enough to use that knowing that people have been dumbed down enough to go for her argument. It's the same with the racism argument over Rev. Wright. She knows better, but her politician mentality outweighs her humanity to the extent that she's willing to argue points that she knows are invalid or argue agianst things that she knows are right, just to make the other guy look bad in the eyes of the "ignorant masses" for whom she is showing utter disdain and contempt. Thanks for sending this.
E Read full post
The statement that Barack Obama made recently (April 6th) that both Hillary Clinton and the government- and corporate-controlled media are jumping on is actually quite eloquent. He shouldn't have apologized at all, in my opinion. It appears below.
“It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
At least to me, that's pretty powerful (and I'm not one to always feel that way about what Obama says). It may seem a little over the heads of those about who he is talking. Duh? He's not getting their votes anyway. However, it's quite accurate and eloquent. Cheers!
Djata
********************************
D,
I think you hit the nail on the head that he was talking over some people's heads. Only because we're socialized in this country to be so disinclined to try to understand each other or to look with some modicum of compassion at the motivations of those with whom we disagree.
The part that makes me angry is that people like Clinton are cruel enough to use that knowing that people have been dumbed down enough to go for her argument. It's the same with the racism argument over Rev. Wright. She knows better, but her politician mentality outweighs her humanity to the extent that she's willing to argue points that she knows are invalid or argue agianst things that she knows are right, just to make the other guy look bad in the eyes of the "ignorant masses" for whom she is showing utter disdain and contempt. Thanks for sending this.
E Read full post
Friday, June 6, 2008
Reverend Wright is Pastor Wrong
Dear friends,
The piece on the link below was scribed by one of Philadelphia's (and the nation's) premier journalists. It was published after the Pennsylvania primary, in April. You will see, however, that the vision of the writer corresponds with what has been happening ever since - and into the upcoming future. Check it out!
Djata
Annette John-Hall: The past and the pastor Philadelphia Inquirer 05/02/2008* Read full post
The piece on the link below was scribed by one of Philadelphia's (and the nation's) premier journalists. It was published after the Pennsylvania primary, in April. You will see, however, that the vision of the writer corresponds with what has been happening ever since - and into the upcoming future. Check it out!
Djata
Annette John-Hall: The past and the pastor Philadelphia Inquirer 05/02/2008* Read full post
Thursday, June 5, 2008
A question regarding Rev. Wright's ranting
Was Reverend Wright working for the Clintons, in order to hurt Senator Obama's chances of winning?
After all, exit polls in Indiana showed that many of the people who voted against Senator Obama used Rev.Wright's grandstanding as an excuse for voting for Hillary Clinton. Moreover, neither Wright nor either of the Clintons have raised the fact that he was, personally, invited by them to the White House, for counseling, when Bill Clinton was going through the Monica Lewinsky problem. Therefore, what was different about Wright then that made Hillary Clinton lambast him and his beliefs, during the nationalized television debate in April? And why did Senator Obama not mention that? He surely knew.
In fact, we also know that, just a few days prior to the debate mentioned above, the Clintons' former pastor was convicted for sexually molesting a seven years-old girl, and sentenced to three years in prison. Why was that not brought up by either candidate or the government- and corporate-controlled media? Read full post
After all, exit polls in Indiana showed that many of the people who voted against Senator Obama used Rev.Wright's grandstanding as an excuse for voting for Hillary Clinton. Moreover, neither Wright nor either of the Clintons have raised the fact that he was, personally, invited by them to the White House, for counseling, when Bill Clinton was going through the Monica Lewinsky problem. Therefore, what was different about Wright then that made Hillary Clinton lambast him and his beliefs, during the nationalized television debate in April? And why did Senator Obama not mention that? He surely knew.
In fact, we also know that, just a few days prior to the debate mentioned above, the Clintons' former pastor was convicted for sexually molesting a seven years-old girl, and sentenced to three years in prison. Why was that not brought up by either candidate or the government- and corporate-controlled media? Read full post
Monday, June 2, 2008
Bruce Springsteen
WASHINGTON (AP) — Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, saying “he speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years.”
In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo “the terrible damage done over the past eight years.” “He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president,” the letter said. “He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where ’...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.’ “
The bard of New Jersey is known for his lyrics about the struggles of working-class Americans, particularly in the economically ravaged factory towns of the Northeast. Springsteen and his E Street band were part of the Vote for Change tour, a coalition of musicians opposed to the re-election of President
Bush in 2004. He wrote the anti-war ballad “Devils and Dust” about Iraq.
President Reagan used Springsteen’s then-popular song “Born in the USA” at campaign rallies in 1984 until he was asked by Springsteen, who supported Democrat Walter Mondale, to stop. The song about a Vietnam veteran’s hard times was often misinterpreted as a patriotic call to arms.
Springsteen did not directly mention Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, in his letter, but appeared to take issue with her recent criticisms of comments made by Obama about working-class
voters in small towns in Pennsylvania and controversial statements by his pastor. “Critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships,” Springsteen wrote. “While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the
context and fabric of the man’s life and vision ... often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement
of our environment.”
———
On the Net:
http://brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html Read full post
In a letter addressed to friends and fans posted his Web site, Springsteen said he believes Obama is the best candidate to undo “the terrible damage done over the past eight years.” “He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next president,” the letter said. “He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where ’...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.’ “
The bard of New Jersey is known for his lyrics about the struggles of working-class Americans, particularly in the economically ravaged factory towns of the Northeast. Springsteen and his E Street band were part of the Vote for Change tour, a coalition of musicians opposed to the re-election of President
Bush in 2004. He wrote the anti-war ballad “Devils and Dust” about Iraq.
President Reagan used Springsteen’s then-popular song “Born in the USA” at campaign rallies in 1984 until he was asked by Springsteen, who supported Democrat Walter Mondale, to stop. The song about a Vietnam veteran’s hard times was often misinterpreted as a patriotic call to arms.
Springsteen did not directly mention Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, in his letter, but appeared to take issue with her recent criticisms of comments made by Obama about working-class
voters in small towns in Pennsylvania and controversial statements by his pastor. “Critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships,” Springsteen wrote. “While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the
context and fabric of the man’s life and vision ... often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement
of our environment.”
———
On the Net:
http://brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html Read full post
Michael Moore
My Vote's for Obama (if I could vote) ...by Michael Moore
April 21st, 2008
Friends,
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic"
next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours,Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.comhttp://us.mc342.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mmflint@aol.com Read full post
April 21st, 2008
Friends,
I don't get to vote for President this primary season. I live in Michigan. The party leaders (both here and in D.C.) couldn't get their act together, and thus our votes will not be counted.
So, if you live in Pennsylvania, can you do me a favor? Will you please cast my vote -- and yours -- on Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama?
I haven't spoken publicly 'til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don't give a rat's ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there's a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word "Democratic"
next to the candidate's name.
Seriously, I know so many people who don't care if the name under the Big "D" is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.
Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!
This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!
Yes, Senator Clinton, that's how you sounded. Like you were nuts. Like you were a bigot stoking the fires of stupidity. How sad that I would ever have to write those words about you. You have devoted your life to good causes and good deeds. And now to throw it all away for an office you can't win unless you smear the black man so much that the superdelegates cry "Uncle (Tom)" and give it all to you.
But that can't happen. You cast your die when you voted to start this bloody war. When you did that you were like Moses who lost it for a moment and, because of that, was prohibited from entering the Promised Land.
How sad for a country that wanted to see the first woman elected to the White House. That day will come -- but it won't be you. We'll have to wait for the current Democratic governor of Kansas to run in 2016 (you read it here first!).
There are those who say Obama isn't ready, or he's voted wrong on this or that. But that's looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.
That is not to take anything away from this exceptional man. But what's going on is bigger than him at this point, and that's a good thing for the country. Because, when he wins in November, that Obama Movement is going to have to stay alert and active. Corporate America is not going to give up their hold on our government just because we say so. President Obama is going to need a nation of millions to stand behind him.
I know some of you will say, 'Mike, what have the Democrats done to deserve our vote?' That's a damn good question. In November of '06, the country loudly sent a message that we wanted the war to end. Yet the Democrats have done nothing. So why should we be so eager to line up happily behind them?
I'll tell you why. Because I can't stand one more friggin' minute of this administration and the permanent, irreversible damage it has done to our people and to this world. I'm almost at the point where I don't care if the Democrats don't have a backbone or a kneebone or a thought in their dizzy little heads. Just as long as their name ain't "Bush" and the word "Republican" is not beside theirs on the ballot, then that's good enough for me.
I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for 8 long years. That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters -- that big "D" on the ballot.
Don't get me wrong. I lost my rose-colored glasses a long time ago.
It's foolish to see the Democrats as anything but a nicer version of a party that exists to do the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgement and a hope that one day we will have a party that'll represent the people first, and laws that allow that party an equal voice.
Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"
But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.
That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.
But the question I keep hearing is... 'can he win? Can he win in November?' In the distance we hear the siren of the death train called the Straight Talk Express. We know it's possible to hear the words "President McCain" on January 20th. We know there are still many Americans who will never vote for a black man. Hillary knows it, too. She's counting on it.
Pennsylvania, the state that gave birth to this great country, has a chance to set things right. It has not had a moment to shine like this since 1787 when our Constitution was written there. In that Constitution, they wrote that a black man or woman was only "three fifths" human. On Tuesday, the good people of Pennsylvania have a chance for redemption.
Yours,Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.comhttp://us.mc342.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mmflint@aol.com Read full post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
