BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE THE 2008 STATE OF THE BLACK UNION I had the pleasure of watching Tavis Smiley's entire production of the "2008 State of the Black Union" on CSPAN last week–and as usual, it was quite entertaining. But while I thoroughly enjoyed the show, I failed to see the urgency of having Senator Barack Obama in attendance. I could see it if the scholars, politicians, and community leaders in attendance were actually involved in a sober discussion of the Black condition and ways to move the community forward, but that wasn't what it was at all. What it generally turns out to be–and it was true to form this year–is a cross between the Def Philosophy Jam, an infomercial for Tavis Smiley Enterprises, and a Southern revival meeting ("Say amen, Black folk"). That's not the appropriate venue for a man who's trying to convince America that he's a serious contender for President of ALL of the United States. So I don't blame Obama a bit for not attending. Admittedly, every year there are serious people with serious things to say in attendance, but every year there are also a host of people in attendance who are flamboyant, grandiloquent, and simply love to hear themselves talk. There were moments in this year's proceedings, for example, that sounded more like a Mack-man's convention than anything else. While I enjoyed it, I also enjoy Thelonious Monk, but there are literally millions of voters across this land who share neither my taste in music, nor my understanding of the polyrhythmic pronouncements of Michael Eric Dyson, no matter how profound the underlying message. Thus, Senator Obama had to ask himself a very serious question–Do I want to be elected president, or simply hold up a raised fist for Black America? How would you answer that? Yes, Senator Clinton did attend–but at this point, Hillary would attend a dog fight if she thought it would get her an extra vote. When Hillary put out a video claiming the endorsement of Ann Richards--the former governor of Texas who's been dead for a year and a half--that made it clear that she's willing to do anything to become president. And besides, Hillary didn't have anything to lose by attending. The voters knew she was just humoring Black people–or in this case, Tavis–thinking that might help her to get Black votes, which in itself should give us pause. Does she really think that Black people are so shallow that catering to the whims of a talk show host would be enough to get our vote? If she did, judging from her lukewarm reception, now she knows better. Obama, on the other hand, had everything to lose. Being a Black candidate, if some loose cannon on that stage (and their were many of them) happened to say something outrageous, Obama would have had to spend the next three weeks disavowing the remark. So as far as I'm concerned, his decision to decline Tavis' invitation showed excellent judgement–presidential Judgement. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Tavis in anyway. Tavis mentioned during the proceedings that some of us wanted to throw him under the bus–and indeed, some of us are like that. We see a successful young brother with a big future and everything going for himself, and the first thing we want to do is tear him down. That's an unfortunate part of our cultural makeup. That is not my intent, however. I see Tavis Smiley as a shining star in the Black community, and an excellent role model for young Black people. As a matter of fact, I was trying to give Robert Johnson the benefit of the doubt until he fired Tavis from BET. After that, I wondered out loud, how he could flood the airways with all of that garbage, then fire the only bright spot on the network. But we do have a responsibility to keep one another in check, as long as we do it in a positive manner, and with positive intent, so at this point I want to take Tavis to task. At one point Tavis remarked during the proceedings, "I knew Barack Obama, before he was Barack Obama." I don't know what Tavis' intent was, but it implied that Obama's newly acquired national stature has changed him in some way. I thought that was uncalled for and wholly unsubstantiated. Then, during Tavis' infomericals, while he was shamelessly promoting his books, "The Covenant With Black America", and "Accountability", I felt the strong implication in Tavis' remarks that Obama was being less than accountable to the Black community by failing to attend. First, I'd like to point out that while Tavis is a very impressive brother, and is undoubtedly a positive reflection on the Black community, we must always keep in mind that neither Tavis, nor his production, represents the Black community. Thus, Senator Obama is under absolutely no obligation to accept his invitation as an extension of the Black community--and for Tavis to imply otherwise is both arrogant, and a gross abuse of his stature within the community. And secondly, accountability goes for talk show hosts too–especially when they profess to represent the Black community. So how accountable is it to produce a show called "The State of the Black Union" then sponsor it with companies that are largely responsible for the very conditions that you're complaining about? One of the sponsors was Allstate Insurance–a company that is alleged to have denied the claims of thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims. One victim, Michael Homan, alleges that Allstate denied his claim based on the position that "Katrina wasn't windy enough." Another sponsor was Exxon/Mobile–a company that's raking in record profits while many Black people have to flip a coin to decide whether they're going to eat or put enough gas in their car to get to work. Wal-Mart was another sponsor–a company that's committed to blocking collective bargaining, providing their employees fair wages and health care, taking away jobs by running other businesses out of the community and purchasing their merchandise from outside the United States, and humiliating their customers by searching them before they leave the store. Is that accountability? Appropriately enough, the most profound statement that came out of the entire proceedings came from the mouth of comedian, Dick Gregory. He said, "First, we told Bill Clinton he was Black, then we told Barack Obama that he wasn't Black enough. We must be fools." I'd say that just about sums up the state of the Black union. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com | ||
Sunday, March 02, 2008
THE 2008 STATE OF THE BLACK UNION
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
HILLARY--DIGGING UP DELIGATES IN DESPERATION
JUST BEFORE I STUMBBLED UPON THIS VIDEO I HAD JUST WRITTEN A RESPONSE TO A FRIEND'S EMAIL. I SAID THE FOLLOWING:
*
First, I don't accept the position that either Hillary or Obama are bigots. And I doubt very seriously that the writer can produce any evidence that the "race card" is being played by the Obama camp. Yes, Hillary has been an activist all of her life, but I notice there's a glaringly conspicuous omission in the the writer's recitation of Hillary's resume--when she was working for Barry Goldwater during the time that MLK was marching on Washington.
*
No, I don't think Hillary's a racist, but neither is she the angel of mercy. Hillary is a hard-nosed politician, and an extremely ambitious and driven women. And like most hard-nosed politicians, she's also a chameleon, as she's clearly demonstrated in the past week. She'll do absolutely anything to further her political goals--including taking credit for her husband's presidency when it's to her advantage, and distancing herself from it when it's a political liability. In fact, she'd probably still be a Republican if she hadn't calculated that it would be next to impossible for a woman to become president in the Republican Party. I think she put her finger to the wind, saw which way it was blowing, and did a coldhearted calculation of which party would benefit her the most.
*
As for her "experience", and kind of president she would be, I think we're getting a preview of that during this election--she's mismanaged her budget, her campaign is highly unorganized and in a state of disarray, she's shown very bad judgement, an inability to see beyond what she wants to see, and she gets flustered and angry under pressure.
*
Sounds like presidential material to me.
*
WELL, I GUESS I CAN REST MY CASE--NOW SHE'S DIGGING UP DELIGATES FROM THE GRAVE.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON MOCKS FAITH
A Democrat on the DNC board wrote the following:
"Decency trumps politics. When she mocked Obama with her celestial remark she [Hillary] insulted every god fearing, church going person and faithful person. That's unforgiveable."
Hillary’s statement was a slap in the face of all people of faith. Although it was directed at Obama supporters, it clearly betrayed her disdain for all those people who are “naive enough” to believe in faith, and the intervention of God in the matters of mankind.
Hillary went on to say, "Maybe I've just lived a little long . . . but you're not just going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."
Maybe that's the problem with her campaign--she doesn't understand the power of people coming together in faith and good will.
She says, the magic wand held by the people of faith won't make special interests disappear, but maybe she'd better take another look . . .
BECAUSE OBAMA'S "MAGIC WAND" OF THE PEOPLE OF FAITH IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF MAKING HER DISAPPEAR.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?
WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?
*
After seven years of agony during the Bush administration, America has learn that the most important characteristics to look for in a president is good character and common sense. We’ve learned, in a most painful way, that if a president lacks either of these qualities, everything else is meaningless. These past seven years have taught us that putting our hatred, ignorance, and self-service ahead of the best interest of the country can bring us all down. Thus, when the voters turned out the Republicans in the 2006 election, it was over character; and the current rallying cry across this land for change, is actually about electing a president with good character and common sense. Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to national prominence is America’s way of saying we are tired of the old self-serving, cutthroat, win-at-any-price type politics of the past. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to watch what takes place in the next two weeks very closely.
*
Barack Obama has Hillary Clinton on the ropes. He’s blown the heretofore presumptive presidential nominee out of the water by large margins in the last ten states of the primary election. He’s also won among Americans voting outside the country. Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn’t get a win in Texas, she won’t get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she’s truly committed to change, and what’s in the best interest of the United States, we’ll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the “experience” she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we’re going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics. Personally, I’m betting on the latter–in fact, it’s no longer a bet, she’s already started.
*
While Hillary speaks in wistful tones of how important it is for a Democrat to be elected president in the November election, it seems that it’s only important to her if she happens to be that Democrat. Instead of lifting herself up by telling the people of Texas why she’ll be the better president, she’s engaging in the old Republican-style politics of trying to tear Obama down. She says, for example, that all Obama brings to the table is a lot of inspirational rhetoric, while she has solutions. This begs the question, if she truly believes that it is essential for a Democrat to be elected president in the next election, doesn’t it matter to her that if Obama is the nominee the Republicans will seize upon her words to try to defeat him? If she truly has the solutions to America’s problems, why doesn’t she simply lay them out, instead of attacking a fellow Democrat?
*
The fact is, she has no solutions. What she’s calling solutions are nothing more than a laundry list of what she thinks Americans want to hear. She says, for example, that she’s going to bring our troops home with honor--but she’s not saying how she intends to accomplish that, she simply says she’s going to do it. She also says she’s going to “work towards” providing universal healthcare. Ok, but how? That’s not a solution, that’s a goal–a goal that she’s already failed miserably at during the eight years that Bill was in office--and that was at a time when she didn’t have to focus on anything but that. If she couldn’t do it then, what makes her think she can do it now, with all the other responsibilities of being president? On the other hand, Obama has demonstrated during his eight years in the Illinois State Senate that he has the ability--or experience, if you will–to work with Republicans to get things done, including a healthcare bill.
*
Hillary also says that as president she can hit the ground running “on day one”, andAmerica doesn’t need a president who requires on-the-job-training. That statement is both arrogant, presumptuous, and disingenuous. Every president requires on-the-job-training. Even if Bill could return to office, the world has changed tremendously since he was president, so even he would have to take the time to learn to adapt to a new and different world. Even if that wasn’t the case, however, Hillary seems to be implying that she doesn’t require training because she’s been president before. So it seems that she’s either naive, unrealistic, or trying to take credit for her husband’s experience, none of which inspires confidence in her character. In addition, it sets feminism back fifty years.
*
There’s another thing about Hillary’s “day one” statement–she’s failing to acknowledge the certain gridlock that would result from Republican antipathy towards her. For Republicans, cooperating with a Clinton is one of the worse offenses that can be committed in political life. She’s got to know that–thus, she must also know that she’s lying to the American people about her ability to get things done. On the other hand, while Hillary is straining credulity to the limit, Barack Obama, with his so-called “flowery speeches”, is mending fences, building bridges, and laying the groundwork for an effective presidency. He recognizes that character and experience are great qualities for a president to have, but in order to get his policies through congress, having the ability to inspire the American people is indispensable.
*
Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she’s experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she morphed into presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; so she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Immaculate Hillary, to bestow love upon her opponent–a love offering that it turns out now was both scripted and plagiarized.
*
Being the “experienced” politician that she is, it took her the entire debate, but she finally stumbled upon just the right tone of manipulation. But now, it turns out, not only was she plagiarizing John Edwards, after making such a big deal of the issue of plagiarism, but her most glowingly poignant moment in the debate was staged, insincere, and just another example of the old politics of voter manipulation. View the evidence above for yourself.
*
I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of this in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook, so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display.
*
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
*
You’re slipping, Hutch. Your lack of customary objectivity has finally betrayed your loyalties. I came to your site to comment on your Huffington Post article, "What Will Obama Do When There's No Hillary Firewall?", only to find another article that was even more partisan. In the first article you dug up everything you could think of that you indicate Republicans will be able to use against Obama in the November election--and you were right. In fact, you were so effective, that you all but built the Republicans a tailor-made swift boat. You’ve rendered the Republican Party a tremendous service in that article. As a result of your article alone, they can fire all of their researchers--you’ve done all of their research for them. And now I find in your most recent article, "What to Make of Obama’s Strange Bedfellows, Namely Blacks and White Males." In that article you imply that Black people, along White males, have come together in a sexist coalition against Hillary to support Obama. In your final paragraph you say the following:
*
"Even if unconscious gender bias affects only a relatively small percent of men in a close contest between a male and female candidate in which the two are rated fairly evenly in competence, qualifications and experience, the refusal of many men to vote for her could harm her candidacy. Female candidates offset the male bias by getting solid support from women voters." But I think you made a few typos in your last sentence. Didn’t you mean to say, "Female[s][should] offset the male bias by [giving] solid support from women voters"?
*
I really can’t understand this Obama hatred that seems to be centered, primarily, among many Black intellectuals and leaders. First, we have a Black television host jumping up and down because the senator won’t drop everything in the middle of a hard fought presidential primary to come kiss his ring, then we have a that group of Black cynics demanding that he walk the water to earn their vote, and finally, a handful of Black pundits, intellectuals, and political leaders trying to sabotage Obama’s march into time. And, oh yes, I almost forgot those who are prudent enough to want to hedge their bet. They’re maintaining a silence so profound that it’s deafening. In fact, I didn’t think Sharpton was capable of keeping such a low profile–it makes one almost wish this year would never end.
*
I find this situation very sad, yet, extremely interesting–but what’s going to be even more interesting is watching these very same Black intellectuals and so-called leaders squirm when they find themselves stranded on the wrong side of history. It’s really ironic. This nation is about to bring into reality everything these people have been screaming for every since they’ve had permission to open their mouths, and now they’re doing everything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s almost as though they’re afraid they’re going to lose a trusted friend–the right to fail with personal impunity. I’ll be kind and not even mention those who may have to find a new line of work, because they’re gonna have it rough--I don’t think the employment office has a line for social agitator.
*
But just in case I’m wrong, and they really simply don’t understand what everybody is so excited about, let me lay it out. We discussed it the very same week that Obama announced his candidacy. I told you then what was coming–in fact, now that I look back on our discussion, I’m sure you’ll agree, things are happening just like I predicted. Remember when I used the analogy of a runaway train, even before that train left the station? And remember when I compared Obama to JFK and you laughed, and that reporter from KFWB kinda looked at me sideways? I’m certain you both reflected on that when Caroline and Ted Kennedy made the very same remark in their endorsements. But I shouldn’t brag, because it really wasn’t hard to see it coming. The fact is, you’re such an astute political observer, I’m shocked that this one got past you–and even more shocked that you still don’t seem to get it.
*
The key was in understanding the American people. Americans love drama--and I mean that in a good way. They love the idea of hard work and sacrifice–especially when it comes to the underdog fighting to overcome adversity, because that’s the story of America itself. And what we have in Obama is a fearless love, a fatherless child, and now, an appointment with destiny.
*
It's a story that's uniquely American--and the kind of story that will be told and retold as long as man has a yearning for hope. Thus, every American across this land is blessed to be living at this moment in our history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. It’s a moment in history when America is on the very brink of disaster, and the founding fathers have literally reached back from the grave to both save this nation, and fulfill their promise to humanity. Historians will someday define this as the moment in our history when America truly became one nation under God--a time when, hundreds of years from now, young people, and particularly young Black people, will look back upon our contribution to their quality of life and say, due to the courage and tenacity of that great generation of Americans, America was finally able to meet its appointment with destiny.
*
So you see, this is not just Obama’s story–it’s an American story. It's a story being written by all of us, and about all of us. So Bill and Hillary can throw all the mud they like, and the Republicans can come with a fleet of swift boats, but it will all be to no avail. Because America is not about to let this opportunity pass them up. Senator Barack Obama is about to walk right into the annals time, and he’s taking us all along with him.
*
Note that I’m dating this communication, because thanks to the internet even the most common scribe can leave a note for posterity, and I want them to know that I could clearly see the significance of this moment. Let’s just call it, my graffiti on the walls of time.
*
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
February 16, 2008
*
LEGACY
I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people.
*
Wattree.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
EXPERIENCE, WHAT EXPERIENCE?
I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE?
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE? My good brother, I've heard some uniquely original ideas about why Black people shouldn't support Barack Obama, but I must admit, you've all but stumped me here. It is your position that I'm selling out for supporting Obama, not because his mother was White, but because his father is from Africa, therefore, Obama is not a true son of slavery. You indicate, that's why White people are supporting him–it's a racist plot to first, preclude a son of slavery from becoming the first Black president of the United States, and second, to get African Americans to embrace someone who looks like us, but is not truly one of us. Therefore, by supporting Obama, we dishonor those African Americans who were forced to suffer in bondage. But you go on to say--and this is the part that I like about your thinking--that your mind remains open, so you're ready to be convinced that your wrong. I received your e-mail last night, but instead of giving in to the knee-jerk tendency to immediately respond, I thought I'd take the night to respectfully consider some of the issues you've brought to the table. In doing so I've come to the conclusion that our positions are not as far apart as it may seem at first blush. First of all, while I do honor the contribution that the African motherland contributed to who I am, I fully agree that the plight of African American slaves is often overlooked and, indeed, ignored as an embarrassment when we consider our journey as a people. I've been pushing that position for years. In fact, it is more than ironic that one of my positions that you object to most--that African Americans make up a new and distinct culture that is in the infancy of its development--was from an article that I wrote in response to an Earl Ofari Hutchinson article about ten years ago (Our History Lies Before Us). Clearly, I'm an unabashed Obama supporter, and I would love to get you to support him as well, but I clearly recognized many years ago that since I corner the market on neither wisdom, knowledge, nor intellect, what is more important than getting Black people to agree with me, is getting them to become thoughtful and independent thinkers. It'll take much more than my opinion to move our people forward--after all, it's all I can do to move myself forward. So what's much more important is that we learn to listen to one another, and seriously consider one another's opinion without demonizing each other as fools, or the enemy. We've got to realize that the Black community isn't a blanket so much as it is a quilt, made up of differing fabrics, colors and ideas. That diversity in our people, and in America as a whole, is not a shortcoming, but an asset, which can make us strong, and uniquely viable as both a people, and a nation. Pointing our finger at this Black man and that Black man as less than truly Black is something that we picked up somewhere in our history that has hurt us tremendously. If we were once a great and powerful people, I'm certain it was that very tendency that led to our downfall. You said that we should not support Barack Obama because he is not a true child of slavery. But you have no way of knowing that. You're only looking at his father's heritage. While his mother was White, how do you know that her family, or someone in her family line, didn't start out as a slave? In fact, her tendency to mate with a Black man during the years before Obama's birth may very well indicate that may have been the case. It doesn't take but two to three generations for a family to move from one race to another. There are many people in America that would seem to be pure White, or pure Black, whose family was the complete opposite three generations prior. Take my family for example. Two of my grandsons, Eric I and Elijah, on my son's side of the family are mixed. My daughter-n-law is mixed with Spanish and Jew (both European). Her mother is a pure, White Jew, and her father is Spanish. My grandsons are just a tad darker than any White man–at least, one who isn't absolutely pale. Therefore, if they marry White women, for all intent and purposes, my great grandchildren will be White people--and the very same dynamic is happening on the other side of the ledger. So unless we thoroughly check Obama's family line on his mother's side, we don't know if he's a child of slavery or not–and what difference does it make? Would finding out one way or the other make him either better or worse as a man? As a sort of humorous aside, I insisted that my grandsons study and get to know ALL of their heritage so they could choose for themselves what part of their heritage they wanted to identify. So we have this family joke where my daughter-n-law pulls my son to the side and says, "Listen Eric, I know Poppie insisted that the boys get to know their heritage, but things are not working out." Then my son asks, "What's the Problem?" "Well, now Little Eric wants to move to the West Bank, and the Honorable Elijah Wattree has cursed that his brother's crotch be embraced by the flees of a thousand angry camels. So I want you to stop Eli from wearing that fez to school. And another thing, he keeps throwing water bombs at his older brother, and he put a sign on his brother's door saying, 'Down with the Jews--Get the hell out of Palestine.' I mean, he's only in the third grade, and his teacher told me she said good morning to him and he said, 'Assalamu Alilkum, my ravishing Nubian princess.' Eric, I'm afraid we're gonna have a jihad right here in the living room." So you see, Alex, what we're dealing with here, as a species, is just as childish as what my grandsons are going through above. In the universal scheme of things, what we're dealing with is a white Cocker Spaniel telling Black Cocker Spaniel that I'm better than you. We weren't put here for that. God or, nature, if you will (they're synonymous to me) provided man with the most powerful computer in the known universe, and we're wasting all of that potential using it to play video games. Man is the very soul of creation--the eyes of the universe looking back upon itself--but instead of revelling in that realization, using that potential in the pursuit of knowledge, we're wasting it contemplating our navels, and arguing about whose belly button is the prettiest. We're involved in a meaningless argument that we will never resolve. In the end, nature will determine who is superior–because the other group won't be here. Evolution has clearly demonstrated that there are superior members of every species--they are the ones that nature selects to survive. Prior to man, survival of the fittest use to mean what species, and members of a species, was strongest, most ferocious and best able to adapt to an ever changing environment. But after man was placed on Earth as a naked ape, that dynamic changed. Now, the fittest, or more superior is about brain over brawn. When man arrived here on Earth, there was no reason to think he would be successful--he was neither as ferocious as the lion, as powerful as the elephant, nor could he fly like an eagle. But nature provided man with something new, a cerebral cortex--the human mind. Now, through the use of that mind, man is now the true king of beasts. We can slaughter the most ferocious lion, trample the most powerful elephant, and soar far beyond the eagle's domain. Thus, it is the human mind, and only the human mind, that separates superior men from lessor men--race, creed, and color serve as mere distractions for lesser men, with lesser minds. So from my point of view, there are only two races of people--people who think, and people who don't think. As far as I'm concern, anyone who considers any other attribute in their assessment of their fellow man, is pedestrian in their thinking. Therefore, race, creed color, experience, gender, culture, and all the other distractions that man can come up with are just that--distractions. What I am more than anything else, is a thinker, and so is Obama, that's why he's my man. Eric L. Wattree | ||
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT?
| BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT? .  Anyone who can't answer the above question in the affirmative couldn't have been raised in the Black community. As ashamed as I am to have to admit it, it is clear to anyone with eyeballs that the African American culture is matriarchal by it's very nature. That said, now I'm supposed to start explaining all of the conditions beyond the Black man's control that led to this state of affairs, but the fact is, I'm not predisposed to lying, so I refer you to Black Entertainment Television (BET) and you can be the judge. . Ok, had enough? Now that you've viewed the misogynistic subculture that has all but seized the soul of the young Black male, it has to be clear that any woman who can manage to raise well rounded, productive, and stable children--by herself--in such an environment can do anything. . So, of course a woman can be a good, even great, president. But I don't count Hillary Clinton among those women. Hillary, and many other so-called "feminists" of her generation, suffer from seriously misguided views on what it truly means to be a strong and independent woman. They actually diminish the meaning of womanhood by embracing the position that the only way a woman can truly be strong and independent is by being more like a man. . She, and many other modern women have dedicated their entire lives to the proposition that the traditional role that women have played in society is something less than what a modern woman should aspire to. I firmly disagree with that position. While I think that a woman should be free to compete with a man in any and every area in this society, I also think the role of the traditional "housewife" has been severely undervalued in this society. What our society looks upon as a "mere housewife" is actually a mother, a psychologist, a nurse, a chef, an economist, an interior designer, and in many cases, a sex therapist for a philandering husband--and society has been going downhill every since these women were convinced that what they did wasn't worthwhile. . Remember Donna Reed? Women of Hillary's ilk tend to look down their nose at women like that, but consider this--there was no such thing as a drive-by on Donna's watch. She created a stable home environment that served to stablize society as a whole. She did more for society from her family's house, than a Hillary clone could ever do as president from the White House. The problem with the Hillary kind of women is that they fail to recognize that fact. They see women like Donna as "quaint", and completely fail to realize that women like Donna are directly responsible for who, and where they are today. So it's not Hillary that I dislike, or her chosen path in life; it's the condescending attitude of Hillary-type women towards homemakers--and I don't think I'm alone. Hillary hasn't personally done a thing to deserve the hostility that she engenders in many Americans. While much hostility is directed at her, it's not about her, it's about what she represents--the degradation of America. . The American people don't have a problem with women seizing the opportunity to express their creativity and potential as human beings, but what they do resent is a handful of abitious women attempting to further their personal goals by convincing a generation of housewives that they're being less than productive by not entering the workforce to take up arms against men. Prior to these women entering the workforce, one income was sufficient to comfortably support a family. Now, a woman must work whether she wants to or not just for most families to survive, because once working women put more money into circulation, the business community simply doubled the cost of living. So what we're left with as a result of this mass exodus of housewives into the workforce is a rise in the of the cost of living, women being forced to juggle family and a fulltime job, latchkey children, a hoard of incorrigible teenagers, a rise in workplace indiscretions, failed marriages, and skyrocketing crime--a net loss anyway you look at it. . But of course, now I'm going to be accused of wanting women to remain barefoot and pregnant, but that's not at all the case. Women should be free to go into whatever profession they choose, but if they choose homemaker as their chosen profession, they shouldn't be denigrated as "barefoot and pregnant", because as our current situation clearly demonstrates, they are actually the backbone of this society. . This country is falling apart because we allowed the "feminists" of the sixties to sell us a bill of goods. When these women chose to pursue professions and then ran into sexism in the workplace, instead of addressing the problem within the workplace itself, they decided to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement in order to sop up some of the gravy that the eloquence of Martin Luther King had stirred. But in order for these White, middle and upper class women to make an effective case--many of whom, living comfortably, and supported by husbands--they had to convince all of the housewives across America that they, as a class, were just as victimized as Black civil rights activists, who were not allowed to vote, couldn't find jobs, and were being attacked by police dogs. . So while these women did have a just cause, they addressed that cause in a fraudulent manner--and in the process, convinced women across this land that raising a family and laying the foundation that everything else in our society is built upon was something less than a desirable pursuit. They also convinced many women that the only things that are of value in this world are those things that men do--in fact, focusing on being a lady, in itself, was a frivolous pursuit. The message was, the only way to compete with men was on a man's terms--a message that places women at a gross disadvantage. . I have a good friend who happens to be an Asian. She's so beautiful she doesn't look real--she looks like someone drew her. In addition, she's brilliant, and one of the sexiest women I've ever laid eyes on--and she knows it. Her only shortcoming is she's bought into the nonsense that it's against the rules to use her femininity to help her get ahead. She told me one day that her boss wouldn't allow her to move up any farther in management. When I asked why, she said, her boss always tries to flirt with her and she doesn't want to play that game. So I asked her, doesn't your boss use his deep voice and intimidating personality to get what he wants? And she told me that he did. I then asked, so why shouldn't you use your beauty and feminine wiles to get what you want? You don't have to give in to your boss, just make him think you might--right after the next promotion, then the next, and the next. You don't have to give up a thing. Just keep hope alive. There's nothing immoral about that. You're simply manipulating him with your feminine beauty in the same way that he manipulates you with his masculine ability to intimidate. . So, absolutely a woman can be good president--and quite possibly, one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But I don't want one who thinks she has to act like a man to be successful. I want to vote for a female who's intelligent, charismatic, and well educated, yet, not afraid to stick her hands in dishwater. Yes, I want her to be professional and dignified, yet, also know the value of a short skirt and silk shiny stockings. I don't want any president who's going to try to be effective with one hand tied behind his or her back. A president should be prepared to bring every resource to bear. So if the president happens to be a woman, sure I want her to know how to be firm when she needs to be, but she should also know how to work it like it's hot. . If a man's strong suit is intimidation, the illusion of power, and brute force, a woman's is insight, subtlety, and finesse. Once a woman loses sight of that fact, she's tying one hand behind her back. . Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. |
Saturday, January 26, 2008
WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA
So, no, I don't support Obama just because he's Black–I support him because he's Black, on top of all his other fine qualities. Both Jesse and Sharpton are also Black, and I didn't support either of them. But this is different. When Barack Obama stepped upon the world stage, I could feel a change in the air, like something important had just happened, or a significant presence had just entered the room. I felt like, for the briefest moment the world stood still, then I looked up to see a lone figure standing on the horizon. And I wasn't alone--White folks across this land also felt it. When the change started to take hold, I noticed that in places that would have met Martin with attack dogs and fire hoses, White people were jumping up and down, smiling and singing--some of them with tears in their eyes--straining just to touch this young Black man. That's when I knew it was happening--I knew a change was coming eventually, but not like this. He came fast, and out of nowhere like a thief in the night–far from the Messiah, but like a man who knew his time had come. Then, like in that Phil Collins song, I could feel it comin' in the air, oh Lord! It was clear there was something different going on here--something that's been in the cards every since that first slave looked to the sky and said, "Please help us, dear Lord." Now, I not a religious fanatic, so I'm not about to sit here and preach you a sermon. But I am spiritual, and I'm telling you, Obama's arrival is not an accident. I don't know why, but some things are just meant to be–and if you look at them in hindsight, you can see it! When you look back on Martin and Malcolm, it's clear they were meant to be. I don't know why, but some men are just put on Earth to fulfil a plan. You can laugh at me if you want to, but I'm telling you, Obama is one of those people. Think about it. This brother is the complete opposite of everything nasty that racists have ever said about Black people. They said that we were ignorant, nasty, lazy, and didn't have any class--then this brother pops up out of nowhere. If God had handpicked somebody to show that everything racists said about Black people was a lie, we couldn't have done any better than Barack Obama. He's such a clean-cut brother that Senator Joe Biden got himself in trouble for commenting on it. His intellect and academic credentials are beyond dispute–Hillary went to Yale Law School and then got out and couldn't pass the bar; but Obama was the very first Black president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. When he becomes president, he'll easily be one of the smartest presidents in the history of this country. Think about what that's going to do to the argument of those who want to say that Black people are intellectually inferior–and more importantly, think about what it's going to do for the self-esteem of Black children all over this country, all over the world. So looking at Obama is like looking into a crystal ball–he's a perfect reflection of everything the future holds for us as a people. Even his personal heritage is a perfect metaphor for the African American people as a whole–he's the product of a marriage between Africa and America. That's what we are. Barack Obama is the walking, breathing, personification of who we are as a people. He represents the future of Black people as a whole. Many brothers like to refer back to antiquity to cite the past greatness of our people as something for us to hold on to, but while I recognize and appreciate our great contribution to the past, I'm convinced that it is the future that will define our true greatness. As African Americans, we are a brand new culture that's in the infancy of our development as a people. We're a people who were conceived in pain, born into struggle, and baptized in adversity. But adversity is experience, and experience is the source of knowledge, so we are uniquely suited to create a new, better, and more compassionate world. Thus, our history lies before us, and I'm convinced, that history will someday reflect that Barack Obama was the first step in our emergence as a people. All of us who are sitting here today, are blessed to be living at this moment in time. We are a witness to history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. And someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, young Black people will be able to look back on our contribution to that history and say, I now stand firm: I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance. I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep. I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less; and the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve and a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast. I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts; no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, Just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land. Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness. I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people. Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free. That's why I support Obama. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com |
Thursday, January 24, 2008
PASS ME A ROCK-- IT’S LUNCHTIME IN THE COUNTY JAIL
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. PASS ME A ROCK-- IT'S LUNCHTIME IN THE COUNTY JAIL Why is it that we have to pay Ben Bernanke millions of dollars to bring in a truckload of Ph.D.s just to tell us that we're hurtin'? And even then he won't give us a definitive answer - "Ah, Well, it's beginning to look like we just might be edging, or, tiptoeing, as it were, towards the outer fringes of an exceedingly mild recession - a teeny-weeny one I assure you - but we can't be absolutely certain of that at this time." Who is he trying to lie to - certainly not the American public - people are outside the hall throwing rocks at the police so they can go to jail in time for lunch. All these so-called "experts" have to do is glance up from their spreadsheets at the people selling apples outside their window to know we're in a recession. And why are they looking so shocked - what did they expect when gas rivals the price of pumping Chavis Regal in our tanks? (Actually, I wish it was Chavis Regal - I have to get drunk just to get up the nerve to fill my tank). But they say a downturn in the economy is a fertile opportunity for innovation - and they're right. If I had two dollars to rub together I'd open up a gas station with slot machines as gas pumps and make a killing. My customers could drop five dollars in the pump and if they got three cherries they'd get a free tank of gas. Remember, you heard it here first. But seriously, have you ever wondered why all of these so-called experts, with all their advanced degrees are always nine months to a year behind the people when it comes to seeing the obvious? We spent hundreds of billions of dollars and lost countless lives invading Iraq when even Willie the wino predicted Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. And do you remember when I told you about a year ago that trying to sell Gucci bags in a homeless shelter was a ridiculous fiscal policy? Well, now the economy is saying I was right and the experts were wrong - again. The only reason I'm not banging on Harvard's door to demand an honorary degree is because it didn't take a rocket scientist to predict this downturn. Bush's fiscal policy is not so much a policy as it is a scam - and they know it. Using my Gucci bag analogy, what sense does it make to continue to give Gucci a tax break to make handbags to sell in a homeless? The homeless can't afford to buy them. Even Gucci knows that it doesn't make sense, so why should he use that money to hire more people to make handbags that he can't sell? So he's not going to take that money to retool - he's going to either buy himself a Ferarri, or pocket that money as profit. The only way to get Gucci to hire more people to make more handbags is to give the tax breaks to the people in the homeless shelter so they'll have money to spend on Gucci's bags. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that - but of course, I'd never accuse our president of being a lowly brain surgeon. Granted, I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that what we're dealing with here, are two economies. We have one economy that applies to the investor class, and another economy that applies to the labor class (labor, meaning anyone who depends on a job for a living, regardless of whether they're blue collar , or in management). When the United States had a thriving industrial economy, one class complimented the other. Labor was well paid, so they were able to purchased goods. That allowed the companies that sold the goods to prosper to the benefit of the investor class. But now in a global market, in order to both remain competitive with countries that pay their workers just above slave wages, and also sustain their greed, the investor class have to squeeze every penny and concession out of the labor class to achieve their profit margin. So in essence, whenever Bush announces that the economy is thriving, he's not talking about the American economy as a whole - he's actually telling the investor class that he's successfully squeezing the American workers to the limit. You see, since we have a global market now, they no longer have to worry about the American worker making enough money to purchase their goods, they can sell them overseas. So now the American worker is no longer a partner, he's simply a field hand. That dichotomy in our economics explains why our politicians can't seem to get a handle on illegal immigration. As I pointed out, in order for American business to compete in a world with countries that produce goods with workers who work for just above slave labor, America must respond in kind. That is the purpose of illegal immigration - it's being used to undermine the middle class in this country. Having a viable middle class has become cost prohibitive in this country. We're being told that illegal immigrants are only being used to do the jobs that American workers don't want, but that's not true. Illegal workers are being used as electrical workers, in construction, as truck drivers, upholsters, mechanics, etc. - and in the process they're placing an undue strain on our healthcare and educational and systems, driving up the cost of housing, and having a negative impact on our entire social infrastructure. Thus, we need to have a national referendum on how to address the illegal worker issue in this country. We need to take it out of the hands of the politicians, and follow the will of the American people. We've got to make up our minds what we want to do. If we're going to grant illegal immigrants immunity, then, let's do it. But if it's the general consensus of the American people to send them home, then we've got to become serious about that as well, by passing laws with teeth - laws that make it unattractive for illegal workers to come here in the first place -then follow those laws to the letter. We've got to stop fooling around with this issue. The longer we straddle the fence, the more people we're going to have to deal with, and the more convinced they're going to become that they have a right to stay. If we sit on our hands until they start to think of the United States as home, we're going to have a revolution on our hands if we try to change course - and if you think we have a lot of illegal immigrants now, just wait until their children start having babies. So if we truly want to stop illegal immigration, we have to stop playing games and trying to be politically correct. We have to start passing tough laws, and strictly enforcing those laws: Fines of twenty thousand dollars per offense for anyone who hire or house illegal immigrants, and the seizure of assets for any offense thereafter; a year in jail on first offense for anyone caught in the U.S. illegally, and a felony on any offense thereafter; make it impossible to enroll a child in school without proof of citizenship; withhold all social services, with the exception of emergency medical services, and then pass a law saying that any child born of an illegal parent is also illegal, even if that child is born within the United States. Laws such as those would take away any incentive for anyone to cross the border illegally. That would also contribute to our security as well, because then we can assume that anyone trying to cross into the United States illegally is doing it with malevolent intent. That may sound strange coming from me, because anyone who read my writings regularly know that I've agonized over this issue for sometime and I've flip-flopped on it at least once before. In fact, about six months ago I wrote an article in support of illegal immigrants, indicating that they are the indigenous people of this land. But I have a policy of going wherever the facts lead, and while I desperately wanted to arrive at a rosy scenario regarding illegal immigration, the facts refused to cooperate and only portrayed an image of social devastation. The consequences of having millions of people flooding across our borders into the U.S. will have a devastating impact on our children and grandchildren. Therefore, in my opinion, we should assist illegal immigrants in addressing their grievances with their own governments in the same way that the Black community has done in the United States. While my heart sincerely bleeds for the plight of illegal immigrants, I simply cannot give them priority over my own grandchildren - that would go beyond being compassionate, it would be stupid. It would also play right into the hands of globalists who are trying to corral labor in such a way that it undermines the American middle class. But we shouldn't take our anger out on the illegal immigrant - they're only pawns in this scenario. We should reserve our anger for the corporatists who are pushing those pawns. We should press our government to pressure Mexico and other countries of origin to address the plight of their poor. That should be one of our top national priorities, and we shouldn't elect any politician who isn't committed to that initiative, and vote out any politician who waffles on it. We must also direct our anger, our dollars, and our votes, against any corporation, and all politicians, who allow conditions to exist that force people to leave their home in order to feed their families. We must pin these politicians down, and let them know that we know what's going on, and if they don't fix it, we're going to see to it that they lose their jobs long before we lose ours. We must also take immediate steps to see to it that American corporations don't think they can follow Dick Cheney's Halliburton to Dubai, and then think they're going to sell their goods or services in the United States. We need a worker's Bill of Rights that says if you want to ship your jobs overseas, you can sell your goods over there as well. If you're an American company, you must be headquartered in America, pay your fair share of taxes in America, and use American workers. If you're not willing to do that, we'll find someone who is. Of course, many are going to call us protectionists--but as Miles Davis said, so what. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com | ||
Friday, January 18, 2008
A MESSAGE TO BUSHLAND
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.
A MESSAGE TO BUSHLAND
Let us not get so caught up in the 2008 campaign that we forget about the war. Nothing should distract us from what's going on in Iraq, because between one primary to the next, children are dying, and families are being destroyed--forever.It's scary how easily the American people can be manipulated to the point that they find the death of entire families a hoot; How we can sit in front of the TV set with chilli dogs and fries and cheer on the death of others like we're watching the Super Bowl. And it's a tribute to psychosis how America can unleash mass destruction in "an attempt to prevent mass destruction," in the name of God.
Can't you see that many of those "terrorists" are children just like your own? You didn't really think the U.S. Could unleash destruction like we saw and not kill children did you? Rumsfeld said, "Well, [shit] happens." But shit doesn't just happen--you allowed it to happen. You made it happen. You cheered it on! Consider that as the children bleed and you're admiring the beauty of "Shock and Awe."
Think about your own children as "collateral damage." Think about them screaming in horror while you're helplessly watching their limbs being blown off. Think about them desperately reaching out to you for comfort as life slowly drains from their tiny bodies. Think about foreign boots kicking down your front door, then strangers walking through your home systematically killing every man, woman and child. Picture the last sight that you ever see on this Earth is of your sweet little six year old daughter with her brains spilling from her tiny little head. Think about that picture, America--then ask yourself, who's really
Where has America gone? Who's left to standup for justice and humanity? You say, God Bless America? You'd have to be a fool to think God is gonna bless America after what we've done--for choosing Standard Oil over Justice, and Exxon over God himself. In God we trust? How dare you blame this atrocity on God! It is in Bush you trust:
You trust Bush that God has entrusted you to blow off Iraqi arms and wrap them around you to enable them to embrace your benevolence. And you trust Bush that you must lovingly pluck out Iraqi eyes to enable them to see the wisdom of viewing the world through your own. And you trust Bush that in the name of all that is good you must slaughter their children in a desperate attempt to provide them with a better future. You also trust Bush that you must rape their land and steal their wealth in order to allow them to choose the government of their choosing-- (so long as they choose the government that Bush chooses for them to choose). And you trust Bush that you do all this in the name of American charity.
You also trust Bush that God will bless America--but this Ain't America. America is the land of the free, and home of the brave, the land of just souls who freed their slaves. No, this is not America, this is Bushland–the land of small pox infected blankets; the land of public lynchings and church–place bombings; the land of imprisoned Japanese-Americans, and corporate murderers.
Yeah, God Bless Bushland! The land of the free and home of the slave; the land of My Lai, and Calley's mass grave. And you trust that God will bless Bushland?
Well trust this–You are blind, my friend.
Eric L. Wattree
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
WHY HILLARY'S DOG DON'T HUNT
| ||
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
I CAN FEEL THE QUIET HUM OF GREATNESS
BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
I can feel the quiet hum of greatness, in the air. Can you feel it, America—that roaring silence that befalls the land just prior to a significant event; the way the birds fall silent and a gentle breeze rustles the leaves just as a lone figure appears on the horizon?
“I wouldn't be running for president today without the women in my life . . .” My grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who raised me, while rejecting the bigotry that might have torn other families apart . . . my mother, Ann Dunham, "the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known," who died of ovarian cancer while she was in the "prime of her life," acquainting me with "what it's like to see a loved one suffer because of a broken health care system"-- between jobs when diagnosed, and uncertain of her health care coverage. And my wife, Michelle--"balancing her role as a mother with her responsibilities at work."
It sounds like Obama is pullin’ out all the stops, and if he pulls it off in Iowa, then New Hampshire, it’s no longer a race—it’s a strut down Broadway, confetti and all.
This is an exciting moment in our history, and we’re extremely fortunate to be alive to witness it. It’s a moment in American history where the wisdom, integrity, and honorable itent of this nation’s forefathers has allowed them to, literally, reached back from the grave before the entire world, to rescue this nation from tyranny, on the very eve of its destruction.
Can you feel it, America? I can literally, feel, the strength of this young man’s greatness . . . in the air.
Remember, you heard it here, first.
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
WHY DO WE FIGHT THE N-WORD THEN SUPPORT AMERICAN GANGSTER?
| BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHY DO WE FIGHT THE N-WORD THEN SUPPORT AMERICAN GANGSTER? THEY'RE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING--NIGGER . Why are we flocking to the movies and spending our hard-earned money to support American Gangster? And why did Denzel Washington, a brother that has brought so much pride to our community, even agree to make such a movie? We could ask the same question about Training Day as well. Both of those movies, along with much of the fare that's regurgitated over BET, are not only primers for dysfunction among Black youth, but they also serve as lucrative commercials being broadcasted throughout the world advertising the gross stupidity of Black people. Then after we've received all of that negative publicity–publicity that would cost a corporation billions of dollars to purchase-- we don't understand why we can't get any respect, and why the police stop us whenever they see us anywhere near "civilized people." . It's hard to understand how a brother of Denzel's character could even be involved in a project that reflects so badly on the Black community. But after giving it careful thought, I think I've come up with an answer: Black people, including Denzel, have become so accepting of this kind of character assassination that it has become routine, so he never gave it a second thought. That is the very reason I had a problem with the campaign against use of the n-word. The Black community has been so brainwashed over the past 40 years that we've developed a mindset that is hyper-sensitive to the superficial, while the status quo is left carefully unmolested (the source of that brainwashing is grist for another time–at book length). While we're being distracted, and jumping up and down over the n-word, people are being paid zillions of dollars to produce commercials in the form of movies being broadcasted around the world that say, "Look at how these in**as live"–and we're supporting it! Come on, people, wake up! . While I generally defer to the sensibilities of brothers and sisters who have an aversion to the "n-word", it's not a happy concession ("N-word"--I feel silly even writing such a foolish euphemism). As a writer, words are simply tools to me, and every tool has its purpose. Like a mechanic, I select whatever tool is necessary to best express the concept I'm trying to get across, so I feel like I'm being robbed of a valuable tool of my trade–and for what? From my point of view, the word "nigga" represents any person, of any race, who takes pride in his stupidity. So as I see it, as long as we allow ourselves to get all worked up over a word, while at the same time, we all but ignore our kids killing kids in the street, grown men turning twelve year olds into whores, and half the community flocking to the movies, and PAYING, to watch commercials about our stupidity, the word "nigga" is being prolifically under-utilized. . The best way to avoid being called a nigga is to rise above the definition. You don't hear anyone calling Barack Obama, Colin Powell, or the late Johnnie Cochran a nigga. There's a reason for that. You see, any racist who would call any of these brothers a nigga is then faced with the task of demonstrating that he's superior to them, and very few people can meet that standard. If some racist pointed to Obama and told his son, "You see that guy over there–he's a nigga." His son would probably look at Obama, then look at his dad, and say, "Daddy, I think I want to be a nigga when I grow up." . So we need to shake off our brainwashing, and start focusing on the substantive issues in our community, because our behavior indicates that our most tenacious shackle is attached to our mind. We in the Black community need to ask ourselves a series of very simple questions, and answer them honestly. We need to ask ourselves, do we truly want to elevate our community out of its current condition, or not? Do we want to bring an end to the epidemic of kids killing kids in the street, or not? Do we want our community to become known for producing excellence, or not? If we're satisfied with producing misery, dysfunction, and crime, then fine—we're doing an excellent job of that. But if it's truly important to us to produce doctors, lawyers, scientists, and scholars, our current behavior indicates that we're either lying to ourselves, or living in a deep state of denial. . What we're doing to our children is comparable to holding a sirloin stake up before a starving man, then telling him to just say no. How can we expect our young people, many of whom have known nothing but deprivation all of their lives, to make the necessary sacrifices to become scholars, while we flock to the movies in droves to applaud a guy who literally soaked himself in riches by way of crime? Why should our young people waste their time in the pursuit of excellence, when they can fake it with the flamboyance of wealth derived from crime? After all, their mothers, who they sincerely want to impress, can't seem to tell the difference, and their fathers would be walking on air, because they're wearing their caps sideways themselves. . So our community is sending out a grossly inconsistent message. On the one hand, we become insulted when we get on an elevator and ladies pull their purses close, yet we wholeheartedly support our community being portrayed as a cesspool of crime to people all around the world; and while we say that we're Black and we're proud, instead of addressing those issues that allow people to call us niggas, we'd rather take the shortcut of trying to abolish the word–which makes us look even more ridiculous, since the more we say we hate it, the more useful the word becomes. And finally, with our starstruck attitude towards crime, criminals, and criminal behavior, how can we tell our young people to "just say no" to a fantasy that we can't resist ourselves? So we need to sit down and get our priorities together–and fast. . I want to end this tirade by pointing out that while I mentioned Denzel, it is not my intent to drop all of this in his lap. The brother has always been, and I'm sure he always will be, one of the bright spots in the Black community. But I hope he'll recognize in his future endeavors that he's got too much clout and believability to do movies like Training Day and American Gangster without having an impact on our community. He should be doing movies that lift up the community and inspire our young people to excellence, like Great Debaters, the other movie he did this year. . In that movie he tells young Black students to "Do what you've got to do so you can do what you want to do." That's the message that young people need to hear. But it'll be interesting to see which one of the two movies will do best in the Black community. Unfortunately, my money is on American Gangster–and that's a damn shame. . Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com | ||
Posts
