naacp « Black Man Thinkin'

The “Nigg-mo-cans”

Tags: 3/5 Clause, Affirmative Action, Carter G. Woodson, Civil Rights, Democrat Party, Frederick Douglass, Hisp-mo-can, Lyndon Johnson, naacp, Nigg-mo-can, Tuskegee Airmen, unifying political affiliation, Voting Rights, War on Poverty

Comments: 1 Comment

Published on: April 8, 2015

What if I told you there was a single political affiliation:

Is that conceivable, seeing that Americans seem more “divided” now than at any time since the Civil Rights Era, or World War I, or even the Civil War? Not only is it conceivable, it has dominated U.S. politics over the last half-century, and promises to stay influential for generations to come. What is this affiliation?

This writer calls it, “Nigg-mo-can”, a political ideology and affiliation based on the current answer to a nation-old question: “What shall we do with the Negro?” Interestingly, its varied adherents – black, white, Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, moderate, etc. rarely agree, on anything; however, since 1964, they are united in their response to that ancient query.

The young nation’s first response to that question came while determining how best to divide influence in the National Legislature among the States:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

— United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3

By the Constitution’s drafting in 1787, American slavery had a decidedly black face. So, why did the Founders not simply end the above passage, “three fifths of all Negros”? Because there were also white (especially Irish), partly white, and Indian slaves. The word “Persons” accounted for the mix of people in bondage at that time. The Constitution addressed slavery as a class problem – which it was; the race angle was not a primary governance issue.

Nevertheless, when the Civil War ended slavery in the U.S., a leading question of the day was what to do with those newly freed. Regarding blacks, Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave, offered this compelling response in 1865:

What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?”

I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. Let him live or die by that.

Not surprisingly, a beaten, but unbowed, South chose not to “do nothing” with its former black chattel. After readmission to the Union, white Democrats not only overturned black political advances in South Carolina and elsewhere; they worked to disenfranchise blacks and, by the early 20th century, virtually eliminated their electoral possibilities.

Yet, blacks demonstrated that the vote is not the “be-all and end-all” of political power. By 1900, some 30,000 trained black teachers were working in the South, and most blacks were literate. In 1909, the National Negro Committee, the precursor to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, formed. In 1926, Carter G. Woodson launched Negro History Week, the forerunner to Black History Month. The Army formed the Tuskegee Airmen in 1941. 1955 launched the 386-day Montgomery Bus Boycott. These are a few of the significant accomplishments blacks made in pursuit of their rights as citizens, despite strong opposition…and without the vote. Those successes did not go unnoticed by Lyndon Baines Johnson, who came to Washington, D.C., in 1937 as a Congressman from Texas and, in 1955, began his second Senate term.

Johnson spent his first 20 years in Washington, D. C., opposing all federal civil rights legislation…then, as president, morphed into a Civil Rights champion…

Politicians who make 180⁰ position changes rarely do so for reasons they give the public. So, while it is possible Lyndon Johnson repented of his segregationist stance, it is also (more) likely Johnson, watching the building black momentum, changed, not his position, but his tactics, deciding, “If you can’t beat ’em, cheat ’em”. In his 2013 book, Inside the White House, Ronald Kessler quotes then-president Johnson:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

In 1964, Johnson announced his intent to visit, upon blacks, the very “mischief” and “positive injury” Frederick Douglass implored the nation to avoid, during the State of the Union address:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx8BMnteNfw[/youtube]

Johnson followed the War on Poverty declaration with the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson also issued Executive Order 11246 in 1965, establishing “Affirmative Action” throughout the federal government’s Executive Branch. These are hailed among the greatest civil rights accomplishments in U.S. History…and it was a political master stroke.

In the space of four years, Johnson gave blacks Civil Rights “victories” that killed the momentum of their Civil Rights movement; by the end of the 1960’s, black civil rights was less about the societal changes which lifted all blacks, and more about the individual accomplishments of a few, of which all blacks could be proud…while changing nothing. So, Lyndon Johnson gave those “uppity” Negroes “a little something”, that proved “not enough to make a difference”.

Some dispute that, pointing out the benefit of securing the vote. Yes, but whom did the black vote benefit? Kessler offers this Lyndon Johnson quote, spoken to two governors aboard Air Force One, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Fifty years later, Johnson’s words have Bible-prophet accuracy; blacks have given at least 74% of their votes to the Democrat Party since 1964, and are not 50 years better served for that loyalty.

Lyndon Johnson implemented the policies which make up the Nigg-mo-can response to the question, “What shall we do with the Negro?” By those policies, one can ascertain their beliefs:

• Nigg-mo-cans believe blacks deserve “a little something”, like the “benevolence” of unearned money; enough to quiet them down (in subsistence), not enough to make a(n economic achievement) difference. White Nigg-mo-cans seem to vote for dispensing these funds so they can either level, or avoid, a racism accusation. Dancing around the “racist” label allows whites, of all political stripes, to unite under the Nigg-mo-cans banner. For their part, black Nigg-mo-cans support nearly every conceivable government program for blacks as “payment for the struggle”. No Nigg-mo-cans, black or white, confront the black family devastation wrought by government programs, though they recognized the damaging links as early as 1965.

• Nigg-mo-cans believe blacks deserve “a little something”, like voting laws, which quiet them down by duping blacks into believing political power comes from ballot boxes – that others count – instead of united communities, accountable among themselves, actively pursuing their interests. They persist in telling blacks that the vote matters, despite a failed Detroit, an impotent and irrelevant Congressional Black Caucus, and an unhelpful Barack Obama.

• Nigg-mo-cans believe blacks deserve “a little something”, like civil rights and Affirmative Action laws, which quiet them down with assurances that others will not receive greater consideration than do they. Yet what difference do civil rights make, when that for which America’s blacks suffered are easily claimed by hispanics, homosexuals, and others, who neither waited as long, nor shed as much blood, to secure them? What difference Affirmative Action, the greatest beneficiary of which is white women, and which has actually worked against minorities in important situations.

Nigg-mo-cans believe, as did Lyndon Johnson, in giving blacks “a little something”. Unfortunately, few of them acknowledge it was never intended to make a difference. Seduced by the “compassion” of giving (what belongs to others), and of setting things right for blacks (by inflicting the wrongs done to blacks upon others), they intentionally blind themselves to the mischief they play with blacks, and the positive injury they cause. At their core, they either do not wish for blacks to stand unaided…or fear what blacks might accomplish without “help”. This perspective will guide their response to the question, “What shall we do with the Negro?”, until blacks either confront them, or the positive injuries become fatal.

In either case, the Nigg-mo-cans will then take their ideology and focus it on their next target people, re-branding themselves as the Hisp-mo-cans.

Brownian Black Movement

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Comments: 1 Comment

Published on: January 7, 2015

In 1827, Scottish botanist Robert Brown, looking through a microscope at pollen grains suspended in water, observed small particles that moved about irregularly, similar to the red dots in the “water” of blue dots below:

The phenomenon Brown observed bears his name: “Brownian Movement” – the random motion of particles suspended in a fluid. The particles neither move on their own, nor move with any purpose. Instead, they get knocked around by the fluid.

Brownian Movement seems to describe many American blacks: particles suspended in the fluid of American culture and current events. Blacks neither create the events nor control the impacts. Instead, they get knocked around by them, often according to someone else’s agenda. For example:

The Rise of Barack Hussein Obama

Barack Obama’s historic election elated blacks. From the 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address that brought him national prominence, to his improbable triumph over Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat Party Presidential Nomination, blacks supported Obama, so strongly that he could take their vote for granted, in the primaries and in the general election.

But where were the blacks directing the Obama “event”? They were generally not part of Obama’s inner circle, in either his first or second administration. Instead of embracing the black church, Obama distanced himself from his black pastor of more than 2 decades – a controversial man who performed his wedding and baptized his children – before securing the 2008 nomination. Some questioned his black “bona fides”.

Unsurprisingly, white acceptance led to Obama’s success. During the 2008 campaign, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “praised” Obama as “a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.'” Joe Biden (D-DE), who also sought the Democrat nomination, called Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Of the nearly 69.5 million votes Obama received in the General Election:

…and more than 60% came from whites. By providing fewer than one of every four Obama votes, blacks resembled the girl who could not keep her grandmother’s fried chicken “secret”:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7j3sUWohE[/youtube]

Only this time, “Shake N Bake” was, “Who elected Obama?” The black voter response: “Those white folks…and I helped”.

Six years, and one re-election, later, blacks: have lost economic ground, absolutely, and relative to whites; feel less empowered; saw latino and homosexual concerns receive higher priority than theirs; became America’s most racist group; and felt disrespect from the president.

Blacks did not create Obama; he was thrust upon them…and knocked them around.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting

Trayvon Martin’s death, on February 26, 2012, sparked outrage over a white man shooting and killing an unarmed black teenager.

But Martin’s killer is not white. That small detail did not prevent Trayvon-inspired “revenge attacks” on whites, both before and after the trial; the “popular” narrative was impervious to fact.

Sympathy for Sybrina Fulton, Martin’s biological mother, was sincere, and nationwide, even though Trayvon did not live with her when he died. Alicia Stanley,Trayvon’s stepmother, actually raised him…from the age of 3. Blacks generally ignored this (step-) mother’s pain – Stanley was displaced at Martin’s funeral and at Zimmerman’s trial. Sybrina Fulton’s exploitation of the son she did not raise, copyrighting protest slogans, less than a month after his death, also seemed to go unnoticed.

However, Fulton’s opposition to “Stand Your Ground” laws, in Florida and in Washington, D.C., did draw attention…even though police found “Stand Your Ground” irrelevant to her son’s case, and even though “Stand Your Ground” was not part of Zimmerman’s defense.

That legal experts called Zimmerman’s arrest affidavit “irresponsible and unethical”, and considered Zimmerman “overcharged”, angered more blacks than it informed. News that a grand jury indicted the prosecutor who charged Zimmerman for falsifying his arrest warrant made more blacks question the system than question the prosecution’s case.

Somehow, Sharpton’s rhetoric, NBC’s editing “errors”, and a non-threatening image of Trayvon Martin, which differed from the unarmed teen Zimmerman met:

masked these inconsistencies, and blacks got knocked around by a false narrative which put them at odds with the facts, the legal system…and other Americans.

Donald Sterling’ Clippers

Audiotape of Donald Sterling’s private conversation with a mistress became public on April 25, 2014; the fallout came quickly.

The next day, current and former NBA players offered their opinions, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver called the recording “offensive and disturbing”, other NBA owners weighed in, and Clippers’ players protested…before losing their playoff game.

The following day, a second recording surfaced, and president Obama commented. By April 28th, just 3 days after the first tape leaked, sponsors severed ties with the Clippers.

Then, Commissioner Silver dropped the hammer, on April 29th:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHCgmVikntw[/youtube]

banning Sterling, for life, from the NBA. After more drama, Sterling’s estranged wife sold the Clippers, on May 30, 2014.

And so, the word went forth: major sports franchise owners cannot make racist remarks….even if in private…

Even if their bigotry is common knowledge since last century…

Even if they pay 7- and 8-figure annual salaries to black men who play and coach a game…

Even if they are generous philanthropists, with multiple NAACP Lifetime Achievement Awards…

Apparently, what a man does, publicly, to benefit blacks is less important than what he says, privately.

Blacks did not create the Sterling tapes; they simply bought into the politically correct doctrine that only those with “approved thinking” can supply entertainment in the U.S., and that violating someone’s privacy, or even the law, to enforce that doctrine is acceptable. The NBA needed “cover” for its income-stream-preserving exorcism of Donald Sterling, something it has wanted for 3 decades, and blacks unwittingly obliged…gaining nothing in return, apart from sound bites.

NFL Domestic Violence

NFL players behave better than those they entertain yet, from media reports, one might believe the league is full of wife-beaters and child abusers.

Ray Rice’s one-hitter-quitter episode with then-fiancee, now wife, not only cost the running back his job, it also threatened Roger Goodell’s tenure as NFL Commissioner. The ensuing desire for “justice” was so strong that other things apparently did not matter.

It didn’t matter that Mrs. Rice did not want her husband on trial (after all, it was their private altercation, not a prize-fight). Instead of praise for acknowledging her role in the incident, or standing by her husband, some labeled her a gold digger.

It didn’t matter that New Jersey dropped charges against Rice, or that a female arbitrator overturned his suspension from the NFL.

All that mattered, to many, was calling the NFL soft on domestic violence…and blacks boarded the bandwagon.

Adrian Peterson’s child abuse case, took political correctness to a different level. Not because it involved a child, not because it damaged Peterson’s Father of the Year candidacy, but because of reactions like this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_w9aeTeKY4[/youtube]

Cris Carter’s rant, against his mother’s child-rearing and values, garnered wide praise. Yet, watching successful black men question the judgment of those who raised them, and the biblical values that sustained blacks in America for centuries and through difficult times, is disturbing.

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson are now events by which the politically correct knock around what remains of traditional black family connections and cultural values, at a time when blacks desperately need both.

Bill Cosby “Sexcapades”

If Cosby’s troubles were about exposing a powerful man’s past sexual misdeeds, either to validate victimized women or to “educate” the public about his character, then another “Bill”, Mr. Clinton, would answer for sexual allegations , dating back to 1969 (plus a recent lawsuit involving sex with minors); especially since:

The lack of timely reporting or corroboration make proving the allegations against Cosby improbable, even if they are true. Consequently, the anti-Cosby argument is not, “Look at all the evidence against him,” but rather, “All those women cannot be lying!”

Brian Banks, who lost a football scholarship and 5 years of his life, might disagree. So might members of the Duke Lacrosse team, whose accuser now serves time for murder. Indeed, false rape allegations are not uncommon, and the women who make them rarely face negative consequences. Cosby’s accusers will likely speak with impunity.

And many blacks are hearing their message, meaning Cosby’s message, critical of failed black behavior:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gh3_e3mDQ8[/youtube]

…is heard, and regarded, less.

Blacks did not create the Cosby rape allegation “event”…but it knocks them around, so that many no longer receive a needed word, for the messenger has been (falsely) tarnished.

Michael Brown, Eric Garner Demonstrations

Michael Brown was an unarmed black teenager whom a cop shot and killed. Some remember Brown as a “good kid”, college bound with a bright future.

Apparently, they did not know the Michael Brown who had gang affiliations, who had an arrest record, who committed strong-armed robbery the day he died, or who assaulted a cop, tried to take his gun, and then made a run at him.

Those who entertained the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” story accepted a false Michael Brown narrative. Though disproved, it fueled riots and looting that still scar Ferguson, and many still cling to it.

Eric Garner, who died when NYPD used a choke hold while arresting him, is a more sympathetic figure than either Michael Brown or even Trayvon Martin. Instead of attacking police officers, Garner asked them to leave him alone; instead of fighting a man with a gun, Garner broke up a fight. Instead of a violent man, the video of his last moments show a man in distress.

What the video does not show is Garner’s history with NYPD of 30 arrests, or that he was out on bail, on multiple charges, when he died.

There was no reason for Garner to die that day, the police are at fault for his death. However, how does Garner, a veteran of 30 prior NYPD arrests, not know how to avoid a police takedown…especially when other men face arrest and stay unharmed, despite extreme emotional upset:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHm7Tujca4[/youtube]

Yet, people “demonstrate” throughout New York, chanting, “I can’t breathe” and other sayings. They also take their message to restaurants, as though white diners either caused or support the lack of a grand jury indictment in Garner’s death.

Which leaves blacks knocked around by protesters who “peacefully” advocate violence, deteriorating relations between the mayor and police force of a leading American city, and calls for “change” that will neither happen nor help.

The Obama event marginalizes blacks politically and maintains their issues at a low national priority; The Martin event showed blacks as more emotional than factual; The Sterling event showed blacks as willing to harm those who’d done them more good than harm; the NFL Domestic Violence event saw black men attacking traditional black values; the Cosby event punishes black men who unabashedly speak to traditional black values; and the Brown and Garner events work to remove black confidence in police and in the justice system.

Blacks created none of these events, yet they buffet the black community, affecting their political, economic, social, and cultural standing. Currently, it is hard to identify a true black voice or direction, one more attentive to what blacks value more than to what excites them. And the events that knock them around make constructive voices and directions harder to identify. However, until blacks, as they did before, find those voices and directions, and navigate American culture and events, instead of getting knocked around by them, they will continue to resemble the red dots you see here…

The “Buy-In” Is Worse Than The “Sell-Out”

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Clippers, donald sterling, Mark Cuban, naacp, nba, racism, sellout, sharpton, Stephen A. Smith, uncle tom

Comments: 6 Comments

Published on: May 24, 2014

The NBA’s Donald Sterling debacle made some blacks look bad and, as it drags on, is making others look even worse. Start with the young black men, millionaires only because they can play a game, turning their clothes inside out over what a white man said to his side chick during a conversation that was none of their business:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HRrSiO-10Q[/youtube]
It was not a good look.

Other NBA players, however, did a “buy in”, threatening to boycott playoff games unless Sterling received severe punishment, and willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. Hard to say how meaningful those consequences would be, given that their contracts are guaranteed. So, a bunch of black millionaires were willing to disrupt the incomes of others, while their money continued to flow.

If THAT is what a “principled stand” looks like, then that, also, was not a good look.

Then, of course, the race shakedown artists appeared, not even waiting for them to haul Donald Sterling’s corpse from his owner’s suite before making demands. Interestingly, among those demanding change from the NBA was a group who had taken Sterling’s money for many years, and publicly acknowledged the “racist owner’s” support of blacks.

Another case of bad optics.

Consequently:

B) NBA players (blacks) can threaten to disrupt owners’ (whites) income, while their salaries from the owners remain guaranteed?

C) Other, unaffected blacks should demand white owners reform their behavior, despite accepting money from misbehaving owners?

To the extent there is a “Yes” answer to those questions, then blacks cannot seem principled, fair, or without hypocrisy. However, many see those blacks who would answer “No” as “Oreos”, “Uncle Toms”, or “Sell-Outs”. Case in point: consider Mark Cuban’s recent comments:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g3MpXb3UM[/youtube]

So interesting how many blacks heard Cuban say “black kid”…”hoodie”…”late at night”…”I’m walking to the other side of the street”…and missed his statements about bald and tattooed white guys, and prejudice in general. Cuban was honest and accurate; he was just not politically correct.

Stephen A. Smith’s initial reaction to Cuban’s comments was negative. Then he stopped accepting second-hand accounts, listened to Cuban’s words, and considered the comments not racist, but illustrative:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbbPImYHDA[/youtube]

Apparently, that was the wrong view for a black man to take, in the view of some. Even more apparent: Smith was not only unwilling to modify his view, he was more than willing to help his critics change their views:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3_81iiBU0[/youtube]

There is no middle ground between Smith’s sentiments, expressed while defending himself and in articulating his take on the “American Dream”, and those of blacks who see race the same way some see winning:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMgWOSrDb0[/youtube]

For those fixated on race, which includes an uncomfortably large percentage of blacks, this is clear: you are either someone who is a “Buy-In” to their ideology, or you are a “Sell-Out”. While “Sell-Out” is a harsh label, as Smith can attest, it is still less painful and demeaning than being among those who “Buy-In”.

And Smith did not “buy in”. Instead, he was a “sell out” to the notion that he could work himself out of poverty and mediocrity…and he is foolish enough to believe others can emulate his success…if they first emulate his effort. He was not a “buy in” to the idea that public assistance, tied to government-supported illegitimacy was a long-term solution for economic viability, as some apparently are:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWDhFc6nN1Q[/youtube]
Instead, Smith was a “sell out” to pursuing higher education and internships and building a career, which generally delivers a better standard of living than anything a government provides for “free”.

Consider that Smith describes himself as someone who grew up poor and was held back in the 4th grade. Had he been among those who “buy in” to the myth that prison planners use elementary school reading scores to predict inmate populations, then he should be behind plexiglass, not on the other side of an LED screen, and wearing an orange one-piece, instead of well-tailored suits. A fair question might be, “which is a better look for a black man?”

Consider Smith’s salient point about the music and sports stars whom many blacks see as achieving the American Dream: “…I don’t consider them the American Dream; I consider them to be a fantasy turned (to) reality…”

Simply put, everyone is NOT equal; some folks are special, and possess gifts and abilities others will never receive. That many blacks yet “buy in” to the notion that such have achieved the “American Dream” is both self-defeating and is a perversion of the term.

The American Dream is not unique because special people achieve it; it is unique because there is a special place, America, where anyone can achieve it. And there is no “buy in” to the American Dream; whoever would achieve it must “sell out”, abandoning everything that would hinder success, including the opinions of friends, confidants, and peers. Unfortunately, among black people, there are too many who “buy in”:

To the notion that today’s blacks suffer the after-effects of a slavery they have never experienced, and deserve “reparations” from those who did them no harm,

To the notion that blacks cannot be racist, even though the entire nation, it seems, disagrees, and

To the notion that the self-inflicted wounds of crime and ignorance can be bound up by politicians, or police, and not by those blacks who hurt and get hurt

to ever achieve the American Dream…

The sad thing is, while “buy in” blacks claim the victory of the Civil Rights Movement, only “sell out” blacks live that victory. For many “buy in” blacks, We Shall Overcome remains a song about the future; while for “sell out” blacks, it speaks of daily challenges conquered…and they have greater reverence for a different tune:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l49N8U3d0Bw[/youtube]

So, the “buy in” black looks ahead to what he hopes will be a brighter day, while the “sell out” black looks back on a wondrous and unfinished journey. It should be easy to determine which is a better look for black, or any, people.

The Disturbing Donald Sterling Episode…

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: adam silver, collectivist thought, donald sterling, elgin baylor, individual liberty, Jesse Jackson, kareem abdul-jabbar, kevin johnson, magic johnson, naacp, nba, political correctness, privacy rights, racism, sharpton

Comments: 269 Comments

Published on: May 2, 2014

Showing himself a “strong leader”, and setting himself apart from his predecessor, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver acted: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w_AB_YJA08[/youtube]
The move is praised by pundits, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niaeYK8ilRg[/youtube]
former players, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H91ou_RAOC0[/youtube]
coaches, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWSyRhrmTQM[/youtube]
and politicians, as well as other interested parties.[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFC75vlE0s[/youtube]
Judging by the social media reaction, one might decide this the most positive occurrence in the United States in many years. However, the action against Sterling is more problematic than satisfying, particularly for those who value individual liberty.

First, there is the problem of acting against Donald Sterling at all. The NBA has known of Sterling’s racism for many years:

Then there are the lawsuits:

Commissioner Silver, while announcing the lifetime ban, acknowledged that he has known the Clippers’ owner for more than two decades. It is difficult to believe that the audiotape, which revealed sentiments agreeing with public rumor and public legal record, surprised Silver.

It is surprising, however, that the NBA ignored decades of Sterling’s inappropriate public actions, only to ban him now for private statements.

Silver was questioned about that during the news conference:

Jovian Wei of Fox News asked, “Should someone lose their team for remarks shared in private — is this a slippery slope?”

Silver responded, “Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views.”

Which is, of course, chilling. First of all, privately-held racist, or any other, views are neither illegal, immoral, nor unethical; those characterizations are reserved for public behavior… which, again, in Sterling’s case, the NBA ignored.

Next, there is the matter of punishing people for what they think that is no one else’s business. Much is made about the statements coming to light, and that therefore it is appropriate to act upon them. However, that is an odd notion.

Private communication generally cannot be used to convict a person of a crime. If it cannot be used to take away a person’s liberty, then how should it be the basis to take someone’s property, especially when criminality is not even alleged? Should Sterling indeed go down, will the Orlando Magic owner, who donated private money to support traditional marriage, also lose his team, especially after the NBA gushed so publicly over Jason Collins?

The question is this: not whether private statements or actions might become public but, even if made public, whether a person’s noncriminal private deeds should be used to deprive them of benefits from properties and investments?

While the answer is, and should remain, “No”, the NBA now works to legitimize the authority of “thought police”, or political correctness, to punish people, materially, for “inappropriate” private beliefs, not inappropriate public actions, individual liberty consideration be damned.

Of course, Sterling’s history includes many appropriate actions, including: making millionaires of scores, if not hundreds, of young black men over the course of 33 years; hiring and keeping a black vice president of basketball operations for 22 years, despite a losing record and only one playoff series win during that span; donations to many charities, who are deciding what to do with the money.

And it includes longtime support of the Los Angeles Chapter of the NAACP. Shortly before Sterling paid a multimillion dollar settlement in the Justice Department’s housing discrimination suit against him in 2009, the Los Angeles NAACP presented Sterling with a lifetime award. They were scheduled to fete Sterling again, this month, before the Sterling audiotape surfaced. None of that matters now.

In another unsurprising move, the head of the Los Angeles NAACP, a man with a past as scurrilous as Sterling’s, has resigned…but the NAACP’s integrity, or lack thereof, is another matter entirely.

Sacramento Mayor and former NBA Player Kevin Johnson made a telling statement in his remarks:

“I believe that today stands as one of those great moments: where sports, once again, transcends, where sports provides a place for fundamental change on how our country should think and act.”

Of course, the NBA did not identify any inappropriate action, on Sterling’s part, against either the NBA or its players. So is Mr. Johnson looking to control thought? Through sports?

Magic Johnson said, of Sterling’s remarks, “…there is no place in our society for it…” and, of Sterling, “…he should stand up and say, I don’t want to own a team anymore…”

Hmmm…

So, a sports league should dictate to the nation: how it should think and act; what things do, or do not have a place in society; and who should be allowed to invest in what…based on how they feel about what others may think, which is none of their business?

If that does not subject individual liberty to collectivist thought, then it is difficult to say what does.

Not surprisingly, the race pimps have appeared. Jesse Jackson is already looking to coax cash from Hewlett-Packard, so he’s busy. However, Al Sharpton and the NAACP (you cannot make this stuff up) want to shake down the NBA regarding diversity…perhaps they will demand more white players?

One thing is certain: the push for “what we think” over “what is right” will continue, so long as you have thinking like this in the black community: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgKiMRpufoM[/youtube]

Regarding One Thing Missing for Black Males

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Al Sharpton, black male accountability, black males in college, black males in prison, black on black homicide, Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys, D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys, Einstein's Definition of Insanity, george zimmerman, illegitimacy, Jesse Jackson, million man march, naacp, racism, stand your ground, trayvon martin, Ward 8, white on white homicide

Comments: 1 Comment

Published on: August 8, 2013

Since Trayvon Martin’s death, momentum builds toward a racial “showdown” in this country, with one side outraged that a “white” man got away with “murdering” an innocent black child, while another side counters:

not white

teen-aged MMA enthusiast with ongoing school and drug problems

The first side, Side “A”, makes racism the issue, though the FBI and the Zimmerman jury said race was no factor. The month after Martin’s death, his parents formed a foundation to advocate for crime victims and their families (though the jury effectively said there was no crime), and, with the Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys of 2013, to challenge “Stand Your Ground” laws, though Zimmerman never invoked Florida’s version, and such laws are popular.

How did Side “A” come to create its own issues while dismissing others? In 3 acts:

ACT 1. In 1995, the Nation of Islam sponsored the “Million Man March” on Washington, D. C., to focus attention on black issues. Varying attendance estimates distracted from the event’s message, and determining what it accomplished is more problematic now than was counting heads then.

ACT 2. Nevertheless, the Million Man March inspired Washington, D. C., Congressional Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, in 2001, to form the “D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys” to reveal and help resolve issues that (D. C.) Black men face, such as high school dropout rates, criminal justice issues, HIV and AIDS, and marriage and family issues. The commission met many times over the next decade. However, like the Million Man March, its accomplishments are difficult to find.

Homicides, district-wide, decreased to a 50-year low 88 in 2012, but the credit belongs to local government and police. However, in D. C.’s 93% black Ward 8, unemployment averaged 22% in 2012; in 2000, it was 21%. Regarding other Ward 8 “measurables”, between 2000 and 2009:

And between 2000 and 2012:

Lastly, black illegitimacy in D. C. was 77% in 2002; in 2008, it was 79%.

While these things occurred:

D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of 2012

• The D.C. Commission on Black Men & Boys of 2011 featured former rival gang members and violence intervention workers, and accepted testimony from residents,

• The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of January 2010 took 17 young fathers out for an afternoon of mentoring and job preparation,

• The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of August 2010, responded to the particularly difficult time Black men are having in a job market that is sometimes unreceptive to them, especially in today’s unprecedented economy,

• The D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys of 2007 discussed national efforts to support the “Jena 6,” six Jena, Louisiana high school students, all African American males, who face discriminatory treatment in the criminal justice system…

ACT 3. The Congressional Caucus on Black Men and Boys of 2013, formed after Zimmerman’s acquittal, was modeled after Norton’s D.C. Commission on Black Men and Boys. Its mission: to be a “vehicle for raising consciousness” on issues disproportionately affecting black men and youth including job training, HIV/AIDS and the breakdown of the family. Sound familiar?

So, organizations, modeled after gatherings which did not resolve issues in the last decade, which were inspired by an event that did not resolve issues in the decade before that…will resolve issues today? What is Einstein’s Definition of Insanity, again?

Meanwhile, Side “B”, seizes on black illegitimacy and family decline, the criminality of young black men, etc. They cite statistics with irrefutable implications. They identify a “grievance industry” which they believe facilitates and exploits the adverse state of black affairs, and frustrates honest race discussions. They also show little fear of the nuclear option of political discussions: being called “racist”.

Unfortunately, Side “B” mis-spends their courage. Standing up to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and national NAACP official won’t influence the majority of blacks for whom those gentlemen do not speak. Side “B” needs to take its message to suffering black communities, showing the respect of direct conversation, not just the courage of broadcast monologues.

Side “B” also fumbles their facts, letting spinmeisters confuse issues and change subjects. If Side “B” says, “Blacks commit 93% of black homicides“, Side “A” counters with “Whites commit 86% of all white homicides“; that blacks, at 13% of the population, commit 52% of all U.S. homicides, including 59% of felony murders, gets lost in the noise. Should one say, “Black illegitimacy is at 73%“, another will counter, “White illegitimacy is increasing at a faster rate“…and so it goes…

Both sides miss the point: Side “A”, by putting energy into window-dressing events and off-topic efforts that do not improve the black condition; Side “B”, by being courageous with the wrong black people, and by letting objective facts become subjective banter.

The point? The black community does not hold black males accountable for their behavior.

For contributing to black illegitimacy, he appears, not before other black fathers, but before family court, while by-standers laugh:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_vcsJ5KNQQ[/youtube]

He is not taken “out back”, but taken in, to criminal courts:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQy6KNx4d-s[/youtube]

Dealing with this young black man fell to a judge because his community did not check him long before. When a man abuses a woman publicly, it is not the first time, and his behavior is no secret. People knew, and gave him a pass, because “he could ball”.

Black male misdeeds are not even privately considered by the black community; they are broadcast via social media:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gelk2eIWsPY[/youtube]

These things happen also to whites, hisanics, and asians. However, those groups do not have 3 of every 4 children born out-of-wedlock, nor does any of them, alone, commit more than half of U. S. homicides.

Black communities used to deal with their young men, handling complex issues and dispensing consequences that punished and deterred bad behavior. Now, they outsource that responsibility to schools, police, and courts. The result:

schools are less safe

Blacks fear the police

2 black males incarcerated for every 3 in college

Such is the legacy of black communities not holding black males accountable for their behavior.

While Sides “A” and “B” debate, the men of a great people lack what they need most to succeed, or even live well. It is not employment, not education, not acceptance by whites. It is accountability, to those who best understand them. Accountability, to those who can best build and correct their character. Accountability, to those who look like them. Should that return, the other issues will heal, quickly.

There are communities that manage their young men by the power of community expectations. Blacks should strive be one of them…again.

Re-trial Goes Much Like the First Trial, But Sadder

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: alicia stanley, angela corey indicted, Barack Obama, dxm, george zimmerman, Hilary Shelton, lean, naacp, nan, national action network, Sean Hannity, sybrina fulton, trayvon 100-citiy marches, trayvon martin, trayvon trademarks

Comments: 1 Comment

Published on: July 26, 2013

The basic details are not difficult:

A man saw someone he considered suspicious, called police and followed him. Eventually, he came into contact with the subject. Words were exchanged, an altercation ensued, during which the man sustained injuries. He drew a weapon and fired once. Police arrived to find the man, George Zimmerman, aged 28, bloodied and shaken, and the shooting victim, Trayvon Martin, aged 17, dead.

Police questioned Zimmerman that night, gave him a lie detector test the next day (he passed), and determined there was not probable cause for an arrest.

In the 16 months that followed: the FBI concluded race played no role in the shooting; and Florida’s governor appointed a special prosecutor who bypassed a grand jury to charge Zimmerman with 2nd-degree murder. That decision was criticized by a legal expert as potentially criminal, and special prosecutor Angela Corey was indeed later criminally indicted for falsifying the arrest warrant and complaint against Zimmerman.

At trial, prosecution witnesses supported Zimmerman’s self-defense assertions, including a black legal professor, who explained, under cross-examination, that injuries are not required before a person might legally act in self-defense.

Despite all this, people were shocked, SHOCKED, at George Zimmerman’s acquittal on July 13th.

So, those who insisted Zimmerman be tried in a court of law, despite a weak case, changed venues: the court of public opinion, bound neither by the rules of evidence, nor any need to speak truthfully. So, how is that coming along?

The day after the verdict, there were demonstrations from New York City to Los Angeles, Chicago to Oakland, Milwaukee to Miami, and elsewhere protesting Zimmerman’s acquittal.

Also on the day after the verdict, the NAACP and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) called for the Department of Justice to file federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. Attorney General Holder told NAN, “If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action, and at every step, the facts and law will guide us forward.” One can only wonder if those facts will include the 2012 FBI report which found no evidence of racism, a hate crime, or any civil rights violation by George Zimmerman. One prosecutor is already criminally indicted for corruption in the charging of Zimmerman; could an overzealous Attorney General Eric Holder become the second?

Perhaps sensing the initiative slipping away, the NAACP’s Hilary Shelton appeared on Sean Hannity’s TV show (July 18th) to assert that Zimmerman “stalked, assaulted, and” shot Trayvon Martin to death, and to criticize Stand Your Ground laws. However:

stalked

verdict imply Martin assaulted Zimmerman

Stand Your Ground was not part of Zimmerman’ defense

President Obama’s post-verdict statement gave way to a July 19th race speech in which he said, “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago.” Whether Obama sought to unite the nation or curry favor with the black Americans he normally ignores is hard to say. However, this is not: 2 days after the speech, a national poll showed Obama’s disapproval rating higher than George Zimmermans’s.

Then, there were the July 20th 100-City Trayvon rallies, with turnout far less than expected, though that was hard to glean from most news coverage.

Even the Congressional Black Caucus chimed in, with members expressing support for an economic boycott of Florida to protest Stand Your Ground laws, and looking to revisit gun control in the wake of Martin’s shooting. However, Congress generally cannot revise state laws, and the good ship gun control already sailed away…empty.

So, the public “re-trial” is going much the way the state trial did, and for the same reason: those arrayed against George Zimmerman have more passion than proof. However, regarding Martin, more proof emerges that may generate a different passion.

First, the Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea…actually Arizona Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail. Those are 2 of the 3 ingredients needed to make “lean“, a street drug, which requires the codeine in prescription cough syrup, or Dextromethorphan (DXM), available in over-the counter cough syrup like Robitussin. Martin’s Facebook page showed him seeking codeine to make more lean, before being told Robitussin’s DXM would also work. When abused, DXM can cause aggression and paranoia. Of course, all this is circumstantial until Martin’s autopsy report revealed liver anomalies, consistent with DXM abuse.

Then there is Alicia Stanley, Martin’s former stepmother who gave an interview to CNN at the beginning of the trial. She said she did it so people would know, “I exist…”

Why would that matter? Because it is she, not Sybrina Fulton, with whom Trayvon Martin lived, from age 3 until 2010. During that time, there is no evidence of the truancy, drug use, theft and other issues that prosecutors fought to keep from a jury.

To the point; it is less a matter of what Martin’s improper behavior was than when it started and, perhaps, with whom.

However, Alicia Stanley, the woman who raised Trayvon Martin, became an inconvenience: told to “get in where you fit in” at his funeral, and waited more than a year after Martin’s death before seeking the recognition some would say she has earned. By contrast, Sybrina Fulton waited less than a month before seeking to profit from trademarking “I AM TRAYVON” and “Justice for Trayvon”.

Sadly, a young black man died, shot in self-defense by a “soft” man with “a hero complex.” Unfortunately, that is not all that is sad. Trayvon Martin’s innocence began to fade in 2010, through events over which he had no control. By February 26, 2012, Martin was a troubled kid, by any measure: doing poorly in school, committing petty crimes, and a drug user who had already sustained internal organ damage and was at a 7-Eleven, procuring the ingredients for his drug of choice, jones’in’ for another high. Viewing the store security video in that light is heartbreaking:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwhGVWAdjI[/youtube]

No matter why Martin was out that night, this tragedy might still have occurred. However, no one’s child should be out at night like that…ever. Somehow, we came to focus on Zimmerman, and lost the bubble on that.

page 1 of 1

ARTICLE ARCHIVES