LISTEN to BLACK MAN THINKIN’


Disney Exposes A ‘Community’ Too Politically Correct for Pride

Arthur Robert Ashe, Jr., was a black man, of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who excelled in athletics and had a mind for other important pursuits. Like Curt Flood, who challenged Major League Baseball’s Reserve Clause as unfair to players; like Jim Brown, who retired from the NFL – at his peak – rather than allow the Cleveland Browns to dictate to him. Others included Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, Lew Alcindor/Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Bill Russell. These were passionate sportsmen, but each knew where sports ended and dignity began.

A little more about Arthur Ashe…

Born July 10, 1943 in Richmond, Virginia, to married parents. His mother died in 1950. His father raised his children with strict discipline. Ashe and his younger brother attended church every Sunday. Their father timed the walk from school, and Ashe had 12 minutes to get home after the last bell. Mindful of his son’s slight build, the elder Ashe forbade his son to play football.

Ashe began playing tennis at age 7, first mentored by Richmond’s best black tennis player, then by another black man who coached Althea Gibson. When segregation in Richmond limited his competitive options, he spent his senior year of high school living with the family of another black man in St. Louis, who coached him as well. In response, Ashe became the first black to win the National Junior Indoor Championship in 1962.

Arthur Ashe received a tennis scholarship to UCLA, and was the first black ever selected for the U.S. Davis Cup Team, in 1963. He won the U.S. Amateur and U.S. Open Championships in 1968 (ranked Number 1 in the world during that year), the Australian Open in 1970, and Wimbledon in 1975 – also black American firsts.

Ashe, with Charlie Pasarell and Sheridan Snyder, founded the National Junior Tennis League in 1969, a program offering tennis opportunities to economically disadvantaged youngsters. It was the first organized tennis program in which Venus and Serena Williams participated.

A heart attack, and quadruple heart bypass surgery, in 1979 forced his retirement the next year; he had another bypass procedure in 1983. In 1988, Ashe had an emergency brain surgical procedure and published a three-volume history of black American athletes, A Hard Road to Glory. A blood transfusion, during the second heart procedure, infected Ashe with HIV; he died of AIDS-related pneumonia in 1993, spending the last year of his life raising awareness, and funding, to combat the disease.

Arthur Robert Ashe, Jr., the product of a black nuclear family, was building his own when he died. He was a great athlete who never caught a break. Rather, helped by other black men in his early years (including his father), he created them. He was an honorable man, made great by doing good, including excellence in his chosen field. And he responded to the misfortune of a fatal infection by fighting for others. He was, and remains, a legacy in which blacks can take pride…and one which they should defend.

Watching Abby Wambach and Bruce Jenner make that legacy a blank canvas onto which they painted the homosexual agenda – describing their “community” in sympathetic terms, and grabbing attention to help “mainstream” their “choices” – as “courageous” was distressing, and not just to Brett Favre (see video below, at @ 2:15 in)…


ABC US News | World News

The ESPN/Wambach/Jenner performance was not racist; it was worse than that. In just over 13 minutes, and on an international stage:

    • It made dislike for the homosexual lifestyle equivalent to dislike for skin color – an equivalence blacks still reject,

    • It gave U.S. combat troops the side-eye, overlooking a veteran who had lost limbs but not his passion for sport, and

    • It dismissed the fearlessness of a female college athlete, whose terminal cancer claimed her life, but not her competitive spirit.

Instead of acknowledging sports relevant example of courage, ESPN gave the award to someone whose last sports involvement precedes the birthdates of their target audience. All while standing on the grave of a black man whose courage, character content – and myriad accomplishments – made his skin color an asset, at a time when it was a liability for many others. The black response to this blatant legacy hijacking…

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHQxE-CNKkA[/youtube]

Despite Wambach’s assertions to the contrary, the award was all about Jenner. He actively campaigned for this award. His team approached ESPN about it to promote his upcoming TV show and, when negotiations faltered, threatened canceling an interview with Diane Sawyer (see video, at @ 2:10). The result was a “win-win-win”: Jenner “won” publicity for his media efforts, ABC “won” a major news story, and ESPN “won” another political correctness opportunity.

(By the way, the Walt Disney Company, itself increasingly sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, owns ESPN and ABC.)

The only losers were America’s blacks, who ESPN publicly pimped and, apparently, are too focused on irrelevant flags and monuments, churches burned by phantom racists (like lightning and poor electrical wiring), and seeking “justice” FOR every questionable (or worse) character the police encounter – while requiring no justice FROM them – to care what the presentation sought to take from them.

Blacks resisted efforts to use Rosa Parks’ legacy to promote the homosexual agenda, and Martin Luther King’s daughter is on record declaring that her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage”. At least for now, those legacies remain valuable to blacks.

But Arthur Ashe, a black man who rose to the pinnacle into an internationally white-dominated sport, winning the hearts and minds of people the world over, by dint of effort and class, his legacy – as black as black excellence CAN be – is abandoned to a re-definition of courage shown in, or through, sports to mean standing up for one’s bedfellow choice or being openly confused about one’s gender?

That every black athlete did not stand up and walk out of the ESPY’s speaks volumes about today’s black American athletes. That not one of them did speaks even more loudly. To be fair, had Jenner worn a Confederate flag, and received the award atop Georgia’s Stone Mountain, then black NBA players might have reacted like this:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxziyB_VJGM[/youtube]

or black NFL Players might have exited the auditorium the way these entered a stadium:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjatISKs5BA[/youtube]

As it was, they clapped politely at the public denigration of a legacy that helped make them both prosperous and popular.

This lack of black pride and principle is astonishing. Peter Berg, no one’s black man, at least attempted outrage, before the PC police got to the Friday Night Lights producer. But black athletes today seem more willing to make acceptable “protests” than principled statements, more concerned with being PC than with legacy. That attitude seems shared by many, if not most, blacks.

So, what are blacks about?

Is it taboo to disrespect black criminals, but acceptable to piss on the legacy of a black sports legend? Are we more committed to attacking symbols that we say we hate, be they flags, rocks, or 150-year-old military corpses, than to protecting the legacy of those who deserve love for what they showed of “blackness”?

Disney challenged American black self-respect and, so far, that challenge goes unanswered; perhaps all accept that homosexuals are more politically relevant than blacks today. After all:

    • So say the courts, who remove liberties to favor homosexuals,

    • So say the schools, which promote homosexuality with a fervor not shown for black concerns,

    • So says the president, who violated his oath of office by not defending traditional marriage, as law requires (though blacks support traditional marriage), and further disregarded the views of blacks by “re-lighting” the White House after the recent Supreme Court Decision on homosexual marriage:

Rainbow White House

So, the “black” president disregards blacks; now a major corporation follows suit. Both have done so on an international stage. A relevant people does not take such treatment lightly. So, the question is, “Are blacks yet relevant, or has Political Correctness finally claimed its first ethnic group victim in the U.S.?

Zimmerman Trial Shows Trayvon Martin May Not Be Only Black Fatality

George Zimmerman is guilty.

George Zimmerman is guilty of profiling Trayvon Martin while acting as a neighborhood watchman.

George Zimmerman is guilty of saying Trayvon Martin “looks black”, when asked about Martin’s ethnicity.

George Zimmerman is guilty of following Trayvon Martin, leading to a confrontation.

George Zimmerman is guilty of shooting an unarmed Trayvon Martin to death…..

And none of these things are crimes in the State of Florida, unless prosecutors can refute Zimmerman’s self-defense assertion. That appears unlikely after the trial’s first five days.

The prosecution put on: a star witness who struggles with the truth; an eyewitness who said Martin did an MMA-style “ground-and-pound” on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman screamed for help; and a witness who photographed Zimmerman’s injuries, and heard Zimmerman claim self-defense. At some point, the prosecution might wish to start eliminating reasonable doubt, instead of creating absolute doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of anything apart from weight gain.

However, the real story of the trial is the black reaction to it, for that may signal the decline of blacks as an American political demographic. Simply put, blacks are losing political and social respect – not because of what comes upon them, but for what emerges from them, which is clearly demonstrated by the Trayvon Martin ordeal.

Blacks, who owe their political standing to overcoming race-based injustice, are showing themselves racist. From the outset, blacks called the shooting a white-on-black crime, and, apparently, many still do, though Zimmerman’s parents are Jewish (father) and Cuban (mother).

(According to Jewish tradition dating to the 2nd century, and US Census bureau policy, maternity determines a child’s race. George Zimmerman is Cuban, not white. The same tradition and policy makes Barack Obama just another white man in the White House.)

The New Black Panther Party wanted whites killed in response to Martin’s death and placed a bounty on Zimmerman. The Martin family said they did not “condone those people”…which differs from the condemnation that should have (but did not) come from them and all people of good faith.

Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman’s address, telling followers, “feel free to reach out and touch him”. Lee later apologized and paid the couple he put at risk. Again, blacks were silent.

Had the Ku Klux Klan advocated killing blacks or placed a bounty on anyone, or had a minor white celebrity threatened an elderly black couple, black outrage, and that of most other Americans, would have come swiftly…because such things are wrong.

The black non-reaction to these things, including ignoring and excusing racist comments from Trayvon Martin the night he died, shows that blacks, who once rose in opposition to slurs and injustices cast upon them, now sit in acceptance of their own casting slurs and committing injustices…and the nation notices this.

Trayvon Martin died during an election year, which likely prompted the incumbent president to seek connection with blacks during the re-elect campaign:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt_g5JPdP8Y[/youtube]

Now, blacks supporting Obama at 96% in 2008 is understandable. But, since then, world economists recognize America’s decline under Obama, and the American middle class, for which Obama claims to fight, lead the downward spiral. Yet hardest hit are America’s blacks. High unemployment, diminished net worth, a worsening racial climate, etc. make being black in America tougher under Obama.

However, instead of punishing Obama in 2012, blacks gave him 93% of their votes. Obama also got a pass for showing greater concern for issues affecting hispanic and homosexual communities than for those impacting blacks. Indeed, blacks scarcely criticize Obama, and quickly label anyone who does.

So, blacks look like an abused woman who, despite her split lip and blackened eyes, defends the guy who beats her as “good”. Thoughtful people will conclude there is no reasoning with the woman, leaving her to the insanity. They are reaching a similar conclusion about black political and social reasoning.

Non-blacks see Detroit and other cities under long-term Democrat Party rule, so financially corrupt as to have emergency managers or be in receivership. They see Chicago, where Democrat rule contributes to “open season” on blacks, despite the nation’s toughest gun laws. They see Los Angeles, where long-term Democrat control brought that city near bankruptcy with schools that graduate only 2/3 of students. They see a welfare state, begun in 1965, that has lowered black marriage rates, sent illegitimacy rates soaring, and helped blacks, though under 13% of the US population, account for 30% of US abortions.

Despite this and more, they see the self-destructive thoughtlessness of blacks continuing to vote for liberals and their policies. When they seek to engage blacks on this, they are labeled racists or sell-outs, which ends meaningful dialogue.

Blacks once boasted the “moral leader” of the nation. But now: they support a president who fails them, is disrespected abroad and is a scandal factory at home; they elect blacks to Congress who are impotent; they elect a disproportionate number of corrupt black officeholders. And blacks, who once excoriated all racists everywhere, now excuse blacks offering racist testimony in court.

If the nation sees blacks as unable or unwilling to look after black interests, then why should they seek to work with blacks on national interests?

When blacks fought injustices by being on the side of right, countless others, of all races, creeds, and colors joined them. Not because they were race issues, but because they were issues of right and wrong. For example, trafficking in men is not racist; it is wrong. Jim Crow segregation is not racist; it is wrong. Arbitrarily denying the vote is not racist; it is wrong. When blacks led such fights, pursuing what is right, they prevailed and gained political and social respect.

However, now, no black leadership pursues what is right, but rather what is “black”. It focuses on what is wanted, on laying guilt, on what others have that can be taken. Fortunately, that is not the view of all, or even most, blacks.

However, unless and until the desire for right returns as the premier aim of black political and social discussion, those who sang “We Shall Overcome” will be overcome by the perception that they are too self-centered and bigoted to be taken seriously in national debates. Political and social respect for America’s blacks is dying; all one need do is watch the Zimmerman trial, and how blacks react to it, to understand why it ebbs away.

page 1 of 1

The World of Black Man Thinkin’
ARTICLE ARCHIVES
WDFP Radio Show Archives

Welcome , today is Friday, November 15, 2024