Culture 101

Cultural Interests
This represents the second installment in a multi-part series called "Culture."In the next few weeks, we will examining the many aspects of this subject; including what it means to be Black in a pluralistic society.  Enjoy

One of the necessary cultural interests to acquire--as a family or community--would be peace and harmony between neighbors.  After all, the birth of children are the product of families, and the harmony of families are a necessary staple of stable communities.  Security within societies and communities, could easily be achieved from the qualities and/or faculties we use to select our comrades with; that, combined with what we use as judgment--to select the people we surround ourselves with.  

Strength and warrior prowess is a must when protecting our self interests, as a people!  That type of wisdom is in the discernment of what is kindred and what is not!  For example, everything in America's Puerto Rican communities in North America,  is beneficial for Puerto Rico abroad.  It takes a savvy to know while something may be good for us here, it might be bad for our people at home.  It may make us too dependent on the States, for example.

The ideal situation for a growing people is to have a community of comrades, equipped with such (or similar) qualities and allegiances.  This naturally evolves or takes place, when there is civilized behavior. 

Civilized behavior is polite, gentle and peaceful behavior.  It is a respectful behavior to others.  To be civilized, is to be fair, reasonable, harmonious--and have a way or behavior that causes people around you to be more helpful, organized and more futuristic in thinking.  Civilized behavior is part of a rationally ordered stage of cultural development.  In many countries, things like arranged marriages, are often made between the families of loyal comrades, for the purpose of securing clans. 

These types of marriages were done to strengthen bonds between families and to strengthen communities, with an common understanding that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  

Civilized behavior is also the morals and ethics used between people when we conduct trade or interact.  Society is an organized community with shared laws, traditions and values; while being patriotic or civilized within that community is displaying community pride.  

Patriotism and nationalism is a pride we have inside for our people and our tradition.  It is the wisdom we think we have as a group of people, based upon our chronology and tradition.  Nationalism defined, "is loyalty and devotion to one's people--especially in the sense of a national consciousness--feeling that is better and more important than other countries; placing primary emphasis on the promotion of its culture and interests above all others.

Patriotism and Nationalism is easy to understand when all of its people are of the same ethnicity--or the socioeconomic groups within that society are well balanced; but what happens when you belong to one of the people who are one of the sub-cultures?

Next: Separate cultures in a pluralistic society. . .

Peace and Blessings Folks,                              

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers

Culture 101 part one

Culture 101

This represents the first installment of a multi-part series called "Culture.  "In the next few weeks, we will be examining the many aspects of this subject; including what it means to be Black in a pluralistic society.  Enjoy. 

I want you to think a little bit about what it means to live.   Many of you live in communities with many services; schools, recreation centers, theaters, dance halls, various outreach programs, churches, temples, stadiums, various centers, supermarkets, sports stores, malls--plenty of places for different activities, group involvements, etc.

I also want you to consider that most of our people live in a community with others; some from different cultures and ethnicities--different nationalities, customs, and/or  traditions.  Communal qualities are made to serve the constituents of that neighborhood or community and groups which comprise them--serving them with facilities, services and utilities--such as water, electricity, adequate ventilation, heating; roadways, various means and modes of transportation (such as trains, buses, subway systems, etc.), and buildings with various activities.

Initially, this might not mean that much to you (you might even take it for granted)--but if you are observant and explore more about what these terms truly mean--you'd find that a multi-cultural or multi-national environment creates a much different spin on the politics within the environment in which you live: One that will demand you to play a much more active role within this society; if you are ever going to have your interests considered, within that pluralistic society.  But we'll discuss more about this stuff later on. 

More  importantly, I want you to reflect on the fact that you are living within a country, established by another group of people who are maintaining its' controlling interests [this very point will become significant later on], while professing to be pluralistic.

"The New Colossus" is a sonnet by American poet Emma Lazarus (1849–87), written in 1883. In 1903, the poem was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty; a statue erected on Ellis Island in New York--serving as a symbol for all immigrants seeking refuge or planning to make America their home.

A sonnet is a fixed verse form of Italian origin consisting of 14 lines that are typically 5-foot iambics rhyming according to a prescribed scheme; also : a poem in this pattern.  First used in 1557.  And refuge means, shelter or protection from danger or distress; i.e., a place that provides shelter or protection; or something to which one has recourse to in difficulty.

The poem reads, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Culture is what a people do. Their interests, are the reasons why they do the things they do;  meaning people do things--that reflect the types of things they're interested in; some of which, larger groups of the same ethnicity, are interested in.  Other times, it may be what a certain group of people think are most important to have done--at the expense of other groups and ethnicities. . .

Naturally, these type of interests change from one social, economic, political--or ethnic group--to another.  These interests of the people may include; their interests in art, music, writing, performing arts; adornment, fashion; sporting life (hunting) and farming; land development, landscaping, architecture, acquisition of property; business, employment; sports, entertainment,  hobbies and pastimes; all of which are examples of social interests.

Of course, there are also personal interests which may vary from various group interests.  Different people, from different nations and various locales, may have different forms of art, music, songs, journalistic endeavors; and of course, literature and poetry--as well as, various types of folklore.  Each group express particular concerns for their people, their priorities--and express, of course, their particular folk's self interests.  The same, it is, with people who are in positions of power, with the opportunity to enforce their will and receive services from others.

Many people who have similar interests, gather together in bands called "social groups."  The word "social" means to congregate in groups advocated for the same common cause--and/or similar interests.  Social groups form for many activities--such as hunting, gathering, planting and harvesting, obtaining land, building homes and other edifices, protection of the group and/or the establishment of order.  This is done to achieve greater effects and to go farther than could be achieved by individual efforts.

The key ingredient concerning "banding together" is that they agree--I.e. have similar interests; because smaller numbers advocated for the same common cause, will achieve much more than larger individual efforts with more or better "fire-power" (study the Vietnam war as an example).

In the case of gather people together from the same nation or same ethnic group--cultural and genetic traits are an extra-added incentive that serve to bind people in a way that common interests won't.  The idea that we all went to the same parish or school, lived in the same neighborhood, attended the same festivals, hung out at the same recreation centers, or played on the same semi-pro team--has more of a bonding effect than our interest in politics,  art, or women--for example.

Our national and cultural traits has us feeling in the same way about many of the same things like area, rights, titles, or legal shares in things.  This is our community, our neighborhood, our city, our country!  This is the land that we love!  This is our "world as we know it!"

These sentiments are here--primarily because we are members of the same ethnicity--with many of the same feelings, character traits, thinking patterns and associations to things.  However, culture is much more simpler than that!  It is the understanding shared between a man and woman, then passed on to their offspring.  When applied properly, these bonds are unshakable.

This means that what we know is largely due in part, to the realm of our parents' understanding--their level of growth and various affiliations.  This is a fascinating ideology, because we live in a world of dynamic opposites and complements, and based upon that--the further extremes of our understanding make it much more difficult to see than how we were raised: For example, if your parents had an understanding of the virtues of peace, certain aspects of war and militarism would seem almost like closed chapters to those of us born within that understanding.  Of course, necessity and circumstance would deem it necessary for some of us to know more, and this aspect brings on the aspect of growth and civilization. 

However, this process of growth and development, based upon our parents' awareness and experience, is the basis of our rearing (as well as legacy)--along with the commonality between our families; serves as cohesiveness within our communities and bonding elements within our societies.

The interests of these communities, then, would be defined as, qualities or acquisitions that attract their attention; or those things that represent items families really need in order to operate well and/or feel secure.

Peace and Blessings folks,

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers

   

                                     Travesty

   First and foremost,  my heart goes out to Trayvon Martin family and the lost of their son, for without him, we as a people could not have this discussion.  And while we debate the parameters of this incident, this is a real person who lost his life by the hands of a zealot, who--at this point, has gone by so far, unpunished for his crime; and for this, there is great remorse.  The Blacks of this nation join you in this remorse.

   This topic is phenotypical of our discussion.  A lot of our people are thinking about what has happened.  Many are feeling that it could have been their child.  It happens to principally confront our deepest fears: the feeling of continued subjugation at the hands of certain powers that be in White American society. 

   Trayvon's father is said to be a mason.  His son's life is sacrificial for the larger perspective.  The last time a similar thing happened, Crispus Attacks, a said to be Mason and celebrated hero of the American Revolution, lie dead in the streets.  Today, as the media informs us of this travesty, Trayvon becomes the catalysis for our evolution.

   The cut is too fresh and wound is too deep to detail the situation.  However, the following things should be said about how this trial was conducted: First of all, it should have never became a trial by jury.  Whenever you have a trial with a jury, "Beyond seasonal doubt," becomes the main factor.  When that happens, the issue becomes not whether someone has done something or not, but rather whether or not it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.  No matter how anyone feels about this situation, the situation was fraught with circumstantial evidence and could be arranged in such a way as to cast doubt as to its' certainty.  Anytime that happens, the verdict must be, "It could not be proven beyond "reasonable doubt," therefore because this cannot be established, the law states that verdict must be person is "not guilty."  

   The other factor was why six and not twelve jurors?  I guess we can all "google" that and get our results; but all should, so we can learn more about US law. 

   My next point is rather tricky: That is, when does six White women who live in the same county or similar county as Trevon or Zimmerman?  If they are White, that covers Zimmerman's dominate factor in Zimmerman's multicultural heritage but not Trevon's so-called racial background.  Trevon's actions should have not been on trial here, since he was not breaking the law, "just suspicious," as Zimmerman claimed--and was given the directive by police "not to pursue," yet Trevon's whole character became a "workable" factor at the hands of the defense and the psyche of six White women (who traditionally known to strike up fears many times, when White men faced alone with Black men--not to mention the arousal of anger in many White men on the thought of what they think could occur).  But the factor is, White women are considered a "minority' in this country, which covers Trevon's factor of being a "minority" himself--plus any possibility of a mixed heritage in Mr. Zimmerman--along with an added factor of the ability to indirectly arouse feelings of hostility within White men towards "the need to protect the realm," so to speak (a.k.a. "We are the majority who rule in America, so we must preserve the status-quo and keep order in the realm).

   In my last correspondence, "Minority Report," I covered the need for Black people to redefine themselves as "other than minority," since America's use of the term lumps in or includes other social groups (like immigrants and the like), as well as sexual preference factors--as though the sexual practices can be lumped in with the social destiny of a people or immigrants who migrate here at anytime should be handled with the same consideration as a group of people who have been subject to the "Majority" for 458 years. . .  Valid points, eh? 

   I think most of you will agree, and situations like this above example concerning Trevon, only serves as an example--and makes it mandatory for us to do something about it.  But how the prosecution (Trevon's attorney or attorneys) allowed themselves to be duped by this skillful manipulation of jurors by the defense (Zimmerman's attorney which were probably bought by Zimmerman's father who is a judge), is beyond my person's comprehension--that is, unless it was collusion. . .  And from this, one could conclude these thoughts to be phenotypical for people who are "subjugated." 

   As I was traveling down the road (car in hand--hee-hee), when I tuned into a public radio discussion on the subject of "Majority Rule," stating the American Founding Fathers knew of the inherent dangers associated with setting up a society with this type of rule (a democracy), and took various steps towards safeguarding the rights of minorities; However, within a Democratic system, our people become subject to the Majority's (or ruling class') thoughts, considerations, wisdom or lack thereof.  Now I ask you, as my audience: Why should our future in this country depend on another group of people's sensitivity or lack thereof for our very existence?  You tell me.  

     And while you are at it, please tell me how can social equality be achieved in this Democratic society?  A society who consider women's issues to be "Minority issues," when they represent the vast majority of people on this planet.  While one may attempt to be fair, hidden behind some of are decisions are sexism, racism, chauvinism, social class prejudices, etc.  And as a rule, Black people's social, political, and economic issues within American society has traditionally been relegated to minor significance by those people who are considered the ruling class.  So as you answer my questions and assertions, please answer--not to me--but for yourself and the rest of society. . .  I already have my own solution, its called evolution. . .

   In conclusion to this article, Saladin texted this message concerning the unjustified homicide of Trevon Martin--accompanied by an address which I hope you will check out for your own understanding: "White Conservative Male Pundits To Nation: "Racism Is Over, Stop Talking About It."  Http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3624866ncis=edlinkusaolp00000009.  

   And for those who think like this idiot: Can a man tell a women truly how it feels to give birth to a child or is he intellectually posturing?  Does he know the intimacies of how it feels to give birth to babies?  Does he have a full understanding of all the details?  Unless these fools ever been discriminated against on the level that my people have, or been subjugated to the shortcomings of White American society--they can never be the ones to declare when discrimination has ended.  And to this end, I give you the words of Bob Dylan:

                                                           "You'll never know the hurt I've suffered, 

                                                           And all the pain I've rises above; 

                                                           And I'll never known the same about you--

                                                           Your holiness or your kind of love: 

                                                           And it makes me feel so sorry. . . 

                                                           Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth; 

                                                           You're an idiot babe, 

                                                           It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe!"

   There's lines that have been drawn by these kind in American society: The ones who smile in your face and restrict your movements in secret; the ones who hold so much of your destiny in their hands when you consider them as your equals.  Let that be a lesson to those who think that just because you move in their neighborhoods, that you have been socially accepted:  The message that has been sent is, "N-word, know your place."  

   The concept we should receive from such a message is, "Blackman do for self."  Learn how rely on only yourself for your own security; Learn to love each other, like we did under the Jim Crow Laws."  If we don't, we will subject to what they want to do with "Minority issues and Minority interests," like you saw in the trial.  See, amongst us, we have Blacks who think their Brown--and Browns who hate Blacks--and Blacks who turn yellow when they have to confront White and rich society concerning our people (like the NAACP/Du Bois' "Talent Tenth"), because many of them feel they will lose their gifts, trinkets, and "their credit cards and social club memberships" in White society--if they truly stand up for our people's rights.  We also have to move away from these Blacks as well, with their political grips and handshakes, because these "wannabes" are equally as dangerous to our destiny.

                                                Remember Me.

Once Again, thanks for your consideration:  

Peace and Love,

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers 

Leave The Rest Up To Love

Leave The Rest Up To Love. . .

Since writing the last paper, "The Way It is," my person has learned a few things, as well, from the facts I presented to you.  As my person has said before, our position in America is a very precarious situation: One in which has alienated our people from our native homeland, made us function as a people without a country, while living within a country that does not have our best interest at heart.  We can clearly see by the provisions left for us in America's concentrated areas (ghettos), the downtown facilities, exclusive White areas, suburbs, etc.--that the "Separate but Unequal posture" is still in full effect.  But that's what happens when you depend on others to provide things for your needs.  

The division of our people from our homeland occurred, largely in fact, to the American slavery experience: its laws forbidding tribal customs, the way Americans traded of our young, and how marriages between Blacks were never really honored.  The vacuum created by this behavior, produced a condition in which, most of  what we know about culture and civilization, is derived from what we saw from the barnyards, plantations, and servitude positions all across America.  Its like the lyrics that we hear from the Johnny Cash tune, Folsom Prison: "I bet there's rich folks eaten', In a fancy dining car, They're probably drinking coffee, And smoking' big cigars, But I know I had it comin', I know I can't be free, But those people keep a-movin', And that's what tortures me"--every word rings true accept, the acceptance of our condition (imprisonment/slavery, that is).   We want that type of opulence, things were already carved up before they freed us, and for the most part we have to be in their employ in order to survive.  These are very precarious positions.  It places the descendants of the colonists in a position of judges and we stand amongst the judged.  Julius Caesar tried to offer true citizenship to all world peoples and got assassinated in the process--with his friend Brutus putting the last dagger in. 

Blacks must know a lot about American culture, as a matter of survival.  We must have skills and a firm grasp of the American phenomena, in order to present ourselves in such a way, as to be picked for gainful employment.  We learned about culture and civilization from the activities conducted in the thirteen colonies, by White people (never by a free Black Asian or so called African man visiting this country).*  This is quite ironic, because the view that most Blacks have concerning these things, was originally conceived through the aural and optical nerves of a slave.  We looked out into the colonist's world--though the barns and plantations of America but never as citizens conducting equal and proper enterprise: Who ever cares about how the person who serves you coffee or shines your shoes gets along in life?  We watched through holes in America's dresser draws, but we never studied our own culture--as a whole (we are too far removed).  We watched what White America did, as the horse that they rode on, romping through the fields.  We watch them, as they altered the land, as the birds of the sky--knowing the could destroy our forest.  We watched, not as one of them--but as ones brought over here by them!  "It's hard to be free, when you're bought and sold in the marketplaces of America," Jack Nicholson's character said that, in the film, Easy Rider.  We observed their ways and actions, and adapted ways of our own from what we observed.  We saw America, not as American colonists or Western people, but from the view of the subjugated; the people they controlled.

This perspective is unique--but subsequently important--because a lot of our actions, thereafter, can be viewed merely as survival techniques. A lot of what Blacks do in this country is out of employment--not patriotism--because we truly know how the outsider feels (and we know by how we are treated we are second class--never the same as). 

The way the Blackman originally viewed this country, was through the eyes of the menial worker; a slave.  The free Blacks in this country, during the time of slavery, was not much better than a slave's life--and much less commensurate to that of a White freeman.  He had neither the rights or the privileges of a White freeman in America--the Blackman's life was always under the scrutiny of the colonist (as we can see from police surveillance in densely Black populations in America today).  During such times, free Blacks held neither office or much influence in America; but he could own land and he was not the property of an individual slave owner--though the society decided his actions (a.k.a. here comes another discriminatory law), based upon the best interests of the colony itself--but not for the people the society was controlling.

  We watch America gain, grow, and exploit us whenever it was convenient.  Anyone who watched Glory, featuring Denzel Washington, knows this to be the case: Many free Blacks and slaves died at Fort Sumter to allow the White Union troops advance.  And though it furthered Blacks to "token citizenship," Blacks never gained America's love:

                                                      "Don't let them, get the best

                                                      Of your heart; 

                                                      Leave the rest up to love, 

                                                      And you'll be taken care of;

                                                      "Don't let them, get the best

                                                      Of your heart;  

                                                      Leave the rest up to love, 

                                                      And you'll be taken care of."

                                                      --Leave The Rest Up To Love

                                                                     Chaka Khan & Rufus

These words seem to summarize our condition in America.  Jesse Owens went over to Germany, during the Olympics, and smoked all Aryan on-comers for America--and had to once-again deal with America's racism when he returned to America: We are like a love sick, inexperienced young girl, who is trying her best to meet approval of her love one: a.k.a. the one who's eager to please; The one who wants to make everything better.  In the movie, "Man In The Iron Mask," (the one which stars Richard Chamberlain), two twins were in love with the same girl.  They were both princes of the same kingdom, and the fact that determined who the ruler would be, was whose head came out of the womb first.  One of the two princes was a man of the people, the while the other prince exploited all the privileges of his noble position--and then some (that is, he was very abusive).  The cruel prince already had a wife--but he took the paramour on as an unwilling mistress.  She was obliged to be his mistress, from an obligation or debt that her father had to the cruel prince.  Once their father, the king died, the cruel prince imprisoned his twin brother, and focused all his attention upon his mistress (much to the dismay of his wife).  The mistress was not in love with the cruel king--but she had to do as he said, otherwise her father's life might be in jeopardy.   But when the cruel king made advances, but she slapped him.  The cruel king said to his cohorts,  'I don't know what is that makes me want her so.  The more she spurs me, the more I want her so!'  And that behavior describes exactly how we Blacks in America, behave in the face of "the evil prince."  The more the society spurs us, the more we try to show  America how wrong they are about us, rather than establish the ways and means of our own survival. 

I know some of my Christian family were raised up with the concept to love your enemies--but when I look at all the senselessness of lives lost in gang war, I can only come to one conclusion: We do not love each other like we should, so we continue to play this game.  Why else would be care so much about what Whites think concerning our people, and not enough when it comes to what our people think about ourselves?  Maybe it's because we feel we would receive more gold for our labor than we would with Blacks. . .Why else would we not strive to prove our greatness to ourselves?

During the 40's and 50's, when segregation was at its' highest, we were much more confident to trust in a Black man to provide services to our community, than we are today.  We had much more of a belief in each other to provide for each other.  But this was largely due to the fact that our backs were against the wall and the choices were limited.  Whites were not doing much trading with our kind.  As soon as the flood gates were open--that is, the Kennedy Administration ushered in desegregation--more Blacks were willing to trust Whites to treat them fairly and do a better job, than they were willing to trust their own.  I don't know why, given the prior history.  This has always been an enigma to me, because prior to desegregation, there was segregation, reconstruction, and slavery--as well as the larger population of our people originally migrating from the rural south (so we should have known better).

I learned what part of the problem was, after my person became more conscious of myself and the plight of our people.  My father was incarnated (appeared in the flesh) in 1922, my mother in 1933.  Both parents were from the Carolinas--whose chief export was rice and cotton.  The southern states  were where the essence of slavery existed.  Both parents came up North seeking better wages and an escape from THAT PART of Southern tradition (Jim Crow aspects).  On my mother's side, the woman known to my mother as grandmother, would had definitely experienced reconstruction--if not slavery itself!  My mother told stories of her mother picking cotton, so I'm am sure there plenty of eyewitness stories to be told of the period.  My great, great grandmother was killed by her slave owner, for not giving into his demands.  Her daughter, after witnessing this horrific act, conceded to the slave masters sexual desires, and later gave birth to my grandfather.  When I confronted my mother over why more of these experiences or chronology were not passed down to us by her, she replied, "I was afraid it would have only made my children bitter and possibly resulted in lynching.  I didn't want to lose any of my children."  And from her tone and posture, I got the impression that she believed there wasn't much that could have been done about this behavior:  After all, we represent less than 20% of the American population.  Though I could understand my mother's sentiment, valuable information, chronology, legacy and tradition was not handed down!

The difficulty with not handing down the chronology, legacy and tradition is--despite one's fears, the overall picture gets clouded.  The person sees the circumstance, but they may not have a clear mental picture of how things got to be that way.  Often, when parents break up and the children are of the pre-adolescent or adolescent age, they usually blame themselves for the break up--because they don't know the factors at play here!  In many cases, their egos, self-esteem, etc., become greatly impaired--because the conditions suck.  These same sort of things happen when those who were slaves in our family, do not pass all of their experiences down to their children: They won't accurately know who or what caused these things to happen (a.k.a. what made circumstances this way), and may begin to think of themselves as the causative factor.  They begin to think of themselves as not being good enough.  They curse themselves for having humble beginnings.  This is called, "Blaming the victim," especially where the victim blames him or herself, because they are taking the responsibility no further than themselves.  In these cases, the victim also believes those of their kind couldn't possible be any better than them--and thus starts a whole bunch of hateful and subconscious disrespectful treatment towards themselves their people.  This was the cause of neighborhood graffiti, broken glass on the street, your momma jokes, and a whole bunch of appearance jokes. . .  It's the classic "I'm not Ok, you're not Ok" syndrome.  There are many other scenarios which has slavery as the basis for them, but time nor space will allow for the elaboration.  Suffice it to say, a lot of our dysfunction can be traced back to what a few of us call "Post-traumatic Slave Syndrome." 

Everyone knows that the grass looks greener (and it may be), but we will not have ownership, if we keep depending on others to employ us; or if we keep forcing concessions, due to a White guilty conscious.  All we really need from them is noninterference  and equal opportunity; especially in the areas of education.  Since White Americans are reluctant to repatriate our people--how about a couple of generations of free college education?  I'm sure we could improve our outlook, if we were more knowledgeable and could see what's out there waiting for us--but more importantly, we have to change our attitudes towards ourselves.  That is the most herculean of the tasks that lie ahead for us.  For when Marcus Garvey learned the truth, and looked at the condition of Black folks in his day, the mighty Universal Negro Improvement Association (or U.N.I.A.) was formed; which is the basis of all Black power movements in this country.  When Jesse Owens learned the truth, he smashed all records and became a legend for the world to see.  Booker T Washington was spectacular after his education--but the birth of the Tuskegee Airmen from his college was even more so.  Yet Black collaboration is a slow grind, because we can think of 15 million reasons why it won't work, as opposed to why it will.  And that, my friends, is ironic--because we have refuted most of what Whites have to say about Blacks; but the tougher cookie to crack is the negative opinions we have about ourselves.

Far too often, we have let religious differences and self hatred interfere with our impressions we have concerning one another.  Taking advantage of becoming aware is not a top priority.  We buy fancy cars and clothes--but we don't make our health and welfare our priority.  We will accept those conditions, far too easily--whereas our counterparts are most reluctant to take on a job without good health benefits.  When I look at the overall American society, I can see improvements in diet, health choices in Fast Food Restaurants, health treatment, etc.  When I look at Black people's approaches to the same subject, I basically see arrested development.  We have got to take ourselves more seriously.  Instead of putting so much time and effort into convincing others, let's roll up our selves and start convincing ourselves.  You can't make White America love you, but if you are sincere, you can learn to love yourself!*

Now, I'm not telling you to take on non-believers: i.e. people who do not have a positive opinion of Black people (I know that's a harder nut to crack); what I'm saying is--talk to each other.  See if you have some things in common.  Nobody's perfect.  If you find that their basic character is generally in the right place, try to work with it: Play down the religious  and philosophical differences: Most people believe their "prosthetic" is best for them and others, otherwise they wouldn't be rocking that religion.  Leave that settlement, for after we build our monuments.  Besides, anything religion that doesn't teach you, how to treat your brothers and sisters the way you want to be treated--is not a religion that will work for building Black confidence.  Despite some of our ugliness, in essence, we are really beautiful people.  Let's strive to gather the beauty together and embrace that first.  Then, after we have enough love, we can go after our other demons.  After all, 458 years of ill-treatment, is bound to create some obstacles in our own Black minds. . .  It's hard to stay positive, when you're incarcerated.  But if you look at our representation in the Hall of Fame, Science and Industry, and amongst areas of notoriety, you'll see we far exceed our less than 20% representation of the American population.  Now, if we can pool these resources towards the betterment of our inner-city youth and the aim of Black excellence and better self esteem. . .  You got me?

"Don't let them get the best. . ."

Once Again, Peace and Blessings,






C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers

Minority Report

                               Minority Report

Sometimes I wonder, when I speak to my own people, how they acquired the perspective they have:  What type of thinking went into their thought processes, and how much in keeping that is with what is real.  Sometimes, it appears that our people (more than any other people) want to be color blind.  They seem (for some reason) to want to be colorless and now sexless--almost androgynous (like the girls in the Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love"video)--right along with the rest of Western American and European society.  This involves not all of Blacks in America--but a majority of highly functional, legal working, entrepreneurial, sophisticated, multi-racial, multi-cultural ones.

To a degree, I can understand the considerations. . .  However, my persons can't agree with their conclusions.  It starts out with the fact that we are in America--outnumbered and dysfunctional; without adequate knowledge of the place we were abducted from; in need of making a living by working for the children of our former abductors or the mainstream of American society.  We adopted much of their ways--right down to playing down the fact that it's America's posture that has relegated us to an inferior position within their society.  Each time we turn on the TV, we take a big gulp of Western Blue Kool-Aid.  We drink it consciously and sub-consciously and talk about how independent we are.  

It's understandable (to a degree) that we might be so focus on survival--otherwise, starvation and death would come soon; but I do remember a White American patriot by the name of Patrick Henry who said, "Give me liberty or give me death."  That kind of talking sounds rather final, does it?  But it says that, somethings are not up (or open) for negotiation.  As the Last Poets once said: "Blessed are those who struggle, Oppression is worst than the grave, better to die for a noble cause--than to live and die a slave!"

We have been described as, "Slaves of mental death and power: People who do not know who the true and living God is, or our origin in this world, and worship that we know not."  I am almost sure that most of my Black readership would disagree.  We have been also described as a very religious people, and very emotional people--despite our 458 year sojourn amongst the dominant culture and race of America (doing things in THE AMERICAN way).  This is an inconsistent statement with what we what we want to believe about ourselves or what we see in society--however magicians and charlatans have been know to deceive the masses.  Alot of us go to the church, mosque, temple, and synagogue to worship god.  Many of us belong to Ashrams, and study Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism, right along side many races and nationalities.  Some of us even worship as the Native Americans do. . .

However, careful analysis reveals that a lot of us are "culturally bilingual."  We say one thing and do another today: A lot of us have one foot within religious ways and the other in Western secular life--worshipping a God taught to us, as far back as slavery--featuring a God which is not indigenous to the homelands we came from, nor practiced in the way of the ones who originated that God: it is the Western man's "swing on things."  Very few of these religious perspectives reflect the indigeous Black point of view.  There are patches of Black people in America practicing Yoruba culture, Akan, and Ashanti--but they are in the minority--not the majority.  Many of those Blacks who are practicing these cultures--not in the way of their ancestors, but in the ways of the New World people (practices which are derived from the New World experience, while attempting to live traditional ways).  Many of the colors on these Gods are reflective of the peoples they came from, or the people who originated that style of worship--but definitely not Black.  However, in the Philippines, there is a worship of the Black baby Jesus--due to the indigenous Negritos, who are in essence, Black Chinese (although many of them are Muslim).

The slave part is comprehendable.  Mental death is indicative of the politics of our people practiced during the Jim Crow/Black Code/"Separate but Equal" time period in America history: Instead of choosing the continued autonomy forced upon us (colored only) and soliciting for human rights--the majority of our people chose civil rights (desegregation) with a type of people who clearly projected a belief in Black inferiority as a way of life.  In the "Liberty or death" statement, made by Patrick Henry, Blacks in America didn't choose liberty--they chose to defined themselves in other peoples' terms; soliciting to become part of the new American people--then trying to redefine their opinion of us.  If it is true  that 'God made man in His own image and similitude,' then most Blacks in America do not worship a Creator that looks like them; they worship a God whose people are European-like--the same people who obliterated Hebrew text and recreated a story in English of European-like Biblical entities (all of a sudden Jesus has sand brown hair, beard and white skin); in essence, rewriting Hebrew legacy  into Biblical text; by recreating the text heroic figures and naming their children after them.  And in this world that the Europeans created called the New World or America, Blacks are named minorities by the children of European descent!

I find it ironic, that we Blacks have allowed this monicker to be attached to us, without protest.  Not because of not the being the smaller number in the American population--but because those who are fighting for alternative sexual preference are also considered by the same name as well.  Now, don't get me wrong--I am not debating whether these human beings are entitled to the same human rights as heterosexual beings (barring those of various religious beliefs)--surely they should be entitled to every civil right as well as any human being (if they have citizenship): What I am saying in essence is, we the people who were stripped of our cultural and national heritage, a people with a lineage no longer traceable to a homeland of specific origin; a people without a country of original origin; those fighting to be properly identified as one people and accepted as American citizens--should not be considered with the same moniker (name) as those who are looking to be treated fairly after choosing to be with others or the same gender sexually or both genders, in a way that mainstream American society previously frowned upon.  Besides, I don't know if you can properly consider those who choose alternative lifestyles, as minorities anyway.* [further elaborated below].

Sex and Race are two entirely different issues, and should be considered separately anyway.  If you are Black and straight, you do not stop being Black; and subsequently, if you are Black and have a preference for being with persons of the same sex, or both men and women, that doesn't change your color either.  They are separate categories.  However, you can be discriminated against because of  your sexual choice, or you can be discriminated against because of the color of your skin.  You can be discriminated against because of color, and not even recognized according to sexual preference (unless you announce it).  Your sexual preference could possibly go by completely unnoticed, unless you show it.*  On the other hand, despite make-up, lies, bleaching agents, amalgamated (mixed) ratios and/or percentages there of, it's a little harder to camouflage or hide race--as opposed to gender: Certain physical features make it a little bit harder to hide, and certain ethnicities and pigmentations are a little harder to erase (despite the self-hatred involved in this process).  Also consider this: sexual preferences crosses all racial and class lines; a people's racial, national, and ethnic issues are a subject of an entirely different nature and cannot be easily crossed (like in Sarajevo for example).

The word "minority," in the Oxford Dictionaries, has been defined as, "The smaller number or part, especially a number or part representing less than half of the whole: a small group of people within a community or country, differing from the main population in race, religion, language, or political persuasion:ethnic minorities [as modifier]:minority rights."  I've always found this term, "minority," problematic, as used in America, simply because the population of American women--who represent somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths of the American population--are considered "minorities" in America.  Maybe the American lawmakers are dealing with the root of the word--Minor: "lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance; as in, she requested a number of minor alterations."  This perspective seems to suggest that a ruling class of European descendants are in charge of the New World (White Anglo Saxon Protestant of the New England states), and are defining the issues of Blacks in America as lesser or minority issues, and mainstream population issues and majority issues.

My issue is, how can American legislation lump the destiny of a total group of people, being  responsible for obliterating their heritage, with the issues surrounding a backlash for not choosing what religious groups and others deem as sexually appropriate?  If the thinking employed is that Blacks are less than twenty percent of the American population, and therefore should be considered a minority, along with immigrants--then the same cannot be said of homosexuality, bisexuality and lesbianism.  Race and sexuality are two different things.  First of all, you cannot count the amount of alternative lifestyle participants--if those who are part of it, do not want: Many are still in "the closet," so to speak, and will not "come out" unless they feel the conditions are secure, right, or advantageous.  The discrimination between Blacks and sexual preference is totally different: With racism, one is discriminated against, based upon the skin color that their body or vessel was made with--as opposed to a conscious choice that one makes to follow their sensibilities concerning sexual preference, and the consequences that pursue.       

*Homosexuality, bisexuality, and lesbianism crosses all lines: ethnic, race, class and gender: a.k.a., it tranverse all human categories.  Now if we look at these things individually, it might be possible to say that this sexual issue only covers a portion of the total population within each category (and therefore classified as a minority), but if we add up all of the people in these categories, the sum total maybe something quite bigger: For example, most football agents get 35% of what they get their clients are reward, and one may think that the client gets the lion's share--but if you consider who's makes the most--client or agent--the answer is quite different.  Drew Rosenhaus is the negotiating agent for the likes of Santana Moss, Chad Johnson, Willis Mc Gahee and Anquan Boldin--individually he takes the minor portion of each deal, but collectively he is the richest of them all (and doesn't even have to have half of the wear and tear on his body).  Oh, by the way, in the 2000s, Drew was reported to have 79 clients on 26 NFL teams. . .  These number games can be quite deceptive (but concerning gender and alternative lifestyles, definitely not numbers one should call a minority).

There are quite a few rich human beings who live an alternative lifestyle.  Vice president, Dick Cheney (under the George W. Bush presidency) has a daughter, Mary Cheney, who married her longtime partner, Heather Poe, in 2012.  Cher's daughter, Chastity, has transition from female to male, Chaz.  Many famous artists and entertainers have similar issues.  When I went to art school in the 1970s, it was a 40/60 situation for us heterosexuals attending the school.  My point is, the sum is bigger than its' parts, and it also has a lot of rich, influential members--including some powerful activists--to effectively further their cause without in-house discrimination: and this makes it more imperative that we not share the same type of minority status.  Not because I am homophobic--far to the contrary; it is because sex and race are two different subjects and by subject the deck is quite uneven.  For example, if one needs to hire a minority, does one hire a Black male, Black female, Black homosexual, Black lesbian or Black bisexual?   Since both are currently considered minorities, is the Black male a minority, White homosexual a minority, Black woman a double minority, Black homosexual a double minority, White lesbian a double monority, when they are out of the closet?  How about a homosexual Indian male or Jew?  So it is quite conceivable to reach minority quotas in this case, without ever hiring a Black?  Now do you see my point about unevenness?

Our race discrimination issue is a totally separate issue (destiny, heritage, auto-determination), and needs to be defined separately from sexual orientation issues.  I realize that all of this is minority issues to mainstream White America, but part of this sexual ambivalence is quite evident within the cultural  tradition of Whites, whereas the equality with human beings of other colors is not:  An ancient Roman soldier, or many modern day Englishmen, does not consider himself homosexual--if he is doing the penetration, for example.  This ideology is quite different from how I was raised.  Bisexuality is more openly embraced in English society, than in the States.  In the film "Cabaret" and "Victor/Victoria," one begins to see, during the Nazi period of Germany, alternative sexual preference was running concurrently.  In new films today, they are depicting that Viking life as including these type of things as well.  You also have to consider, that the alternative lifestyle minority includes a portion of White people as well.  You can expect a lot more sympathy simply because of that.  But one can't claim discrimination, sexual or otherwise, unless one stops being clandestine and make it known to the heterosexual world that they are--then you can make claims and exertions--with race it is ipso facto.

In closing, as I opened, I hope they get their freedom and rights within American society, like all human beings should, whether or not I agree with their lifestyle or not.  I just never thought that our struggle with racial discrimination and sexual freedom and/or alternative lifestyle struggles should have the same classification--nor it be considered the same way--because they are different issues and demand different actions.  If there are those within my audience who are political activists, this is a noble cause to work towards:  The reclassification of our political reference into something more phenotypical to our struggles--other than the word "minority," which we share with a host of other issues America would rather not deal with.

Peace & Blessings,

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers
    

 

THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS

I just watched a movie by Robert Townsend called, "Phantom Punch," a docu-drama on Sonny Liston--written by Ryan Combs, directed by Robert Townsend.  Here's a history on a Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World, on which little is known--and whose end occurred under very mysterious circumstances.  He came out of the streets, a little rough around the edges (like many us--the ones that they love to hate), to become on of the fiercest boxers this world has ever known!  I strongly suggest that you see it, because it is part of our legacy--one which brings home the political side of boxing: that is, its promoters and their affiliations.

     Through watching this film, I was able to discover how, despite your "God given talent," there are many other factors which go into making your success.  In the case of Sonny Liston, it was the Mafia and Liston's talent, versus Liston's troubled past.  Far too often, all three factors play a part in the Black athlete's/ artist/actor's life--his/her joy and pain and/or their demise. Very often, talent comes from the most disadvantaged areas of our community, and assistance may come from an outside source in order to help   promote it.  Disadvantages often places people in compromising positions--some make the appropriate decisions and some don't; often weighing their soul down or leaving themselves open to exploitation and dead ends.

   Promotion doesn't have to be from outside of our own community or ethnicity--but very often it does.  And when this happens, the phenomena raises several issues:  Chief amongst the issues, "Why don't their own people provide the type of assistance that our type of talent needs?"  If the talent comes from an impoverished area, its' hard to find people who can provide the necessary help, but poverty's not the only reason, however.  The community may be able to throw fund raisers and support all his/her affairs en masse--but nothing more.  There will be some from the area, who will hate its own talented members, simply because they believe their talented think they are better than they are.  Then, amongst us, there are those of us who have bought into the idea that we are a cursed people, and therefore don't believe in other Black folks--always finding something bad to say about everyone who came from their environment--especially if they're on their way to being successful.  The next significant question will probably be, "So why won't the more wealthier, affluential folks of the Black community support the talent of their own ethnicity?"

   This answer would take volumes to explain, but the practice of having another ethnic group managing and sponsoring our own Black talent often puts us in a vicarious situation: One in which their talent alone, may not ensure the progress of our people, due to all the elements present.  Suffice it to say, that amongst our own affluential groups there's a certain amount of disconnect between them and the other classes of our people: one that has its roots in trying to move away from the pain associated with fitting into American mainstream society.  The efforts by those who achieve some modicum of success are individualistic, and are not socially responsible acts from those who achieve it.  They do not perceive as Frederick Douglass did--that the efforts made by individuals is like a pay off; rendering their singular moves ineffective.  It is called tokenism, because a handful achieve a modicum of success, while the masses, with their ethnicity and culture, does not advance.  When others outside of our group becomes culturally responsible for our people's talent (as in sports, entertainment, and the arts, etc.), advancement becomes a dependency based upon others outside of one's ethnicity, social group, and intimate circles. This means the situation becomes something not only based upon managing talent, but indirectly manipulating our ability to control our destiny.  This difference between races creates a certain amount of unfamiliarity, due to cultural, customs, classes, economic, and/or ethnic/race differences.  And although the aspect of managing, promoting and producing exotic talent may not always manifest as "organized crime promoting a prize fighter," as in the case of Sonny Liston--there are many factors which play their part in the success and/or failure of a talented person; one which can have nothing to do with the athlete's ability; factors which should be modified or eradicated as soon as  possible.

    Let's take the game of professional football:

   How about the NFL East and the Philadelphia Eagles?

   The Eagles have had several Black quarterbacks on their team over the years:  There's Randall Cunningham ('87), Don McPhearson ('88) (non-starter), Rodney Peete ('95) (non-starter), Donovan Mc Nabb ('99), Jeff Blake ('04) (non-starter),  Michael Vick (2010).  This ratio between starting Black quarterbacks and non-starters on the Philadelphia Eagles--sort of mimics the way it is for Black quarterbacks all over the NFL.

   As a matter of fact, there has been steadily increasing amount of starting Black quarterbacks, since the NFL inception:  There's Marlin Briscoe ('69), Joe Gilliam ('74),  Vince Evans, Doug Williams ('78),  Warren Moon ('84), Kordell Steward ('97) eras.  Yet very few of these Black quarterbacks ever get to consistently play--or stay--in the league. Right now, there's only 6 Black starters over 32 teams in the NFL. Yet despite their often outstanding, spectacularly mobile plays and wealth of talent--many Black quarterbacks seem to flounder an awful lot--as they vie for the NFL's number one spot: The leader of the offense.

   Amongst the talented Black quarterbacks out there, there's Steve McNair ('95), Charlie Batch ('98), Shaun King ('99), Aaron Brooks ('99), Daunte Culpepper ('99),  Akili Smith ('99), Quincy Carter ('01), Michael Vick ('01), Byron Leftwich ('03), Seneca Wallace ('03), David Garrard ('04), Jason Campbell ('05), Tavaris Jackson ('06), Vince Young ('06), Jamarcus Russell ('08), Cam Newton ('11),  Russell Wilson ('12), and Robert Griffin III (2012).  These are the creme de La creme of the NFL College Draft, usually canvased amongst the top ten.  Now bear in mind, there are many colleges in America who have football teams, whose players never see hyde nor hair of the draft.  These players represent some of the National Football League's most talented athletes in the game of football--yet for most of them, their careers usually become short-lived--eventually floundering from the doubts of public opinion, the media, then casted into oblivion; not lasting half as long as lesser talent amongst their White counterparts in the league.  The most recent addition to this casualty list is Donavon McNabb.

   But these quarterbacks above are just the ones we've seen on the TV screen.  In 2011, there were only six Black quarterbacks starting for the NFL; down from eight starters in the 2008 season.  In my years of watching, I thought knew a lot about football, the Black quarterback, and what's going on in the NFL--but I see I was sadly mistaken.  There's a lot more Black quarterbacks in the NFL than I knew about.  Actually, there are a substantial amount of Black quarterbacks within the NFL, who were selected in the NFL draft--yet few of us never, ever seen them.

   That means talented players purchased, but never utilized: Shelved greatness. Wasted talent.  Amongst the vintage there's James Harris of Buff. ('68),  Mr. Eldridge Dickey of Oak. ('68),  Tony Robinson of Wash. ('87), Andre Ware ('90) Det., Anthony Wright ('99) Pitt., Cleo Lemon ('02) Balt.,  Shane Boyd ('05) Tenn., Quinn Gray ('05) Jack., and DJ Shockley ('06) Atl.,  Then there's Brad Smith ('06) Buff., Darrell Hackney ('06) Clev., Troy Smith,('07) Balt., Pat White ('09) Mia., Josh Freeman ('09)  Tampa, Dennis Dixon ('09) Pitt..  Also Joe Webb ('10) Min., Terrell Pryor ('11) Oak., and Tyrod Taylor ('11). This may seem like a lot, but not when you consider that, in 2011 over 65% of all starting college quarterbacks were Black!  So once again, why aren't there more Black quarterbacks starting in the NFL?!

Why is that?

   Before I go in, let me state this first:  When you pay for someone to work for you, you are entitled to get your money's worth.  Meaning, if you are going to spend the money to get the right talent, you have every right to expect to get what you pay for.  In the West, the Golden Rule is this: "He who has the Gold makes the Rules!"  If you don't like these politics, start your own game and make your own rules!  Even more succinct and direct to the point, is the quote from Gary Bartz that I included in my article "Growing Up As A People" Part II: "I say bluntly that you have had a generation of Africans (Central Asians) that actually believe that you can negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and eventually get some kind of independence.  But you are getting a new generation that has been growing right now, that are beginning to think with their own minds, and see that you can't negotiate up on freedom nowadays.  If something is yours by right, then fight for it or shut up.  If you can't fight for it, then forget it." -- excerpts from "The Warrior's Song.

   

   When a man pays for something, he does so, knowing full well what he wants--and wanting what he asks for!  He does not want to get only what you're willing to give him. . .  It's audacious to tell the person whom you work for, how you think the game should be conducted, or how you want to do things--particularly when he's paying you the salary to have it done specifically his way!  That's like telling a person, whose paying your salary, how to spend his/or her money!  Did you buy it?  Is it yours?  If not, then don't freak with it!  As mom Dukes use to say, "I'm not begging and crying--I'm begging and buying!"  Some of us come into an organization, wanting to tell the person we work for, what we want, how we want, and where we want; without being asked for our opinion (as, unfortunately, is the case with Allen Iverson).  This is not only presumptuous, but very immature--not to mention foolhardy.  It is the promoter's show!  By right, the promoter should get what he paid for.  You may attempt to persuade him, when you are negotiating your contract, but ultimately it is the one who produces who has to be rewarded on his investment or there will be no deal.   And if he knows what he wants and you are receiving  money to provide it, you should expect to do it that way--that's just being a good businessman!  Nothing personal.  If you want to be sentimental and do what you like--say that up front, and see how far that gets you.  See who he would recommend you to.  Cooperation is the name of the game; either that, or get your own.  After all, no one is indispensable.

   America is the world that the disgruntled, risk-taking, entrepreneurial Europeans made or created for themselves!  They came here to colonize and bring back riches to the many European royal companies who made the trip possible (like Queen Isabella of Spain).  When we talk about American team sports and their owners, we are talking about a microcosm of a macrocosm. This land is made--not for you and me--but for the European nations who came to colonize it!  That's just the way it is.

That's just the way it is.

   In the case of American Football, the NFL is a league proliferated with rich American team owners of European ancestry, purchasing players to play for their respectable teams.  They have their ways, ethnicities, social behavior, traditions, proclivities and idiosyncrasies.  The owners are a social class of businessmen and women which pay the salary of the coaches, managers and general managers, medical personnel, trainers, pays taxes and some times luxury tax; sometimes purchasing arenas (with box areas for their elite to view their team like royalty).  With all of this outlay, you should know that he/or she obviously expect to get what they pay for.  Many under bid, just for the opportunity. They buy whatever they want, as long as they present the terms and they are ethical (as far as their country is concerned);  and sometimes not even then. They have the right to say what they want, and our talent has the right to refuse and/or start their own (but most don't).

   I could have said, "There are rich, White NFL team owners, who are drafting players for their teams, or employing players for their teams"--but I don't think that statement properly reflects the true experiences:  These players are like Roman gladiators, or like Christians in the den with lions in the coliseum.  In many, many ways, working for someone outside your own ethnic group, is like indentured servitude or slavery.  The reason being is, because these situations bring about the highest opportunity for unethical conditions to occur underneath the surface of business/employment transactions.  America (during the 1850s) had children way under 15 years of age, holding down adult jobs in the states. Children worked around dangerous equipment, for long hours and without being required to go to school.  It took until the 1900s, before the American Labor Laws evolved enough make things fair and ethical.  But employers expect to  determine the terms of your employment with the company (the company policy or employee handbook).  In other words, their expectations are specified in the employee handbook, and when you violate those terms--they have grounds to terminate your employment.  Simple as that!  If you enter into this arrangement, this is what you should expect.  Yes, employees have rights and slaves don't--but in terms of the employer's rules--there is no difference (unless the expectations are unconstitutional).

    When a person plays Madden Football (a sports video game), they pick the available players according to their featured ability.  The same goes with playing the game of chess: When a person plays chess, they select the type of piece or pieces that are most capable of performing the types of moves that fit the strategy he or she wants; right down to the type of protective capability needed--to secure the areas that are captured for that person's side.  But (as in real life), the owner, or one who put these things together, is the ultimate controller and mastermind--and the team follows his philosophy; they are his tools.  Just in case you haven't noticed, during free-agency or at the termination of a contract, when players are traded, or go to other teams--players judge their words very carefully--knowing their situation is very precarious: Therefore, they do not want to offend the rich owners who belong to the league (which is the same as it is with Blacks, other non-Whites, and the European nations within the League of Nations). . . Because if he offends a member of the league, it is  a good chance that he  will never play professional sports again: a.k.a., you better recognize on which side your bread is buttered.

   Football is a game, where the owners purchase the players necessary to carry out their designs--that is, according to their team's type of warfare.  In this respect, the owner is hiring servants to play "his game of football" for him.  It is like the army, in the sense that he doesn't want them to think for him, just follow instructions.  He picks "his players" to play in the NFL, which is a football league that is mainly owned by (as far as I know) White owners, which play against other White owners.  These owners select coaches which will carry out "their type" of game and guide that team according to the owner's style (otherwise he fires them).  This is the way of  the NFL: Their game and their rules.  If we play in this game and they pay us to perform, we will have to play by those rules, if we want to play the game at all (and stay in their company and the league).  If "this game" is your type of "game," and their type of game meets with your approval, then there is no conflict (at least from your point of view).  If you are playing the game just to get paid (or get what THEY got), and you don't care about how your actions effects others of your ethnicity or group--or whether or whether not  it compromises your values; then most people would have call you would have been considered a prostitute or a "sell-out," back in the day.

    In America, during the Segregated Period, Blacks wouldn't have had even the chance to play in these games, whether they wanted to or not! Sort of like the Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer story, if you don't object to the fiction. . .  Back in those days, there were Black and White leagues; and never did the two mix--except for the "Exhibition Games," where the Blacks would usually win.  During those times, we had a league of our own and they had theirs.  Yes they played with the same rules but the owners were black: There were no players trying to negotiate with a people they had little in common with.  The ethnicity was the same.  For example, in Baseball--their was The Negro Leagues.  The Negro League had referees, penalties to regulate the game, coaches to spearhead the game, and fans to give public opinion--and they were all Black.  It was the Blackman's idea of himself in major league baseball.  In Kwanzaa, this principle is called Kujichakalia or self determination.  The right define things according to your standards (similar to autonomy and determination: the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government).  Now just imagine a town where the mayor, the banker and the businesses were all Black. . .  Children could aspire to do the job their parents did one day--hired by people who had the same or similar cultural ethnicity or similar values.  So many things could have been done with this type of scenario--if we had gone the way of fighting for human rights, instead of civil rights.  But people often hanker for things denied to them. . .

   Of all the ways represented in the struggles for Black power in the 1960s, it is the struggle for civil rights which created the current scenarios we live under today (both societies are united under the rule of those of European descent). . .  This was the consequence of having chosen civil rights (having rights within a single society) overtop of human rights (being viewed equally; as a man or woman because they are both human being for example). Civil rights are the rights of citizenship versus the struggle to recapture our culture and self identity, as a group of people living amongst other ethnicities within the wilderness of North America.  Before the Civil War, the North took advantage of the South's raw materials; the South seceded, and the North won the war.  The result was both reunited under the jurisdiction of the North: something the South still does not accept (many still fly the Confederate flag in protest).

    Choosing another people's ways, instead of establishing our own in North America, has left us dependent upon that same culture for direction and/or distinction.  Somethings--like freedom--is non negotiable at any sum of money or any acquisition.  I hope you get this story's allegory--metaphor, innuendo, implication and point.  The ones who used to own some of us, now judge us--according to how well we play the game!  In America--for example--you can only object within the guidelines of being a team player or citizen (civil rights), but not according to certain ethnicities being persecuted and discriminated against, within a country (human rights), like the Bosnian conflicts (known as the Bosnian war).  At least, there would have been more economic and political control once the United Nations or League of Nations helped to resolve the conflict. . .  We rely on them to "get it together," but it's their game, and their code, their rules; when you are playing as an America.  Don't like it? Then work with your own to make alternatives. . .

What does this all mean?

   What I think we, as Blacks in America have the tendency to do, is forget the reason why most Blacks live in America to begin with.  Since most of us do not know, what particular land we came from within Central Asia, most of us do not have a particular identification to a nation, country, or culture within the motherland.  Nor do many of us have a sense of being so-called "Afro-centric" (African/Central Asian-centered), or living a Afrocentric perspective--one which would gather our ethnicity and traditions together.  Most of us identify to the ways, culture and customs of those who held us captive--those who made us slaved for them for free.  Some of us think that all of that is in the past, and it's ok to embrace an American lifestyle, and assimilate American ways; a.k.a. just fit in: Forget about our previous lineage, heritage and culture.  Many believe that the original terms of servitude made for Blacks--propagated by the slave master's mentality--would not have an impact on the current day's assessment of us by Whites in America. A lot believe that the past has nothing to do with White's ability (those of European descent) to act with racial equality towards all non-White people in America. Well, it would be very hard to prove, or disprove their ill-conceived contempt--beyond all this appearance of political correctness, a.k.a. camouflaged opinions.  That is just another form of diplomacy and political control, while keeping your real feelings to yourself.  Yes, there has been some advancements since the slavery of the Blackman in America: Yes, there has been some advancements for Blacks, above of what Blacks had in the 1960s--but it's not commensurate to the same type of freedom, justice, and equality, Whites in America enjoy today.  It is not equally proportional (if so, let me have your half--LoL).

   Gary Bartz was onto something, when he said:  "There are a generation of Africans [which live in America a.k.a. Central Asians] which actually believe that you can negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and eventually get some kind of independence." These types of Blacks in America are barking up the wrong tree.  Many of us feel that we can plea to the White man in  America sense of sensibility, or play the game of semantics with their auxiliary of spin doctors.  That philosophy is dead; Whites are not there:  They want it all, and the best of it all   Most of them will only relent, when forced to.  Its tough being a Black quarterback (leader) amongst American owners of European descent.
  

How did things get here?

   When we were bought over here from the Central Asian part of the Asian continent, we were not pilgrims, like the Europeans (West Asians) were.  We were brought here by the English, to work on the land the colonists took, as their servants: First as indentured servants--then as a permanent work force for life (as their slaves); or free labor for the benefit of White slave owners.  Not all Europeans were slave owners but they all were colonizers.  Eventually the English were able to take over America from the rest of their European neighbors (European colonists).  America became an English colony which was free of English religious persecution (despite the fact that there were natives here before they colonized it).  In other words, the colonists stole this land from the original inhabitants.  This his*story, is something we learned in American schools--but in a much more palpable manner:  None of these European colonists had no intention of sharing their world with the natives who owned the land, or the Blacks who helped build it.  In Bermuda, the English colonists (rather than worry about giving each servant land to live on after tenure), simply worked "their slaves" to death, then replaced them with new ones (to then face the same fate).

  These European descendants had no intention of having to deal with Blacks as equals--nor did the ones in America:  Blacks were considered of an inferior, menial class, and definitely not equal to Whites--in their eyes.  The rules may appear different today, but who knows what goes on behind closed doors? Maybe the law enforcers feel the same way, but they know better than to speak about it.  Diplomacy is the best policy in American society.  Who knows what each of American "thinks" individually?  In America, there is a big thing about being politically correct; while hiding one's true intent under their cap.  Under this premise, who can make sure proper conduct is reinforced?  What invisible, clandestine forces are at work here?  Many people died in the Revolutionary war, but the lodge says none of them were Masons.  Did you know that during the Revolutionary War, both the noble and the working class Masons wore their regalia while in battle?  Did you know that they would only capture (not murder) a fellow Mason during war?  Maybe we should ask Mr. Albert Pike. . .

   It wasn't just that Blacks were made enslaved to work in America, but America made laws to regulate the slave trade, distribution, determine the rights and jurisdiction concerning Blacks.  It is a known fact  America allowed it, otherwise those who had slaves and participated in those deeds, would have been performing an illegal act.  Indeed, America institutionalized slavery, right down to her woven American fabric; indirectly indoctrinating White Americans with the notion of inferiority of the Black people and Superiority of Whites.  This is the under-current of American society of European descent.  Needless to say, although many Whites will not say it out of political incorrectness, it should come as no surprise that many Whites feel this way about Blacks--simply because it has been ingrained into their psyche over time; custom and tradition.  Anyone disagreeing with this perspective, only need to Google "America's legal position concerning slave rights," or read the conclusion of the judge concerning the Dred Scott case.      

   We Blacks in America did not win our freedom from rebellion: we won freedom en masse at the hands of Frederick Douglass' negotiations with President Abraham Lincoln.  Douglass promised that Black freemen and slaves would fight on the side of the Union (even though combat pay was tardy and unequal to that of Whites), to defeat the Confederate South and reunite the country in exchange for the freedom of Blacks.  As a result of the war effort  by Blacks, the Union won the Civil War.  And as promised, Lincoln freed Blacks from physical bondage by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.  But Emancipation Proclamation did not repatriate Blacks, neither did America give monetary assistance to our people; America did not attempt to remove the psychological scars of slavery:  Lincoln merely set our people free, without cash or in lieu of.  This too, might of happened because Lincoln himself was engrained with the idea of Black inferiority and therefore would only go but so far. . .

   Since most Whites already controlled the land now, and the general view was that Blacks are an inferior menial class--the government acted as if these things were true, and did nothing to alter that opinion or view, until Black protest provided political pressure.  The government and its' succession of presidents after Lincoln, never attempted to remove any of these stereotypes until the Black Power/ Civil Rights Struggles of the 1960s--someone hundred years later.  Many Whites were quite content in that role for us--wanting us to "stay in our place."  As said earlier, this was not going to change unless Whites were forced to change it.  However, the Whites who were against it received great pressure from ones who were!  I might add that I heard by personal account (voice recordings of Malcolm's speeches), Malcolm X was never an advocate for Civil Rights.  Malcolm insisted that Black people should for petition the League of Nations for the human rights of Black people within America.  He saw autonomy and self development to be the best route for us as a people.  We were enslaved here for three hundred thirteen years (1865) without any money, then release without an ounce of education, financial assistance, while being segregated against; calling it "separate but equal" circumstance.

   Our ancestors and the abolitionist movement which put moral, ethical and political pressure on White America to play fair and include us in rights and proper citizenship.  Since the days of indentured servitude, it was never White America's intention to have Blacks join colonial White society.  In other words, these "negotiators" (abolitionists, Frederick Douglass, and company) attempted to appeal to America's sense of conscience concerning that  "peculiar institution" and received nothing but token gestures.  Yet the attempt had to made to show and prove to us that this route was futile. . .

Though not expressed openly in current days (due to it's political incorrectness), most White America holds a stereotypical view that Blacks are a low-menial class and in no way their equal--often disliked and treated with ill-conceived contempt.  Therefore being a quarterback in the NFL, is somewhat analogous (or equal) to being a captain of a ship or commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and many Whites inwardly feel, in no way a position that a Blackman should fulfill.  Those Whites who have this distorted view concerning Blacks in America, would find it particularly troubling to have a Black quarterback at the helm of "their ship"--constantly creating half-baked during water-cooler conversations of why they should get rid of the Black quarterback currently running their favorite team.  Mind you, the Black quarterback on most NFL teams are micro-managed by the coaches and the owners--not like the other quarterbacks in the NFL--but if you sign up for "their" teams, you play by their rules. . .

   In the movie, "Remember The Titans," when the Titan's Black quarterback was blind-sided by a defensive lineman, whose path was unabated--a fellow White team mate (and friend of the perpetrator) revealed that one of the Titan's lineman (who happened to be White) refused to block for the quarterback.  Even-though it is just a movie, we can't help but believe this sometimes occur in real life.  And unless the offensive line consists of all-conscious Blackman who are sensitive and compliant to the need, the Black quarterback will always be subject to camouflaged contempt by his fellow White offensive linemen--and sometimes jealous Blacks.

      Don't forget, all the credit, praise, and criticism for a football team get attributed to the helmsmanship of the quarterback.  There were not many Whites who want a Black leader for their multi-racial team.  They wanted a White man as the leader for a multi-racial team.  As a matter of fact, in the past, quite a few Black quarterbacks were asked to switch to wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs,etc., when they entered the NFL--particularly from the earliest times up unto the late 60's early 70's.  This was most likely done to "save face" in the NFL, concerning the public opinion of most of their White fans and fellow team mates.  I wouldn't be surprised, if some form of affirmative action is the basis behind the picking of the Black quarterback for the NFL--but unspoken White public opinion being the basis behind not starting him.

   After all, the most common statements Blacks hear from White fans concerning Black quarterbacks, is that "he can't throw accurately" or that "he can't read defensive themes."  I guess that's why these Black quarterbacks usually as the top ten in the draft--because they couldn't throw, ehh?  Besides that, for those who saw "Remember The Titans," in the opening game, there was a Black quarterback who was critically injured from an unabated tackle by a defensive player.  In order for this to happen, one or more of the offensive players had to allow it.  In this case (it was revealed in the film), it was a prejudiced White player on the same team, who allowed this to happen.  As I said, there are several factors as to why certain athletes don't perform well and some are beyond their control (and sometimes beyond their scrutiny as well). . .

   Of course, Philadelphia Blacks would be able to speak a lot about the Donovan McNabb/Michael Vick situation--since it happens to be so close to the vest.  Ever since he got here, Donovan has been made very socially conscious, where the team and our people are concern.  He got wide receiver, Terrell Owens here, by pleading with management (a management which is notorious for doing half of what it takes to win it all, but enough to fill up the seats and make revenue), and through the teams overachievement, the Eagles made it into NFL Super Bowl XXXIX.  Although Owens proved very problematic to McNabb, he never lost faith in helping talented Black people out.  He solicited for the Eagles to give Michael Vick and opportunity to get back into the league.  This would prove fatal to his career, because the Eagles secretly chose youth and talent over McNabb's track record (unbeknownst to him) and traded him, while keeping the younger Michael Vick (a younger talent which offers longer service for less money).  Despite all his Eagle-breaking records and team advancements, the owners unceremoniously dismissed Donovan McNabb in trade.  It seems like there was not too much consideration, on behalf of the organization, concerning McNabb as a person.

   Andy Reid gives a large White fan base what they want--he benches McNabb (who asks to be traded) for Kevin Kolb (White), then benches Kolb for Michael Vick with a rag-tagged offensive line.  So Mike plays a valiant game of "run for your life" and completes quite a few passes while he's at it.  The team saves money (which made Lurie and his "treasurer" happy) by not quickly replacing their offensive deficiencies, while Vick replaces with his career hanging behind him.  Kolb gets traded to the Cardinals, Vick gets a big contract for "run, Blackman, run." McNabb and coach Mike Shanahan of the Washington Redskins don't work out.  Now Mike is the starter, but the other parts are not in place, but he does make things look exciting as he evades the defense.  Owner, Jeffrey Lurie, makes a "do or die" statement towards coach Reid, with Nick Foles (the next White quarterback replacement) was waiting in the wings.  Mike stumbles out of the starting blocks; the porous line is letting the defense in like that seen in "Remember The Titans"--and the majority starts to call out for their 'hope," Nick Foles.  All of a sudden, the line looks like they can block and protect.  Guys aren't dropping the ball--but they hadn't won enough to evict Vick.  It is possible that those linemen found it hard to block for a mobile quarterback, but it is also possible that there are more clandestine forces at play here.The sentiments are obvious and his success is suddenly out of his control.  Ones which end in bigotry, inequality, and hatred.

   In the offseason, the press chimes in, saying that Vick won't negotiate his contract--he won't return next season, etc., etc.  Will Nick Foles start this year?  Coach Andy Reid, was fired as promised, and replaced by Chip Kelly (former coach of the college team, the Oregon Ducks).  The media now focused on Geno Smith (Black college quarterback) as the likely draft prospect to beat out Michael Vick as the starter, but Chip Kelly passed up on Geno Smith choosing Matt Barkley (a White quarterback) in the 4th round!  Now tell me, how is a Blackman supposed to feel about all these insults?  Looks like no one seems to be behind Michael Vick.  Rest assured, Mike's feelings are not being considered here, and if he was not raised to be prepared for this two-tier society, his self-esteem could be rattled.  These sort of things can shake anyone's confidence--but a new thing is evolving here. . .

   Most of us fans are looking for a time when a Black quarterback will win one super bowl--without realizing it already has been done: The NFL Super bowl was XXII (22), Washington Redskins versus The Denver Broncos, January 31, 1988, at Jack Murphy Stadium, San Diego, California  Doug Williams was the quarterback, becoming the starter midway through the Redskins season, posting a 11-4 record.  After trailing 10–0 at the end of the first quarter of Super Bowl XXII, the Redskins scored 42 unanswered points, including a record-breaking 35 points in the second quarter, and setting several other Super Bowl records. Williams, who was named the Super Bowl MVP, completing 18 of 29 passes for a Super Bowl record 340 yards and four touchdowns, with one interception.

  The fact that it is barely known in America, and is rarely mentioned during Black History Month, is a statement of how the mainstream society feels about letting the world know.  The fact that Williams did not return the next season; especially after being hurt in that super bowl and winning Super Bowl MVP--signals that something might have been done against the wishes of others in authority; but Gramling State University (historically Black university) coach Eddie Robinson was obviously happy. . . Coach Robinson groomed Doug Williams to do so, despite the obvious adversity.

   In essence, "You were getting a new generation that are beginning to think with their own minds, and see that you can't negotiate up on freedom nowadays.  If something is yours by right, then fight for it," --Gary Bartz.  Michael Jordan has his Bobcats and Jay-Z has his Brooklyn Nets, but it is still just pepper in a big salt shaker: They still belong to an Association which is dominated by American owners of European descent--and will therefore never be equal, because of people of European descent's opinion of other people on the planet; particularly Black people who live in America.  If they are not successful, it will hard to determine what all the causes for their failure would be--because many of their adversities will be hidden by people who do not wish them well.  Obviously Michael Jordan, Jay-Z, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby and Magic Johnson are establishing things as blacks, but they are obviously still believers in the negotiations with Americans of European descent--with other American Whites as the judges.  They are still part of "their" game and will have to play by their rules--keeping at least most of the status-quo.  True change will only take place by choosing either other nationalistic, philosophical, economic, religious and/or cultural realignment.  We are an ethnic group transported to America by force and are in need of proper human rights and repatriation.  It is important that we be treated as a group in need of nationalistic development as a people first; then brought into the mainstream social arena within America, to renegotiate its' own American standings by evolved representatives from our own people.  Simply put, our current position is one in which was given to us, and it is unfair.

   I know it will be sometime before we could put out a product to be comparable to what mainstream society offers, but being under the scrutiny of another man, analyzing whether or not your actions fit into their plans is disgraceful.  While they are in control of the institution, they have the position to judge on things according to how they feel--and because you need what they have, you'll keep coming back.  It is beneath us as a people; but as long as we continue to perform for other people, that's the way it's going to be.  Sometimes the plans are socially, culturally and politically known, and sometimes the plans are unknown: as with  Sonny Liston and his manager and promoter.  An athlete spends most of his time preparing and conditioning his body for the task of performing his/her job to the best of their ability--but the Black athlete has to overcome stereotypes, distrust, and a general belief that there will be some type of adversity, obstinacy or upheaval, on the part of the person who will hire them.  It is like living in a luxurious apartment, as opposed to an ordinary fixer-upper.  While the apartment is glamorous and can attract many to you're seemingly opulence, you can spend money for the rest of your life and never own anything--nor secure a home.  Whereas, if you own your home, in time you shall be able to bring up the beauty--which you already own. 

It does gives you character facing adversity, but it is also depressing to be treated by others that way, unless you believe them to be your enemy.  Sometimes it comes as unspoken words, subtle attitudes, public opinion, prejudices, etc.; shaking a person's confidence every time he steps out on the field or every time it happens.  Is it them or is it me?  Running is just a defense mechanism for Black quarterbacks, for when all else fails. . .  And the frequency reflects a breakdown of his line, the execution of the play by others, the availability of players or his understanding on how to carry out the play.  It makes absolutely no sense to depend on something that's not dependable.  So I hang an up a picture on my front door threshold wall, of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which has a caption which reads, "Now its up to us," to remind me when I'm entering or exiting. . .

   We, as Black people who live in America and all over the world,  forget that the White man we call colonists, came from Europe to America to start their own colony by deceiving the Native Americans  and stealing their land, then robbing this country of its' natural resources to enrich Europe.  They did this--not out of malice but--because they already depleted most of Europe's resources at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  We forget  the White man took America from the Native Americans by force, with the idea to start his own realm and escape from religious and political persecution.  In other words, many of the colonists were dissidents from their homeland.  Once the European working class masons colonized the place,  they accused the royal or noble English Masons (who ran the exploration companies like the Raleigh Company of England) of collecting taxes from the colonies--without safeguarding them from the natives or representing their colonial interests in English Parliament.  Using this as a rallying point, Washington and other working class Masons fought for and won their independence from England.  They formed the New World, displace the other European colonies, and started a new White nation.  We have knowledge of all this in our conscious realms, but somehow relegated this to the back of our brains; in a place of  minor significance.  This information is something my person learned in public school--and--if your are like the majority of Americans within the United States, you learned the same story as well.  It's their game.  Their country.  Their rules (and if you don't like it, go home--they say).  I say, if you don't like it, make your own and work towards your own independence as a people--like they did.

Peace and Blessings,

C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers