I am almost positive that if a White man should start mercilessly beating up on a Blackwoman on the street where you live, this Blackwoman would expect—not just you but any Blackman who is near her—to come to her aid; regardless of the situation. However, when I look at the ill-conceived contempt that many Black women have for Black men in America, I do not see the two situations to be supportive of one another. Now I know most societies expect men to be the bigger person and rise above the situation, but the situation is quite huge: There's a lot of "have your cake and eat it too," going on here. As a matter of fact, the expectations seem diametrically opposed to the behavioral pattern that would solicit such a response: It seems like these women are trying to get something that their behavioral patterns does not qualify them to have, and some of them are turning to each other to get it. But these things will ultimately have a bad outcome, for it is a natural fact, that in order to get, you have to give to gain respect.
Black people's role within the American fabric is precarious; tenuous at best. Our social position (in relation to all other social groups in America) is precarious, because our relationship is vicarious in relation to the people who colonized America. Although we excel within various fields of American society (particularly in the arts, entertainments, athletic fields, armed forces, etc.), we are not its' founding fathers, nor do we have significant wealth to sustain us in this country. Overall, we primarily depend on other people for our employment; which (despite America being a multicultural society) is not a good thing. But above all other points made, Blacks are not pleased with the type or amount of respect we receive in America. We are perceived as a very lowly society of people within the American fabric by the people who believe they are a part of America. But all these things would not be as bad, if Blacks had more respect for one another; generally speaking. Right now, we have a whole generation of Black children, who see their color as arbitrary—and claim they don't see color when dealing with others—and then comes the incidents in Ferguson.
Yes, we have organizations like the NAACP, OIC, and others, but these things are meaningless if they don't originate from the heart and soul of the people themselves. Yes, slavery has a lot to do with our esteem and menial perception within American society, and that is something that can change; but that is something that must change within the heart and soul of every Black person within this situation. It starts with us, so let's look at our situation.
Our respect for one another is rapidly changing in America, simply because of our own perception of each other within the America fabric, as well as our proposed reasons for why the following attitudes are present—along with concerted effort in order to change this perception and condition. We all may have our theories but it would be hard for us to conceptualize WHY those things are; number one, because we (as men and women) do not have the exact same qualities present in proportion to our genetic make up, and the fact that many of us are under the misguided notion that these things can be handled on an individual or person to person basis. For example, my relationship as single Black couple may be handling situations well and progressing fine, but can say that my relationship reflects the state of affairs of all our people? Similarly, JayZ and Beyonce and the Obama family may be well financially, and we may be even proud of them, but what does that do for the financial state of us as a people? Just because a few of us may obtain opportunities, that says very little about our overall condition as a people. . .
We, as human beings, are going through turmoil, right about now; but the state of relationships, as it affects Black men and women, is what is being addressed right here. Essentially the qualities we have—as men and women—were made to complement and complete each other; to help resolve the shortcomings of the other; making both indispensable dual aspects of the same kingdom: the human kingdom. Even gays and lesbians seem to do things in contradistinction to one another: I often find that while gays generally "worship" many things that mothers and women do, lesbians have the tendency to despise the roles and acts that their fathers and men typically do (although many lesbians will dress and behave like they are men make-overs). And while many would like to believe that the roles of women are superimposed or forced upon women by the "alpha-male" aspects of society, the truth of the matter is, the roles of man and woman are not arbitrarily created—but are (for the most part) based upon distinctions between each gender's abilities, and are natural outgrowths of their interactions over time (it is correct that no one can convince me that dad had the upper hand in all the household politics of my family): My point being—many things said about the so-called "opposite sex" is not so-much fathomable by the other gender—merely because the other "half" will be deficient or lacking in those specific qualities which exudes such behavior and are, therefore, compromised in the ability to perceive such things in precisely the same manner.
Despite what the LGBT community believes—the essential human being is not androgynous, and therefore gender roles are not arbitrary but essential outgrowths of its' gender evolution—wherefore family units become an essential part of cultural and spiritual evolution in our society (aka man is a social creature). Therefore—under these auspices—the need for bonds and proper relationships become crucial and necessary; despite the damage done in America by the Sexual Revolution during the sixties; which gave birth to acceptable social vehicles such as "swinging," "shacking up," and various wanton sexual activity, as well as sexual ambiquity (all these things were socially frowned upon before the sixties).
The point being, as members of the opposite sex (or cross gender lines), we cannot understand one another without an honest and concerted effort, therefore more emphasis must be placed upon giving more credence concerning congruency, and equal respect for what the "other half" brings to the table, in ALL cases.
Right here, I must mention that what Black people go through within American society, is sort of analogous to second-hand smoke: You didn't light up the cigarette, but because you are in the vicinity of a smoker; you get a whiff and could possibly get cancer and die from it. . . America is a colonized semi-European society: Its social changes are influenced by its European roots and ancestry; which means, it is derived from a White man's school of thought—but since it is a colony—what White Americans go though affects everyone else in the whole colony; aka, second hand smoke. Like when the Europeans came, their common diseases almost wiped out the natives who lived in America. A colony, by definition, is a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that mother or father country. America is Europe junior, a Western society, with a dominant English-like culture overriding and dictating it; yet the American colony has its' own distinct ways. . .
Other than the Black Power Movement, the sixties were the product of Hippies, Flower Children, Conservative rich Whites, White women, and the semi-European versions of lesbians and gays. Women didn't start getting equal pay for equal work because some Black woman complained about it; women gained equal pay because White women spoke out. Discrimination in the workplace according to sex was not a Blackman's invention, it was here in America according to the White man's standards and prejudices (Archie Bunker of "All In The Family," represents the typical White male of the 1950 mold). And the LGBT community did not started getting more rights recently, because some gay Blacks were being unfairly discriminated against or because the powers that be thought they were discriminated against more than Blacks; it is because rich White LGBT members were tired of having power and being in the closet (former vice president Dick Cheney and Cher's daughter are lesbians). They want to live in the open and free like their European counterparts. . . After all who coined the phrase, "Battle of the Sexes?" Was it Blacks, Whites or a non-White culture? [Personally, I don't know of any Black Hunters who spend months away from their wives, mobbing with all men; while hunting for game as a sport.]
White struggles are not Black struggles (most Black women had to work alongside her man just to make ends meet while her White counterpart comes from a culture which has its men make enough money to allow their women to stay home), it only becomes our struggle when we think like them, try to live like them, or do as they do. Whites are very different people from Black people; but their "White American ideologies and colonial conceptions" surely affect Blacks who live within America with enough significant furor to compare it to second-hand smoke!
But its alright for the culture of White people to be different from that of Blacks: it's within their nature. Every man and every people have a right to decide their own destiny. Many people confuse issues; thinking about whether an issue is right or wrong. To colonize a place, or cause the near genocide of the natives who live in America, is definitely wrong; slavery is wrong—but for the powers that be, the "right or wrong-ness" was never their concern. They were never interested in sharing the land; they wanted to own it by seizing political control of it; the settlers, like missionaries bring in the varying degrees of sentimentalities; but the culture and nature is quite clear. Not everyone is concerned about being right or fair; nor will they be interested in changing things just because you brought it up—and that is their choice and they have that right to decide and be that way. There's nothing wrong in deciding their own destiny. If you believe this way is sinister or devilish, you have that right to draw it up that way; because it looks like that to me (and it's hard to be in a league with that or be on that team). But colonists, Americans, Westerners or Whites may cultivate themselves whichever way they choose. They have the right to decide their own destiny.
Our difficulty is, being a part of it. We are trying to be Americans, vying for equal citizenship and civil rights (which they haven't given us despite two civil rights protests and the passing of more than a hundred and fifty years [1863]). Their culture is superimposed and outranks and out-merits ours (for those who continue to pursue such folly). I say folly, because when you vie for rights and citizenship from a society or group of people advocated for one common cause—they have the power to deny you access, discriminate against you, and offer you only second-class citizenship (many Whites deny that they are doing these things to you). You are the one trying to be on board. If we disagree, then it behooves us to form our own social equality apart from the American colonial superstructural value; since they will not give us equal rights within their structure (basically we are one group of people vying to another group to grant us rights equal to theirs and so far it hasn't happened).
Back in the day, elder Blacks kept their distance from White society in America. They were leery of White doctors because they thought Whites experimented on them [like Tuskegee 626]. Blacks worshipped differently; played differently; joked differently and talked and socialize differently. Black children did not behave like White children. My mother would have pulled her belt right out of her pocketbook, and whip my ass where I stood! There was always a sense of the difference then (this was the period right after the Segregated 1950s). Most Blacks during that time, wanted the "loot" but not the "lifestyle" that many Whites had. However, as time went on, and we were allowed to move in White areas and go to their schools, we got within "earshot" of their ideas: That's when the contamination began seeping in at explosive dosages. And we began to "experiment with those high explosives"—just like them—and before you knew it; we had their rugged individualism "down pat" [and now it is blowing up in our faces because are children are disrespecting us as we used to see White children do to their parents].
But long before this contamination seeped in like second-hand smoke, there was the "N" word: A word so nefarious that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, attempted to ban its usage: But tell me who coined the word or phrase? Second hand smoke. Its' meaning and image follows us—and plagued us—like elders used to respond the same way to the word, "Black." The words kind of went together back then: If you were big and Black, you psychologically had to be "ugly" and a "N" word. But the NAACP organization itself is still running from the negative image that Whites historically placed on Blacks in America, by continuing to call themselves "colored" instead of "Black" people—after 106 years! Second hand smoke. The NAACP is more active in the suburbs than in the inner cities; of course, with the exception being Mr. Cecil B. Moore. Mr. Moore did more in the inner city for Blacks, then any of his predecessors [and subsequently caught more flack from his Black bougie counterparts for it]: Like the terms Black and Brown, many financially successful Blacks chose to disassociate themselves from Blacks (as a group in America); because of second-hand smoke. Once the bourgeois Black breaks through the affluent stratosphere, he or she is told by influential Whites that he or she is not like the others; and many bourgeois Blacks bought into that thinking, joining Whites in the clowning of his fellow Black folks. But we can't hold the bourgeois Black totally responsible for his denigrations; no more than we can blame a slave-hand for running away—for no one wants to deal with full-handed White American racial discrimination. . .
On a larger scale, however, we have to look at how we perceive ourselves, as people who are Black. Up until the nineties, folks act like "second-hand smoke" would stay where it was blown from the lips of others; but research shows, you can get cancer—from out of the atmosphere—without ever personally smoking. There were plenty of Generation Y and Millennials who claimed, "They don't see color," that is, until Ferguson and the tidal wave of police brutality cases started to appear. . .
Insurance companies in America would offer special rates to businesses that would not allow employees to smoke within the building; citing damage to carpets, floors, furniture and unwilling fellow employee's lungs and cancer as the reasons. Pretty soon, folks all over America were dubbing their workplaces, "Smoke-free." No, smoke does not stay in one place, it fills the place where it is contained.
Many of suburban and affluent Blacks call themselves "Brown," in an effort to avoid the wrath of the stereotypical view that plague Black people. Do you think that the Nazis differentiated against which Jews they were going to hate or eliminate? That is a delusional train of thought, where prejudice and preferential treatment is concerned. Collaborators are always the next to go. Our destiny cannot continue to be in the hands of another group of people. We are a separate group of people who have experienced a history of abuse. You do not keep asking the other person to turn over a new leaf. When you start to work on yourself, others will see the change and approach you differently. The minute we stop treating each other with disrespect, the minute we will signal to others that we are not going to take that kind of treatment from others; then we can determine our future—wherever we may be. We have to define our destiny ourselves, by ourselves; but it starts with how we think of ourselves.
In this area, we have a lot of healing to do. For example, what group of people has women who think they don't need men to protect them? What men abandon their women? What women raise their sons to disrespect their fathers? And what image will these male children have to model themselves by, and keep them from becoming effeminate; if the mother thinks highly of no man? What group of people relies solely on another group of people primarily for their employment?
Polarized men and women groups are not the answer. "I got mine, so you get yours"—rich Black groups are not the answer (you'll only give it away to other social groups, but you won't support or buy Black). What effects some, effects us all. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. Not having our own businesses, tells America we believe in Welfare (public assistance).
As I said before, if you open up a store in a multi-cultural neighborhood, would you not expect support from your own people? The less we care about ourselves, the more we leave ourselves open to racist elements and more police brutality. We do really need each other, and what effects some of us, eventually effects us all. We need more out of life. There are no easy answers or short cuts to remedy a destiny of a people. We must define ourselves, outside of parameters of being "American." We have had two civil rights movements and more than a hundred fifty years have passed and we still don't have equal rights. Why should we define ourselves according to parameters where we don't have equal rights? That's what the Black Renaissance and Black Power Movement were here to do; to change the way we perceived ourselves, while empowering our people and protecting our own interests: Who else will protect our interests better? Our self-hatred as a people is intricately tied in with how White America feels about Blacks in America and slavery in America. However, in order to grow as a people—we have to redefine our own thinking, our own values—away from these parameters: Otherwise, we'll go down with the sinking ship. . .
Thank you for your consideration,
C. Be'er la Hai-roi Myers
Peace.
