It's Out of Our Hands. . .

A Guide to Social and Economic Change

I remember, in the opening scene of Miller's Crossing, where an Irish mob boss--Leo, says to his Italian subordinate chief, Johnny Caspar: "You're exactly as big as I let you be, and no bigger, and don't  forget it, ever."  It is this sort of line,  which summarizes the condition that Blacks in America live in today; being one of several sub-cultural groups living within a pluralistic society—seeking to advance socio-economically; yet wishing to do so by relying on America's dominant cultural matrix to make provide the means and include them within the existing structure; in essence; trying to gain true citizenship and economic freedom.  The interesting thing is, there has been several groups which came to America, wishing to be included in its fabric, and have sacrificed themselves socio-economically, to become a part of the American fabric.  Though—they too—have not gained rights equal to members of the dominant culture—many have improved their economic position substantially in American society.  The Native American, Black people, the Chinese, and various immigrants have made efforts, and sacrifices, that help to forge this great country into what she is today—and some have improved their lot in the process.  The problem is—most have not been accepted into the American fraternity and sorority.  They do not have true citizenship.  When someone else controls who gets accepted—and who will is kept apart—appeasement becomes the order of the day; control becomes part of the package.  It works that way because, this faction of American society holds the key to your success and acceptance.  This elite bunch controls how successful you become within American society—or what class your people will occupy within the American structure.  What I mean by that is, if you work for others, and those others are other than your own people—you are dependent on other elements (outside of your own people) to bankroll your enterprise—and in doing so, your are being regulated by this economic co-dependency.

There's a well known proverbial wisdom in America: You can never get rich working for someone else; and that’s so true.  At some point, you will have to work towards securing your own self interests; sooner or later our people will have to work towards their own self interest—if we’re going to rise as a people and change our status within American society.  And while we are on the subject, let me make this perfectly clear: Just because the face of the person you are working for is Black, doesn't mean you are working for your own people.  They could be from the same ethnic group as yourself, just performing a different function for somebody else (like running the store or being the store manager) but the store, business, corporation owners are themselves  not Black.  I have noticed—for example—the highest concentration of Black male supervisors within my workplace, are within the Custodial department and Pavement and Grounds unit.  Within the higher executive positions of our corporation, these numbers change significantly; often substituting Black men with White and Black women  (with White men running it of course).  And within those Black men who work for our employer on the executive level (to fulfill some quota maybe), there are certain unmistakable behavioral patterns which permeate throughout most Blacks who work on that level.  Sometimes, they are worst to other Blacks, than anyone else can ever be.  What kind of social conditions bring about this type of behavior?

Some of these Blacks might be of a different social class, think that they are socially accepted (so called Brown-not-Black syndrome) among the White middle class society, and therefore want nothing to do with their ethnicity; most feel that they do not share the same interests as other Blacks of a different economical status  Maybe the reasons for this could be more nationalistic than ethnical; meaning he may view Black ethnicity as merely a subcultural theme and less likely to reach prominence—and therefore less likely to succeed; never realizing that no matter how influential they become, their success will always be precarious at best.  These Blacks may have gone to the very same schools as their White counterparts—some may have been accepted to these types of schools as a result of some accelerated programs, special kudos derived from their personal acumen, etc.  They may have been given extraordinary conditions in their respectable industries--like Bill Cosby (starring in the television series, I Spy) or  Diahann Carroll (starring in the television series, Julia) performed brilliantly, and were given opportunity; but opportunity should not be confused with racial equality or equal rights. These can merely be acts by liberals exercising an option—or shrewdness  on the part of the ruling class society.  I am not saying that both Bill Cosby, Diahann Carroll (or in that respect Harry Belafonte), didn’t get to where they are as a result of their own efforts, I am just saying that the people these actors interfaced with were of a certain caliber--that is, the ones who endorse selected persons who "fit the build," which they and others like themselves (the executives/producers/actors guilds, etc.) help to establish because they’d serve as a model: But once again, someone else is judging the situation, considering or landscaping the outcome, and allowing certain conditions to exist—as opposed to a right being open to all regardless.    

Bill Cosby saw this, when he attempted to buy NBC.  From what I understand, Bill negotiated with NBC to buy their company (that is, principally, with other owners/investors), offering a substantial amount of money.  Rather than selling to Bill and being left out of the nation's fourth largest market,  NBC bought WCAU-TV (a substantially more successful and lucrative local company and therefore more costly), spending in effect, more money than they were initially asking to be sold for.  The question is, why did NBC go on the market to begin with; and why after meeting with Bill, did they suddenly turn down his offer  in lieu of spending more money?  I think the implications are quite clear: Bill went outside the guidelines. . .  This society operates off of capitalism (I’m not sure you know what this means if you double-click on the word). . .  

I'm just saying, there are other factors at work here, obstructing Bill Cosby's right to self-determination, despite his riches—none of which are group oriented.  There are plenty of Black millionaires in America (like sports, entertainment, science, business, etc.), but no rich town in which these wealthy men are the principle leaders of  their own community of millionaires.  Why is that?  Where are the Black millionaires who own businesses that employ primarily Black people?  Why do we, as a people, seek employment from other people?  Are we the first of our people to realize that we have to get around our religious and cultural differences in order to unite, plot out our own destiny, and protect ourselves and our interests as a people?  Of course not: Johnson Products Company, makers of Afro-sheen, is one such example.  But there is a vested interest, on the part of others within the American fabric, to thwart or delay this progress. . .

A similar thing goes on within the movie industry.  When a film stars Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Samuel L. Jackson, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett, Nia Long, Kerry Washington, Angelica Houston, Cameron Diaz, etc., who picks up the tab?  Spike Lee had a hard time completing Malcolm X, because the majority of producers in this society were not interested in making a film illuminating this Black iconic figure for the rest of American society.  In a way, I could see this; we are not America's majority--so the dominant culture would not be interested (although we would).  What political agenda does this film serve?  Is it in keeping with the dominant culture’s idea of what these sort of things are, and how they should be depicted?  Is it in keeping with their standards?

All guidance need images and role models (even if the guidance is negative).  For example, anyone who watches, The American Horror Story, is watching the imagination of several artists employed in the area of the macabre; it’s makeup artist work real hard to give you the most horrifying images America has to offer, the writer creates the most suggestive, scariest, or creepy language to assist the actors in depicting each sentiment (of course in keeping with the adaptation and book or play narration), the actors get inspired and produce its drama and personal interaction, the director oversees it and approves it for its dialogue, screenplay, and imagery; the executive producer and other producers finance it covering its legal issues; and the FCC scrutinizes it, rates its content and oversees who of the governed people can watch it--or whether it can be watched at all.  A Nightmare Before Christmas, Tim Burton’s animated brainchild, is specially designed to distort your child’s perception on funniness, fear, and macabre—but not to the point where the government’s watchdogs (FCC) won’t approve it for the American pubic.  But be not deceived, all films and cultural artwork that is seen by the mass public will inevitably get censored, and therefore subject to endorsement or rejection by the government.   After all, all art is social, political or economical—as well, all art pieces are social, political, and economic comment depicting certain values; guiding the public’s psyche into various directions—and depending on the values of the place where you live, the government will have the final say for the public (and what is accepted shows the government’s  parameters. 

Imagine owning the type of money; capable of paying the salaries of these blockbuster superstars listed above.  This alone indicates its cultural or person importance the producer has, concerning the direction he/she or they want to lead the public towards.  Books, poetry, writings, lyrics and the cultural arts—is other things that culture is about.  Yet, for these types of  financiers (some lovers of the cultural arts/some merely speculators and entrepreneurs), this network of superstars or cultural icons are merely a group of employees under their employ; facilitating the type of images and ideology the affluent (the producers) are interested in propagating.  This type of control goes on in the music industry as well: That is, producers and record labels who will sponsor certain cultural icons and musical legends according to their taste and way of thought--regulating the development of American society (for better or for worst).  Get with it!  You know the Golden Rule: "He who has the Gold makes the Rules!"  Or as David Byrne said in his song Puzzling Evidence: 

                                                  "Now I am the gun and

                                                  You are the bullet;

                                                 I got the power and glory!

                                                 And the money to buy it!"

This is also the reason behind why the major record labels in American society keep independent labels at bay--they want complete autonomy over what America hears.        

Even the majority of Black millionaires who live in America, are made to conform to a specific set  of predetermined cultural parameters, laid down by a richer power structure (of White origin)—whether they like it or not—or face public criticism. . .  Malik Al Hajj Shabazz (Malcolm X) once called this phenomena: “Struggling by the ground rules, laid down by the people you're struggling against.”   But we shouldn't be too offended or upset by this; most of our influential do little to uplift us as a people.  And while I do not believe most affluential Blacks are directly betraying the rest of the Black population, I see them--in many ways--trying to distance themselves from the restriction, struggle, pain, as well as underlying fear of what it means to be Black in America; sometimes at the expense of our ostracism by their hands--in their minds.  This--I don't think they do consciously; I see it more on a subconscious level; with them being a little self-serving if you ask me. . . Their appointment to these positions does not booster a pride as a people, in the strictest sense;  nor is it nationalistic (although plenty of us act like it does when we view the news and tabloids).  Therefore, I’m  certain, that these special contributors who endorse our bourgeois and rich Blacks to occupy these token or one-of-a-kind positions, see these same Black as naive, gullible and lacking in ethnic identity--and thus not fearful of them at all.  

The wealth of our Black entertainers and sport celebrities serve as eye candy to our general population; leaving us in awe--like the drug dealers of the eighties--or a bad Blaxploitation film from the sixties.  They are considered role models and status symbols--but they are positioned by those who create our place--representing ways for us to get ahead in his society.  In medieval Europe (mid-evil/dark-times/dark ages), their spot in society would have served as amusement for the king (thus called entertainment and sport entertainment).  While we may watch our Black entertainers on TV and celebrity shows, they were not designed by our cultural ethnicity exclusively; It is designed by us as a way to get ahead--by for those who could afford paying for any type of season tickets, championship seats, and any athlete's endorsement gratuities.  These Blacks were made for general consumption.  They represent part of the overall stardom in the American cultural universe.  And while their position may require great talent, ingenuity, and acumen, on the part of the individual, to achieve celebrity status (getting off the auction blocks into select schools, NCAA stardom, auctioned in the draft to a pro-team and finally all pro-status), their behavior on the part of some current day Black athletes and celebrities, especially in the areas of sport and music entertainment--can be somewhat embarrassing.  

No, I'm not forgetting the efforts--in the past, on the part of parents and coaches to get Black athletes to show decorum.  But unfortunately, that cultural art is dying (although Jim Brow/Harry Belafonte are striving to revive it).  And not that I'm forgetting about the efforts on the part of many Black enterprise to change our social condition; I am just saying it is not commensurate to the amount of Black wealth there is out there; owned by Black individuals that could do more to uplift the "race" (I don't refer to our people as a race, I'm just evoking that impression).  

The key word here is that there is too much "individualism," and not enough collective or group effort on the part of every Black person in America to have concern and pride for his people.  I am saying this because it needs to be said--number one.  Second reason is, rich Blacks, like Bill Cosby, have no problem criticizing the rest of us in public, so people like him should also take a good look at themselves.  Not that I have an issue with being addressed about decorum and direction--its just that many of the "Bill Cosby types" employ many techniques that aren't constructive; It’s more like the bourgeois and rich Blacks are applauding their ways indirectly, by applying cynical sarcastic criticism upon the rest of us.  Sort of like lifting yourself up, while putting me down!  If bourgeois Blacks want to help--instruction and not ostracism is the better way to do so.  Besides, that other method is more in keeping with blaming the victim, as opposed to chastising the person whose responsible [for the conditions].  

When I speak of  the dominant culture in American society, I am not speaking of the average American citizen, I am speaking of the type of quasi American/European power broker who has the economics to own teams and the liquid cash flow to pay these modern day gladiators their multi-million dollar salaries.  I am talking about investors, business owners, and rich people who buy plates for fund-raisers for presidential campaigns;  Businesses and corporations which influence governmental decisions with their policies and operations.  It is the influential affluent within the dominant culture of American society, which systematically sorts through candidates, allowing certain bourgeois and rich Blacks to live within their communities; access to their finest schools, and become educated in the ways and etiquette of the elite--and invite them to social functions to mingle with the guests.    The influential do this to give token representation to the concept within the  American Dream that, "everybody can become part of its elite."   The influential  affluent can do things to this extent, because they are certain these Blacks will naively believe themselves to be a part of their society and social equality; i.e., the “Looks like we made it—George Jefferson syndrome”--and thus would never re-align with "those Blacks still suffering."

This individualistic type of thinking displayed by many bourgeois and wealthy Blacks rarely leads to political organization on an ethnic social level, and therefore offers no threat to  America's status quo political, economically, or cultural organization whatsoever.  In order for a "dream" like that to work--in order for an ethnic group of people to rise--it would take solidarity plus political and economic freedom; its organizers would have to be versed in the rules of law and private property rights.  And we know the average bourgeois and rich Black thinking is far from that.  In matters of real political, economic, and social importance, the colonists retain full power (aka their supremacy is still in tact)--while the bourgeois and rich Black remains symbiotic.  

At one point in American History, this the dominant culture were identified as descendants from the White Anglo Saxon Protestant group (WASPs for short); but I am not sure today, if we can say that the business elite from America's dominant culture has not--in some way--expanded to include other elements.  The concept of an influential dominant culture in America, which is White and wealthy; regulating and influencing the rest of so-called American society is very much a reality--but the constituency may have changed.  I find it  ironic that a group of people like the Saxons, which traces its heritage from Germany's Danube River into the British Isles--known for being an egalitarian society--can wind up being the main part of America's dominant culture.  A culture which feigns democracy, yet  rules by capitalism (a system with its emphasis on profit/which is known to lead to social and economic inequality).  Maybe the Wasps still practice egalitarianism among their own social peers and not the society at large. . .  

This elite group [the influential affluent of America's dominant culture] regulates their own interests--the interest of most influential and wealthy Blacks in this country, and the interest of most Blacks as a people--right along with rest of the people who live within American society!  So what, if the politician's skin tone is Black. . . His agenda does not challenge the elite's status quo and his ideology will not advance our people.  He is ineffective for our cultural development.  Some of these types of Blacks may belong to secret societies and have military affiliations, but his directives never run toward group solidarity for his people, he is a potential pawn for the supremacy code.  Besides that aspect, when the bourgeois and rich Blacks join the elite's clubs (Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis Clubs, American legion, etc.), swear their oaths and move up into areas where they think they're socially accepted; most cease identifying to other Black people of different social and economic conditions.  Although (quietly as it's kept), they're further someone else's agenda, many bourgeois and rich Blacks believe they are something else (other than Black)--and subconsciously believe their own ethnicity is bad for their overall image.  When I was growing up, my community leaders told me these types of Blacks were called "Wannabes"--a confused ambitious people, who are not settled or content with themselves and therefore they're always looking something (to satisfy what they lack).  Ripe for the picking, eh?  The dominant culture of American society, is the society that people from other subcultures mold and shaped into--if they want to be accepted into American society.  Whether or not you are trying to be an American citizen, knowing its 'ins and outs' of its cultural structure becomes essential to survival within American society.  You need to be smart, you don't need run-ins and legal ramifications.  You have to live here (even if you are discontented but not going to leave), so you don't need to complicate matters--if you don't have to.   This is about science and awareness.  But remember the motto, if you are playing this game: You're exactly as big as I let you be, and no bigger, and don't you forget it, ever.   

If there is an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) law which says, "No Polluting In This River," and a big business determines polluting will save them money in the long run, the moral, ethical and societal issues immediately becomes secondary (in most cases): They will simply pollute the river, execute diplomacy--pay the fine, and be done with it.  Big Business knows, in the long run, it will simply conceal the cost (and the publicity), and past the expense over to the consumer.  Ultimately, the rest of society pays the tab for their ill-behavior.  Members of this structure are the rich slave makers of the poor, but look at who the "poor" consists of--everyone one who is not that rich; the working class, those who are below the poverty level, and the major consumers!

So where does that put the majority of us who have been labeled "minority"--like Black women, White women, the American Black population?  To be considered along with alternative lifestyles, sexual ambiguity and LGBTs?  That's not right!  How can the destiny of a people be considered synonymous to issues concerning sexual choices?  After all, the term "majority and minority" has nothing to do with population (for women outnumber men all over the world), it has to do with how the dominant culture feels about the issues or interests outside of their own ruling class considerations (which implies that if you want major attention you better take your issues on yourself).  Many people (both Blacks and Whites) like to call themselves middle-class; to make themselves believe when society addresses these issues--they are included; and to believe themselves somewhat in control of their destiny.  But "middle-class" is a term derived from the term bourgeoisie, which means owning wealth from having your own means of production (i.e., business), which most who claim it, do not have.  In the last presidential debate, the candidates estimated the middle class figure at $250,000 or upwards per household.  So, if you don't have your own business or generate that amount per couple. . .  If you have to use your credit card to pay for things, because you don't have that type of money in an account. . .  You are probably working class poor like most of us.

Many people think that the Chinese have just come over here as immigrants in these current days and times, and made immediate success, but nothing could be so far from the truth.  Asians have been in this country as immigrants for a long time.  Anyone who's watched Kung Fu featuring David Carradine or the HBO series, Deadwood knows that the Chinese in America started out as a underclass sub-culture, as well as we have.  They were the ones who worked on the Central Pacific Railroad, to build America's Transcontinental Railroad, completed in 1869.  Most people think of China as one united country, when in reality they are a tribal reality with several provinces, which used to be somewhat autonomous until modern times.  Yet, through solidarity as a people, industriousness, enterprise and the protection of their interests, the Chinese have been able to improve their social, political and economic status in American society.  But, as with the rise of the Jewish Diaspora, some chaos, travesty, or atrocity is always found at the root of the unification of downtrodden or ill-favored people. 

On a global scale, The Boxer Rebellion is a perfect example of big business influencing the policy of nations, which in turn, prompts governments and citizens to go to war to protect its interests overseas.  Oft-times, behind the economic overtones of big business overseas, lies the undertones of imperialism, racism, and White supremacy; meanwhile, the rank and file of the nation--its citizens--are forced by their governments to fight for policies which they themselves do not believe in.  In the past, I never believed German citizens (who were young men during the 30's and 40's), when they said they weren't Nihilists, bigots, or Nazis.  In making the above statements concerning business, government, and people, I can clearly see how a person could serve in a war and not agree with the ideology of nation.  I could see some legitimacy to it, if the average citizen were given the facts and allowed to vote on whether the country should go to war (like any other union does)--but that doesn't happen.  It's either war, ostracism (blackball), or imprisonment.  Big business has its lobbyists, governments make decisions, and citizens have politicians to represent their interest in the government's decisions--however, when it comes to war, big business may start it, but  citizens don't have much choice in defending the government's interest or big business politics.  It's more like the rich versus the poor; and the poor protect the lifestyle of the rich. There's nothing fair or egalitarian in that--right Mr. Xerox, Senator Heinz, Senator Dole?

  

All of Europe knew that China was behind the times, militarily.  In an arrogant display of might, several European countries forced themselves upon the Chinese shores, attempting to do trading amongst the natives.  Their business was unwelcome, and seemingly looking to provoke the Chinese governing body (the Empress) into a war.  In most cases of European nations versus European nations, a convention in Geneva would have been employed.  Yet, the events did not take this route between the European and Chinese.  Shortly, the European nations were disobeying the empress demands to stay out of sacred areas.  The people resented this intrusion as well, and rose as one to rid China of all foreigners.  This was not the act of the government, but vigilantism.  Yet, their acts gave  Europe the reason it needed to take military action against China--and when the smoke cleared, a meeting was held and between the China, Europe and United States; with Europe and the States exacting great trade advantages from China.  The country was subjugated and embarrassed.  From then until now, China has been regaining their face.  Their love for their fellow China man is evolving the country; after Europe had previously carved it up.  And now their forced trade agreements (meant to penalize the Chinese) are suddenly benefitting China more.  But you need to see for yourself those events which unified China. . . Double-click on the above word Boxer Rebellion.  Surely food for thought. . .

Kung-Fu fighting anyone?

While at work, I had a Black person exclaim in my presence: "I am not an African, I'm American!  I wasn't born over there, I was born right here! The only African American is a person born in Africa who applies for and receives American citizenship!"

After his performance, I felt obliged to identify myself (especially since there was a brother from the home continent present): "First of all, Africa is a name given by the European, for a place where a lot of my ancestors live.  But unlike the European, some of our people call this continent Akebulan and others Asia (just as the Nipponese call Japan, Nippon).  I am a descendant from that continent, who reside in America due to slavery.  I do not call myself an African American or Asian American--because the people who coin that phrase, "American" used it to describe themselves--entitling them to rights I have yet to own.  The indigenous people are the only natives to this land, and if America was the real name of this place, then only his people would be entitled to it.  There has been two civil rights protests in this country, and the repairs are more like concessions.  Blacks do not have the same rights as Whites within the United States of America, nor are Blacks treated equal to Whites (though the acts are being better concealed) by Whites (or sad to say many naive Blacks) .  My ancestors were brought here to be a servant to Whites originally, and after President Abraham Lincoln decided to emancipate Blacks, we have been fighting a civil battle for entitlement to the same rights as Whites Americans."

It reminds me of the ancient Roman subjects and the elusiveness of Roman citizenship: So far, the dominant culture have not fully made me (or any non-White person for that matter) a part of their social equality.  So calling myself American, would indicate a belief on my part--in something that has not yet happened--that is, until the government freely and proactively reinforces all my constitutional rights within her public domain; For the government knows its’ role and/or culpability in institutionalizing slavery as an action of the state, as well as the indelible mark it has left on each Americans' psyche concerning the believed inferiority of Blacks: Something to which the government has handled with minor relevance, unless  she has been served with protest on our part.  My grandfather, father, and I, are still fighting for civil liberties, justice, and equal rights in this country, but we are not naively enough to believe we shall get it without our own effort, or speaking to hardened hearts and ears.   Therefore my present status is described: I, being from Akebulan or Asia living in America, using what America confers to me; yet working towards my own liberty, justice and self government as a people.  I do not believe in leaving the land that my ancestors help build from their unpaid labor, nor do I find it wanting in principle but practice and application.  I gather together with those of my kind who will help me in achieving our goals and propagate our interests.  This way, I am securing my own interests; within America and amongst the people who need it most (through attitude and re-education).  And the proper attitude is building a sense of a Black Diaspora as Marcus Garvey prescribed.

Europe’s Age of Enlightenment led to Nihilism, as morality gradually became collateral damage, as a result of the moment's war on belief and superstition vs. knowledge, science and pragmatism.  Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.  Nihilism is associated with extreme pessimism,  radical skepticism and a condemnation of existence.  There maybe a lost in loyalties, but there is contracts, binding agreements, by-laws and strict corporate rules to keep all business and business partners unified and in tact. 

President Calvin Coolidge has been quoted as saying, "America's business is business"--the hailing and rallying point of a truly capitalistic society.  This ideology represents America's true priority and those who generate big business are generally treated better.  This country may not have nobility like England, but America does have many class struggles.  In capitalism there must be something, or someone, to capitalize off of--there must be some advantage—to make a profit.  Having a menial labor force is one of those advantages, and guess who the designated drivers are.  And now more Mexicans are coming in to compete.  Never lose track of that.  A lot of American businesses are international.  Plenty of companies in the United States don't have the same border and boundaries restrictions as that of its citizens—it boosters trade with many businesses overseas.  Also, you need to realize, your icons and stars have been selected for you; the ones you've endorsed are shown on the Billboard (Billboard represents retail sales of CDs and the like)—not the Grammys or any other of those popularity shows many of you like to watch.  Very little athletes talk about politics while playing their sport.  That's probably because many of the players have huge portions of their wealth tied up in stocks; Therefore conversations in politics might lead to conflicts with the policies of the certain companies players are invested in.  Yet the politics of the Black players seldom extend outwards to the public or people they originate from; But the company’s policies extend outwards to the public, to create needs and exploit them--whether by celebrity or athlete--above and beyond the seven seas.

Sure, you see athletes doing commercials for NBA cares, and what have you; but they're business/public-relation commercials (to make the business owners and well to do fans to feel warm about the NBA) and its athletes are merely company actors; projecting goodwill for the communities-at-large (well some actually believe in community work).  Business, politics, sport, music, and entertainment actors—strange bed partners indeed. . .  But they represent the media people one and admires and trust in.  Very well organized.

These societies are well organized and they protect their own interests.  They don't have family bonds and love, they have by-laws and trade agreements.  To combat their general  distrust of others, they lawyers and binding agreements.  They use contracts, contacts, and services--on behalf of their interests.  They use lobbyists to solicit to politicians who will hear their strategies and business ideas, as well as protect their interests on Capitol Hill and abroad.  But actually, there's nothing wrong with that--people should protect their interests as a group.  It's just that there are more than just one people who supposedly make up the United States--and I never saw that  (one ethnic or tribal group providing for another) being done fairly.  From the influential affluent/big business end, the ruling class, are part of American society; and then again--some are not--entirely.  Many are international citizens, with businesses in several countries--but they do keep decorum and continuity wherever they are.  They protect their own interests.  The affluent promote their own interests by influencing governments with the lure of money and profits; especially within capitalist societies.  They sometimes undermine and undersell other companies to get their way within the business world.  Their tie-in between the business world and the world-at-large is the New York Stock Exchange and the Inside Trader Agreement.  For the affluent, the stock exchanges is their tabernacle, and business is their religion.  Without the stock market and the agreements between business and nations, there would be total chaos in various governments throughout the world.  Trade is a major component of American society and is a crucial tie-in to American economics.  The movies, music, and many other cultural components work in conjunction with big business to finance each other's interests.  "America's business is business.”

Someone in the 'hood' once said to me, "You talking all White."  No, I am not, I am speaking the language of the dominant culture.  I speak English, because my people were brought over here by an Anglo-saxon (Teutonic viking-English) slave trader more than 450 years ago--and through America's instituting of slavery protocols my original language was lost.   The reason I speak it well today, has to do with my survival.    When you consider that our people were brought here to serve the ruling class as slaves; When you consider that the slave traders only learned the various so-called African languages, so that the negotiations for slave trade could take place; When you consider that traditional slave trade protocols kept members of the same tribe from ever congregating together--or speaking their indigenous languages without fear of death--then you would realize, it would be difficult for me (or any of my people) to know my own people's languages.  Unfortunately, I have not obtained financial freedom and do not work for a fellow Black person who is conscious--so I work for the government (not an individual or corporate White).  Therefore, I have to meet my employer on his terms to obtain money for food, clothing, and shelter.  That is why, being able to speak this language correctly; learning the concepts and logic behind the words, be able to understand, assess and be efficient at word play--becomes extremely important in representing ourselves and securing livelihood in this American pluralistic society.  The better I articulate this language, the better I reflect my awareness, considerations, acumen, and ability to comprehend, perform tasks, carry out his will and my interests.  Generally speaking, I usually speak in a way that matches my condition and strategically gives my person the best advantage.  

For example, I am bilingual; I speak Ebonics whenever it is applicable to my environment (communication and comfortability for my people is very important to me).  I also do what I can to obtain my ancestor's, and other kindred tongues, because it is my heritage and I have a personal desire to conceptualize life as my people and forefathers did.  As you know,  within American life, other than tradition advantages--there would not be much gain in obtaining my native tongue within American society--in some cases, speaking it would probably evoke anathematized stereotypical visions of America's past on the part of White Americans (don't act like what they think can't harm your chances).  But I consider this a temporary condition; for I am telepathically willing, and working, towards that day when I can live out our culture amongst our own.  And even though we have progressed past chattel slavery, we have not made enough progress in Black enterprise and attitude adjustment--to be able to all work for own people exclusively.  But between the efforts of you and me, that day will be soon.

One of the biggest illusions fed to the American public is rugged individualism. This concept combined with the American Dream is  the most lethal combination ever derived for the psyche.  The idea that anyone, from any part of American society, can rise to prominence and remain fluent and copacetic is ludicrous.  Any rapper who walks through the neighborhoods with his massive jewelry and no bodyguards quickly learns this fact.  Man is a social creature.  Higher evolution of society leans towards organization.  Organization evolves people.  As said earlier, the influential affluent are very well organized.  They form business associations, create by-laws and form a third entity, a corporation; thus protecting their individual assets.  The affluent have found a way to combat their feelings of distrust and rejection of all religious and moral principles.  They did so by forming sports teams, businesses, business ethics, creating policies and practices, corporate governance, legal practices, etc.--but only with members of their group who share the same interests in life.  Their culture may have developed these behaviors, but their ingenuity saved them.  Despite their individualistic nature as a people--the strength of numbers theory made more sense for their survival.  

As we can see within American business society, most millionaires work through corporations, joint ventures, consortiums, and organizations like that.  There are far more recognizable corporations as catalysts, moving America's economy--that is, more than individual businessmen.   It seems--at least in American society--the influential affluent rarely put all their money into any one venture, they collaborate and diversify within the business world.  And when the affluent come after individuals in the business world, who are in their way, they gang up on them—undersell them--do hostile take-overs; and yet, culturally speaking they'd promote to you evolve individually, so that they could pick off who they want.  You have JayZ and Beyonce shaking hands with the president and think, “I wish I had it like that!”  But go contrary, like Bill Cosby and you will see where it will get you.  Wasn’t it the ancient Romans who said, “Divide and conquer?”  Either they are all interested or they are all against you.  There's a cultural landscape in America for Blacks and Whites--and the dominant cultural controls them both--by way of “the stars"--and other cultural icons. 


The powers that be in American society look after their own interests, while our affluent and bourgeois Black (intoxicated by their own individual achievements) looks to American society (which is a capitalistic society) include them, look after their own people’s interests and protect his civil rights. Bourgeois Black expect all this--of course--without his proactive participation; neglecting to remember that American society has labeled his kind "a minority concern" (aka minority).  The working class, poverty, and below poverty level Blacks do this also--forgetting that they are minorities within American society; but their reasons maybe because of lack of awareness in political, economic, and social areas, due to improper education. The affluent Black who has a large business or businesses, in most cases, won’t have lobbyist on Capitol Hill representing or protecting his interests--so how does expect to survive like his counter parts do?  Last time I checked, Seagram’s Gin owned Geffen Records.  So while you see the name of David Geffen, but Seagrams is lurking, in the background, unadvertised—the name has been changed to protect the face of the guilty.   Sure, we cannot forget rich individuals like Bill Gates, but even they incorporate with others and serve on various boards; put their hands in this and that--and this way you may not be aware of their overall interests.  The influential affluent of the dominant culture within American society have their business partners--yet he'll teach Blacks that they should be “the man” (aka Mr. Individual).  

The affluent have lobbyists and assistants--but we feel we have to do it all on own and micro-manage or wear every hat; while still leaving our overall welfare, destiny, and interests in the hands of the culture which once institutionally devised laws and means for your enslavement.  I know, you think that's all in the past.  But don't get it twisted, they'll have a board meeting about you, to discuss whether you and your business are a threat to their business interests (and secretly boycott or undersell you, if they think you are).   No one gets ahead without the use of someone else’s help; without its family to fend, protect and provide for the offspring, a baby wouldn’t last outside of the womb.  Using people without proper alliances breeds enemies—and most enemies attack in groups  People are provided for by parents, family and community.  Anyone who is self-serving without practicing reciprocity is doomed to be conquered by bigger adversaries.  No man is an island; so without someone to trust, you are alone and vulnerable.   

Another notorious illusion in America which stands in the way of group solidarity is religious superiority and religious prejudice.  If the angle were to be, what behavior would get us to go with Creator after we return back to essence, then none living would know which was superior—because short of Jesus and Lazarus (and in Islam not even them), it is said—that the dead is never known to return from the grave; so none would be able tell the living which religion was superior.  If the superiority of religion lies in the product it produced, then the Godliness of a person would be the measure; that is, how well the person served all of humanity; and by its betterment served the Creator's will.  That being the case, I think it is fair to say, judging by the state of the world, none has given us that stock of Godly people either.  So unless you are exemplary in all that you do, there is no proof of your religion’s superiority.  And unless one has studied all techniques each religion has to offer, one cannot honestly know what he embraces is to be preferred over all others.  Within most religions, there’s religious prejudice--or bias, to choose this one overtop of that one: Let me say two important things: There is a direct link between the Creator and the created, therefore the Supreme needs no middle man; and I suggest you look at yourself first—and ask, “If I  am the person the creator wants to do this righteous work, should I deny someone on the basis of how they worship or do service only for those who practice my faith?  Since religion is dedicated to tying one back to the Creator of all things, though ritual and wisdom by making each person a better person, why debate over technique (especially if your system has not transform you into the best person you can be? Seems these things have disintegrated down into keeping our people focusing on our differences, past grievances, tribal transgressions—and apart from our social equality as one people.  Especially since the caucasian man will tell you he is atheist, Nihilistic, etc., and most of you will still do trading amongst him, ask to be under his employ, etc., etc. . .  Sounds more like bigotry and self hatred to me--but definitely not love.

Everybody seems content with being a cynic and therefore moving secretively; without trust, without hope, and little belief in honor.  This seems like the makings of a Twenty-first century schizoid man;  a man full of paranoia with nothing to alleviate those fears.  This looks on of the main products America has to offer.  All of these things considered, it comes as no surprise for me to see many of the incorrect things I see my people do, on the road to securing financial stability.  They are just aligning themselves with things they think will make themselves successful--and trying to disassociate themselves with the elements which make them part of the downtrodden, disenfranchised, underclass which is produced by the dominant culture in America and represented as a subculture in these United States.  But the truth of the matter is, no matter how hard some of us might try, we cannot change our heritage or the color of our skin, and self hatred will not make you someone else; or rid you of your frustrations.  It merely makes one guilty of avoiding the issues, and being ignorant to the facts.

Having self-determination and not relying on others seem to be better than depending on others.  I was taught by my parents, "If you don't like how you are being treated, you should do something so you can be treated right."  America's ruling class and her so-called Black minority issues is a relationship, but unlike gender romantic relationships, you can remedy the situation by doing for yourself (instead of depending on the whole of America to lose its bigotry or a tiger to change his stripes)--and working with those of your own people who want the same things and are willing to do what it takes to end this bad relationship.  If that means working amongst your own people  to establish better security for what we need as a people, then that is the course of action.  You cannot expect another people with different interest to provide and care for you; that's just narrow-mindedness. But please, let's not wait until another atrocity strikes (like China and Israel) before we take appropriate actions to protect our own interests and assure our survival.

Once again; Thank you for your consideration,
Peace and Love,



C. Be'erla Hai-roi Myers