Points Of Friction—A Peek Behind The Scenes At This Blog

I’m going to do something slightly different for this (long) blog post. When writing blog posts, I normally write in a way that’s similar to what I did as a trial lawyer: I tried to avoid saying very much about my personal emotional reactions to various issues. This time, I’ll do something different, and specifically mention how I feel about several issues.

I’m Not A Controlling Parent Who’s Trying To Keep Rebellious Teenagers In Check—You’ve Always Been Perfectly Free To Do Whatever You Want To Do—Even When It’s Self-Defeating

When I was actively engaged in BWE blogging, I recognized several unpleasant and time-wasting dynamics with many of the AA women readers that increased as the BWE social justice movement became successful.

The safer and freer many of the readers felt (due to the work done by the early BWE bloggers), the more they started playing the role of Rebellious Teenager while casting the early BWE bloggers in the role of Controlling Parent Who’s Ruining Their Fun By Pointing Out The [Rape-Related] Dangers of Getting Sloppy Drunk.

One reason why I stopped blogging is that it was too much of a time sacrifice. I’ve got plenty of other things to do. Another major reason why I stopped blogging is that I dislike the traditional dynamics of how AAs treat other Black folks who try to be helpful. When it comes to dealing with each other, most AAs take kindness for weakness and an invitation to mistreat the kind AA person. This Taking Kindness For Weakness garbage, combined with the Oppositional/Defiant Teenager behaviors many AAs get into with other AAs who try to be helpful, adds up to an extremely unpleasant dynamic.

Why be bothered interacting with that kind of garbage? That’s why I turned the comments off after retiring from active blogging. I got tired of having “gaslight” types of online conversations with AA women who were pretending to be dimwitted. All I had wanted to do was “pay it forward” for how the BWE pioneers’ work enhanced my life. I was never interested into falling into the trickbags that happened to previous generations of AA activists. I had mentioned these traps in a comment on another blog:

Non-AAs and nonblacks tend to put their time, energy and other resources where their mouths are. Nonblacks generally don't use up, bleed dry, and sometimes ultimately destroy the people from their collectives who try to serve them.

By contrast, this is what AAs usually do with/to the sincere workers among us. AAs have an established pattern of using and then discarding and then totally forgetting about the other Black folks who act in service to them. We use up the Black folks who are idealistic (perhaps naive?) enough to try to serve our collective interests.

Let's just recall how many AA activists from the 1960s that we collectively and completely forgot about. We allowed many of them to languish in prison for their activism while we totally forgot about their sacrifices on our behalf.

Let me mention an incident from law school that made a deep impression on me. I decided to attend a National Lawyers Guild meeting about political prisoners in the US. Needless to say, most of the activist-prisoners from the 1960s were Black. And from what I could tell, the only people who had bothered to remember them and organize support on their behalf were White leftists!

White leftists appeared to be the only ones writing letters to Amnesty International on their behalf, etc. Meanwhile, they had been totally forgotten by the masses of AAs and by AA/Black activist organizations. AAs were more interested in following the exploits of rappers.

AAs didn't just forget about the now-obscure AA political prisoners from the 1960s, we forgot about and ignored “big names” like Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer in their later years. Aside from AAs invoking their names during Black History Month, Rosa and Fannie Lou (and many others) were for the most part (if not totally) on their own in their elder years.

AAs forgot about and left Dr. King's widow and children (and Malcolm X's widow and children) to fend for themselves.

I learned from all of that. I learned that AA/Black activists have to VERY careful to not let Black folks use them up. And bleed them dry. And leave them flapping in the wind as an empty husk. And to be very careful of folks who might be following the AA/Black tradition of leaving Black activists hanging after making a lot of suggestions about what extra things these activists should do (in addition to whatever they're already doing).

Speaking for myself, after seeing how Blacks used and then discarded previous generations of Black activists, I'm very skittish of folks who want to give me what feels like additional homework assignments while they're doing nothing themselves. If the historical context was different, and if AAs didn't have the established pattern of using up our activists, then my reactions would be different (and less skittish).

To my way of thinking, some of the activist reactions to suggestions (from nonparticipants) [another commenter described] aren't about defensiveness or hostility. It's about self-protection, self-care, and self-love.

In response to this Oppositional/Defiant Teenager dynamic:

I’m not your mother. There’s no need for you to “defy” me because I’m not your mother; and I’ve never sought to have any control over what you do.

I’m not trying to ruin your fun.

You’ve always been free to accept or reject whatever people (including me) have been saying.

You’re totally free to get sloppy drunk [and other fill in the blank behaviors that I believe are self-defeating] if that’s what you want to do.

I point out certain things because I’d rather not see you get hurt or suffer.

I find it curious that you save your resentment for the people who care enough about you to look out for your interests. Somehow, you never feel the need to “rebel against” and “defy” the people who are looking to take advantage of you. Like the many people who encourage you to do things that are the equivalent of getting sloppy drunk around guys.

I never tried to control what you do. That’s why I put “rebel” and “defy” in quotes. There was never any need for you to “rebel against” what I’m saying because I’m not trying to control you.

Meanwhile, there are some other people who DID control your actions by pressuring you into acting against your own interests. You know, like the Black males who pressured you to make excuses for toxic BM, lower behavior standards for all BM, and enable BM dysfunction. Before the BWE pioneers, you were too scared to tell those Black males “No.” Much less publicly disagree with anything they were saying.

You know, like the gangs of AA Sista Soldier “mean girls” who shrieked at you and told you that you better get in line and “support BM” with whatever these men are doing, whether it’s right or wrong. Before the early BWE bloggers, you were too scared to publicly say “No” to those Sista Soldier “mean girls.” Before the early BWE bloggers, you were also too scared to publicly say that you found certain nonblack men (especially WM) attractive.

I notice that many of the AA women commenters who are talking the loudest now, and complaining about how they feel as if some of the BWE bloggers are trying to dictate their actions didn’t have any voices at all back in 2007-2008 when the BWE movement began.

The bulk of these women didn’t say a single word “in defiance” or “rebellion” against the online gangs of  BM and Sista Soldier “mean girls” who shrieked at them and other AA women. Not. A. Single. Mumbling. Word . . .

A lot of you were too scared to even comment anonymously at the early BWE blogs. And you had rational reasons to be scared, because back then the Internet Ike Turners were out in full force cyber-stalking and harassing early AA women bloggers. Especially cyber-stalking and harassing the early BWE bloggers.

On the one hand it’s a victory that now a lot of y’all previously silent and intimidated AA women have found your voices. I’m happy that you’ve found your voices. Even when you use your new-found voices to rag on me and other BWE bloggers. Because I remember how silent and scared the vast majority of y’all were just a few years ago.

More than a few of today’s loudest voices were too scared to leave comments at the early BWE blogs. Instead, some of them would privately email the early BWE bloggers in hopes that we would write blog posts saying the things these readers were too scared to say themselves. Too scared to say even as an anonymous commenter. But they did reap the benefits of the work that early BWE bloggers did. Which was the point. BWE bloggers want AA women to be free to live life to the fullest.

I’m happy that you feel free enough to speak now, but when I see some of you griping about the BWE bloggers now, I do wonder:

Where were you back in 2008 when vicious and menacing Internet Ike Turners ran more than one BW blogger off her own blog?

Where were you back in 2008 and 2009 when I had to invest in IP-address tracking software so that I’d have documentation to give the FBI about some particularly nasty and menacing Internet Ike Turners?

Where were you back in 2008 and 2009 when some other BWE bloggers and I had to exchange IP-address information about several nasty and menacing Internet Ike Turners?

The early BWE bloggers took the heat from the Internet Ike Turners, pushed back against them (sometimes with the assistance of law enforcement), and made it safe for a lot of other AA women to start talking online.

Because of the self-defense actions taken by the early BWE bloggers, many Internet Ike Turners learned the hard way that it can be unwise to cyber-stalk and harass BW.

The early BWE bloggers made it safe for you to talk publicly about how you plan on being an ultra-feminine woman who’s a stay at home wife and mother. Most of you weren’t talking like that online before BWE. You were too scared to talk like that within earshot of other AAs. Because you knew if you said anything like that in most AA online spaces, you’d have to deal with a hurricane of hatred and harassment from cyber-gangs of Good BM™ and Sista Soldier “mean girls.”

The early BWE bloggers made it safe you to get online and talk and blog about how some of you have always been attracted to WM. Most of you weren’t talking like that online before BWE. You were too scared to talk like that within earshot of other AAs. Because you knew if you said anything like that in most AA online spaces, you’d have to deal with a hurricane of hatred and harassment from cyber-gangs of Good BM™ and Sista Soldier “mean girls.”

Another reason why a lot of the current bold voices were quiet back then is because they literally were still children in 2008 and 2009.

Most of the young’uns don’t realize that BWE was started largely in response to two things: (1) The ever-growing number of dead AA women. And (2) the typically BW victim-blaming discourse among AAs about BW who are beaten, raped, and killed.

They don’t know about the news stories from that time. Such as the stories about the Dunbar Village Atrocity, or the multiple BW who were shot by BM because they refused a BM’s advances. A DBRBM shot Mildred Beaubrun in May, 2008, for refusing his advances. Ms. Beaubrun, who was 18 years old at the time of the shooting, died the next month.

In August, 2008, a DBRBM shot Vernice Morris twice after she refused to give out her phone number. Ms. Morris survived. A DBRBM shot two women who refused his advances in May, 2009. He shot one woman in the face and the other in the chest. They survived. (Rejected man shot two women, police say,‛ The Atlanta Journal Constitution, May 21, 2009).

The young’uns don’t know that even Good BM™ engaged in blaming the Hovey Street Murder victims and other BW victims for their own murders. It wasn’t just the overt Internet Ike Turners that created the pre-BWE pervasive online atmosphere of fear-based conformity among AA women. Good BM™ online . . . including politically aware, so-called “conscious” Good BM™ also contributed to that atmosphere of fear on mainstream AA blogs.

These atrocities were happening non-stop to BW in what’s now referred to as “Blackistan.” And nobody was saying anything except a handful of BW bloggers. Pre-BWE, if anybody made the common sense recommendation that BW run for their lives out of such areas, cyber-gangs of Good BM™ and Sista Soldier “mean girls” would rush in to scream at the top of their lungs that anybody making that suggestion was a “sell-out.” Some of y’all have forgotten about what the AA online atmosphere was like pre-BWE. Others of y’all are too young to know what it was like pre-BWE.

 

On one level, it’s a good sign when I hear comfy, privileged AA women clucking about how “extreme” and “paranoid” some of the terminology associated with BWE sounds to them. Like DBR (“damaged beyond repair”). It’s good that there are AA women who are free enough, safe enough, and comfy enough to be oblivious to the very real atrocities and oppression that created that “extreme,” and “paranoid”-sounding BWE terminology.

 

On the other hand, I’m annoyed at how callous and dismissive these BW Special Snowflakes (many of whom live in glass houses and are one bad experience away from becoming future Debra Dickersons, but don’t know it) are of other BW’s suffering. Lord have mercy on Debra Dickerson. I didn't care for her or what I felt was the “stank,” Special Snowflake attitude that emanated from her essays when she was living high in what turned out to be a glass house. But, my God, I hate to see a BW suffering like this.

 

Anyhoo, all of the above is the typical pattern when social justice movements are successful. The people coming behind the pioneers quickly forget what things were like before the movement succeeded. They forget how un-free and afraid they were before the victory was won. If they came on the scene after the major battles were fought by somebody else, they take the benefits of that victory for granted. This is human nature; and it’s to be expected. It’s an offensive behavior pattern, but it’s to be expected.

 

 

It’s Not About Dogma, It’s About Keeping Track Of The North Star & Not Getting Off Course

 

I wrote the recent Follow The Money Trail post regarding the 12 Years A Slave flick because I was worried by some of the behaviors of more than a few AA women real-life acquaintances. Just like the knee-jerk crusade AA women launched in support of a movie that erased them from their own history (Red Tails), these women were launching a crusade in support of a movie that brings them no benefit (as far as I can tell). Just like the knee-jerk crusades some of these same women did for various TV shows (in which the writers later on messed over the BW character and BWs’ image on the show).

These women launch these knee-jerk, UNRECIPROCATED crusades without thinking through a single common sense question before working as unpaid shills for these media projects.

This deeply entrenched behavior pattern is a large part of why AA women as a collective are in the condition that they’re in. AA women love to pour money and other resources into other people who don’t give much of anything back in return for their support. We keep doing this, and then wonder why so many of us are so poor and totally lacking in safety nets. As if it’s a mystery.

It worries me to see that so many AA women have serious problems with “staying neutral” (as another BW blogger describes it) when it comes to anybody who’s not an AA woman. We’re so quick to jump onto other people’s bandwagons. And we jump on hard with both feet.

We don’t say, “Oh, you might want to see Movie With Black Faces X.” AA women on these crusades say, “You’ve GOT TO go support Movie With Black Faces X.

If you don’t support Movie With Black Faces X, then [fill in the blank dire consequence to the future of movies featuring Black faces].” The crusaders act as if other AA women are somehow obligated to join the crusade.

For those who doubt this, just try telling your AA female relatives that you refuse to support Tyler Perry movies and see what happens. If you’re really bold, try telling your AA female relatives that you don’t support Policy X (pick one, any one) that Pres. Obama is doing. Don’t tell them that you generally don’t support Pres. Obama. That can get you verbally lynched among most AA women (who are rabid Obama-bots).

The only time many AA woman are truly comfortable with “staying neutral” is when it’s about supporting other AA women. THAT’S when AA women ask the zillion and one questions about evidence, proof, and benefits for them that they should ask–but somehow never ask–before making knee-jerk decisions to support various BM’s projects, nonblack women’s projects, and so on.

 

I’ll repeat some of the responses I gave during in-person discussions with crusading AA women about this 12 Years A Slave flick.

 

Just because Director X (in this case Foreign BM Director Married To A WW Steve McQueen) did one movie that lifted up one AA actress*, doesn’t mean that I’m obligated to be in his hip pocket for life. Or that it’s somehow inappropriate to raise questions about whether or not one of his future projects is worthy of my financial support. I’m free to support or not support things. Just like everybody else.

 

 

[*I'm not so sure of that. “Beharie” looks like it might be a Haitian-origin surname; and the actress was apparently born in Florida.]

 

To me, it makes more sense to evaluate these projects on a case-by-case basis. What’s that old saying about having permanent interests, not permanent allies?

 

It’s probably not a good idea to decide that one will launch crusades on Director/Celebrity X’s behalf now and forevermore because he did one helpful thing one time. Or two helpful things twice. Or whatever number of helpful things whatever number of times. What if Director/Celebrity X’s future project is something absolutely toxic?

 

It’s not about being dogmatic, it’s about evaluating each thing on a case-by-case basis. If Foreign BM Director Married To A WW Steve McQueen does a future project that I feel serves AA women’s collective interests by normalizing our image (the way other women’s images are normalized), then I’d be willing to financially support it. Because there would be some sort of benefit coming toward me and other AA women.

 

When there are commercials or print ads that feature BW in a wholesome-looking IRR, then I go out of my way to financially support the company that placed that ad. And I write the company to let them know why I’m supporting them. For all I know, it could be a BM executive who’s married to a WW who was responsible for the ad. When it’s something that brings benefit to me and other AA women like me, then I’m willing to support it. Because the benefit is mutual. Instead of my resources flying out to somebody else without any return benefit for me or other AA women.

 

Reciprocity isn’t a hard concept to understand.

 

Or, in the alternative, if this slave movie wasn’t “biting off of” AA history, then I’d feel differently about it. If he wants to sell his own people’s history and then give the proceeds of that sale to his White wife, I wouldn’t care. That would be his West Indian folks’ business and not mine. I’m annoyed with this flick because it feels like yet another episode of non-AA outsiders ripping off AA history and cultural artifacts to make a buck. With very little of that money and career-boosting “pub” ever flowing back into AAs’ hands. Just like the long list of nonblack artists who made their fortunes off of AA musical styles.

 

So, for any AA woman who wants to support the 12 Years A Slave flick:

 

I’m not your mother. There’s no need for you to “defy” me because I’m not your mother; and I’ve never sought to have any control over what you do.

I’m not trying to ruin your enjoyment of the movie (not sure if “enjoyment” is the right word to describe that type of movie, but you know what I mean).

 

You’ve always been free to accept or reject whatever people (including me) have been saying.

You’re free to support this (and any other movie). You’re free to launch campaigns in support of this movie or anything else, if that’s what you want to do.

 

I pointed out certain things to explain why I’m not supporting it. You’ve always been perfectly free to do whatever you want to do.

I never questioned any AA woman’s honor or integrity regarding this flick. How many times do I have to repeat the phrase “reasonable minds can differ about this” to get that message across? It annoys me when folks twist repeated statements about how reasonable minds can differ into some sort of effort to control others. That lets me know that those individuals aren’t really reacting to what was actually said or written. They’re reacting to some other internal stimuli.

I point out certain things–the things that serve as core BWE values for me, such as reciprocity issues–because I’ve watched the AA collective get totally off track.

The saddest “movement” photo I've seen is one I recently ran across online. It's a good example of what happens when AAs stop following their chosen North Star (sticking to some core values) and follow anything. The photo shows how far off course the NOI has gotten since Min. Farrakhan sold his deluded followers to the $cientology racket. All because they didn't keep track of their original “North Star” (which was Elijah Muhammad's ideology).

 

The Perils Of Presuming To Do Cross-Cultural Preaching

 

It’s always dangerous for a doctor to prescribe medication when he or she does not know much of anything about the patient’s history. What works as medicine for patients with one type of medical history is often deadly poison for patients with another type of personal medical history.

This “mismatched medication that poisons the patient”- type of situation is what often happens when non-African-American Blacks wade into conversations among African-Americans (AAs) that are specifically about AA issues. Let me give an example. Non-AA Blacks  are often mystified by many AAs’ current knee-jerk response of supporting Black criminals.

Non-AA Blacks are often mystified by these dysfunctional behaviors because they and theirs did not live through the historical experiences that created these dysfunctional responses. Things like the Scottsboro boys, Emmett Till, other lynchings, and Rosa Parks. These things are just stories in history books for non-AA Blacks. By contrast, these sorts of events are part of the living memory of my oldest relatives.

These things are also stories in history books for younger, new school AAs. But younger, new school AAs tend to still carry the overall collective world view that was formed by their elders living through these experiences.  For the most part, AAs haven’t taken a step back to see whether those old, hand-me-down world views are still accurate in today’s world. And so the Arrested BM Automatically = Emmett Till assumptions are still carried forward into the 21^st century. Which is dumb; but this view didn’t just drop out of the sky.

I would never presume to lecture West Indians, Africans (or anybody else) about the dysfunction that exists among their own cultures and in their own home countries. Or about what they need to do to make their home countries the sorts of places that large numbers of other people from around the planet will literally risk their lives to get into. [The way large numbers of people risk their lives to bust up into the United States in order to enjoy an apparently better quality of life.]

I can see certain types of cultural dysfunctions among various other (Black and nonblack) ethnic groups. But I just don’t know anybody else’s culture well enough—or intimately enough—to feel comfortable lecturing them about what I think they need to do. Not only would that be arrogant, but the historical pattern is that lasting solutions to embedded toxic cultural practices only come from within.

When I discuss these sorts of inter-ethnic issues, non-AA Blacks often assume that I dislike them as a category, or some other such. That’s not what’s happening when I talk about inter-ethnic issues among different Black ethnic groups.

 

What’s happening is that I’m simply doing what every other ethnic group does; which is looking out for my own group’s collective interests. For me, these inter-ethnic Black issues aren’t really about immigrant-origin Black folks. It’s about my own ethnic group’s consistent and idiotic failure to set healthy boundaries with other people. That’s our problem. Not anybody else’s.

**Addendum**

Another note about the widespread experiences that created and reinforce that “extreme,” and “paranoid”-sounding BWE terminology: A negro male panelist attacked a BW panelist at a Brecht Forum public discussion about allies that was recently held in Brooklyn. In addition to being doused with water by this negro male panelist; this negro male lunged at her and was eventually removed from the room.

THIS POST and the many crazy comments in response to this incident is a good example of what AA women can expect the reaction to be from many self-described Good BM™ when BW are threatened and attacked by other Good BM™. HERE'S a video of the “conscious” Good BM™ panelist who menaced the woman panelist at that public forum.

See Gina's POST about this incident at What About Our Daughters.

Follow The Money & Resources Trail, Part 3: “12 Years A Slave” — Who Benefits? Primarily Outsiders Who Are NOT African-American Women

Let me emphasize that: Reasonable minds can differ about who benefits from this movie. Nevertheless, I agree with what one commenter had to say in response to a recent post over at Acts of Faith in Love and Life.

I don't really trust Black men married to white women to truly tell "our story". They always somehow, someway let white women off the hook for their role and actions during slavery/racism/Jim Crow/segregation, etc. Somehow, they always manage to make them "more sympathetic" or "not as bad" as the white man in the story. In this movie "12 Years A Slave", I hear the excuse given to the white woman (as implied through her portrayal) is that her evil is simply because she's hurt and angry at her philandering husband, who regularly slips into the slave quarters and takes advantage of Patsey. For these reasons alone, I will not be seeing the movie.

My opinion has nothing to do with being against IR - people can marry who they want - but I just notice that Black men are quick to point out the evils of white men's historic past, but give a pass to white women. I heard alot of hate and belly-aching over Rachel Jeantea for being an "embarrassing" witness during the Trayvon Martin trial, but crickets towards the majority white female jury who let a cold-blooded killer off.

. . . I hear you, i'm just wary. Yes, I have done my best to work on projects that focus on helping Black girls change their outcomes to the positive. But no, I have not yet seen the movie. I don't see how seeing a movie will affect that change in any way. I would like to wait and read a review of the movie from a trusted source before I give my money to it, or most any other movie out of a Hollywood that is known to be extremely biased and prejudicial against Black women - no matter that a Director may be Black. . . .

I feel what this commenter is saying. I also DON’T trust “Black men married to white women to truly tell ‘our story’” as African-Americans. I especially don’t trust Black men—particularly BM who are hooked up with nonblack women—to tell 3-dimensional, human stories concerning Black women. Black men’s track record of creating anti-BW trash while simultaneously lifting up the image of nonblack women speaks for itself. Based on their long-term track record, BM creatives don’t deserve any benefit of the doubt.

Let’s see . . . who benefits if this movie—which is a dramatization of an African-American man’s autobiographical experience of being kidnapped into living in slavery with other African-Americans—is financially successful?

Who makes money and reaps other benefits from this movie about historical African-Americans?

Director Steve McQueen benefits. Mr. McQueen is a foreign Black person, and not African-American (AA). Here’s a photo of Mr. McQueen with his wife and daughter.

Actor Chiwetel Ejiofor benefits. Mr. Ejiofor is a foreign Black person, and not African-American (AA). Here’s a photo of Mr. Ejiofor and his current girlfriend, Sari Mercer.

Actress Lupita Nyong'o benefits. Ms. Nyong'o is a foreign Black person, and not African-American (AA).

As I glance down the cast list for this movie, I see some AA actresses, but the top names being lifted up in connection with this movie about a historical African-American person belong to either foreign Blacks or White actors and actresses. The AA cast members get to be bit players in a movie about their own ethnic group’s history. {sarcasm on} Great, just great. {sarcasm off}

There used to be a time when I thought it was automatically a good thing for more truthful stories to be told about slavery and other forms of oppression that AAs have endured. I don’t feel that way anymore. Because, unlike the strategic use that Jewish people make of their own Holocaust history, AAs misuse—and allow outsiders to profit from misusing—AA history.

Jewish people use TV movies and films about their Holocaust as political weapons to advance their group interests: (1) To cast themselves as perpetual victims in the public mind. And (2) to subtly delegitimize any criticism of the activities of modern-day Jewish people. These Holocaust movies reinforce the image of Jewish people as victims; not the reality of how there are disproportionate numbers of Jewish people exercising ownership and control of Hollywood companies, news media companies, financial institutions, and the professions (including higher education).

This Holocaust-based victim image is reinforced by American public schools. In American public schools, children are required to learn more about the Jewish Holocaust that took place overseas in Europe than any of the home-grown holocausts that this nation was built on (such as slavery, Jim Crow, and the genocide of the Native Americans). In summary, Holocaust movies serve to advance the collective political interests of Jewish people. Which is just fine. I don't fault other people for looking out for their own group's interests. It's not outsiders' fault that AAs are too gullible to do the same.

By contrast, AAs have consistently failed to make any strategic use of these slavery films. Traditionally, these movies are pain pornography that brings no benefit to AAs. Modern-day, new school AAs have allowed these slave movies to become outright cartoons and jokes in which negro slave consumers pay outsiders big money to be disrespected. Such as the D’Jango Unchained mess—negro slave consumers paid that WM director big money to verbally assault them non-stop with the n-word.

I’m beginning to feel that since AA directors, actors, actresses, and consumers are opening the door wider and wider for the total disrespect and misuse of our history,* it’s probably safest that we don’t have any more movies about slavery. [*For example, Russell Simmon’s Harriet Tubman sex tape parody.]

Let me repeat: Reasonable minds can differ about who benefits from this movie (and about who benefits the most from this movie). I’m delighted that (thanks to the BWE social justice movement) there’s been enough consciousness-raising among AA women that we can even have the sorts of online conversations that are taking place these days. Such as the recent conversation HERE. It's wonderful that we're learning to ask common sense questions about the pros and cons of the various media images of AA women. Instead of blindly supporting anything  that features Black faces (including supporting poison that runs BW's image through the mud).

My bottom line is that this slave flick “12 Years A Slave” is not doing anything to benefit ME or other AA women like ME.

Non-AA outsiders have the top spots in this flick.

Non-AA outsiders will reap the lion’s share of the money and career boosts that come from this flick (which is an adaptation of an AA person's autobiography). Several of these non-AA outsiders, such as the foreign BM director and foreign BM star, are hooked up with WW who will ultimately benefit from these two foreign BM’s money.

For any AA woman consumer to take the position that AA women should actively support this flick because it’s presumably of better quality than the vile cartoon trash like D’Jango Unchained still doesn’t answer the questions that I feel AA women need to ask before they plunk down their money:

“What’s in it for ME as an AA woman?”

“Who benefits if I financially support this movie/TV show/album/etc.?”

“Weighing everything involved in this particular project, does financially supporting an AA actress in this particular movie/TV show serve overall to cut my throat as an AA woman?”

“Weighing everything involved in this particular project, who benefits the most from this particular movie/TV show, etc.? Is it AA women like ME or is it SOMEBODY ELSE?”

These are some nuanced questions. Nuanced questions that go beyond the Pavlov’s  dogs-type response of “Black faces = something I automatically must support.”

I’ll also note that non-AA Black folks tend to be better at keeping track of their own ethnic group’s overall interests. They don’t feel the need to pretend to be blind when it comes to taking note of tribe or ethnicity. HERE'S a small example from a Nigerian forum.

A few AA actresses appear to be getting a few supporting cast crumbs from this particular movie. But when you weigh the entire situation, this adds up to non-AA outsiders reaping THE LION'S SHARE of the material and career benefits of this flick (which is an adaptation of an AA person's autobiography). I can't support that.

As a people, we're allowing ourselves to be erased and/or replaced. Even down to allowing outsiders to tell our historical stories in place of us.

Like I said, reasonable minds can differ. But I don't support this.

African-American Slave Consumers’ Addiction to “Business As Usual” Vs. Escape Velocity

When I read this excellent blog post (A is for Anger… And, Why I write What I write…), I chuckled as I read through the comment section. I chuckled because Black female slave consumers consistently use the same tired and convoluted excuses when trying to justify their choice to continue supporting anti-BW media garbage. It doesn’t matter whether the topic under discussion is:

Anti-BW gangster (c)rap;

Anti-BW- (especially anti-professional BW) Tyler Perry flicks;

Movies and TV shows that portray BW as unattractive mammies;

Movies and TV shows that portray BW as hardened, professionally competent shemales who are never the recipients of devotion, love, or protection from quality men (or any man at all);

Movies and TV shows that put BW characters into the Stay Losing side of love triangles;

Movies and TV shows that put BW characters into immoral love triangles (with men who are married to other women); and so on.

The excuses are always the same:

First, Black female slave consumers try to redefine the problem (negative propaganda portrayals of BW) as not really being a problem. “It’s no big deal. BW characters shouldn’t have to be ‘perfect’ or have ‘perfect’ lives.” Notice how Black female slave consumers deliberately misconstrue and twist the demand for decent, 3-dimensional images of BW—you know, the way nonblack women are portrayed— into demands for “perfect” images.

[Incidentally, let me note that there’s nothing “traditionally feminine” about a woman being a homewrecker who dates married men, or a woman who shacks up with a man. Those are hoodrat behaviors, no matter how well-dressed or physically attractive a woman might be. The better-dressed, better-coiffed homewreckers and shackers are simply upscale hoodrats.]

Second, Black female slave consumers will say that other African-American (AA) women shouldn’t withhold or retract their support from these movies and TV shows because to do so would be to deprive BW actresses of jobs. NO, what’s depriving BW actresses from being employed is their own refusal to Do For Self, create their own production companies, and create their own media products starring themselves.

When a BW actress takes a job that involves running BW’s image through the mud, then I certainly have no obligation to support her having that job. That’s the ethical equivalent of the drug dealer’s justification: If the way you feed yourself is by doing something (selling drugs, doing a minstrel-show/Jimmie Walker—Dyn-O-Mite!/Stepin Fetchit/Mammy/Hood Rat performance) that cuts my throat, then NO, I’m not going to support you feeding yourself by cutting my throat.

The other thing about the drug dealer argument is that it’s a false, intellectually dishonest argument. There are plenty of other ways in America to make money to feed oneself besides selling drugs. Similarly there are plenty of other ways for BW actresses in America to have acting roles besides playing roles that run BW’s image through the mud.

The reality is that negro drug dealers and, unfortunately, most BW actresses are too lazy to work these other angles. Because these other angles involve trailblazing, doing for self, and a lot more work than looking for somebody else to make things happen for you.

In an age of video podcast TV shows, YouTube videos, digital film equipment, etc. modern day Black actresses don’t have any legitimate excuses for not producing and creating an audience for their own content. These women are not trapped into begging for other people to cast them in their productions the way pioneers like Diahann Carroll and others were in previous generations.

Too many AA creative artists are still waiting on White (specifically Jewish-dominated, White*) Hollywood to do for them what they do for their own White artists. Which includes providing jobs and stardom for a long list of foreign White actors and actresses from places like Australia. White Hollywood has not, is not, and will not provide employment for Blacks en masse.

*Before anybody accuses me of anti-Semitism, they should read some books written by Jewish writers in which they brag about their people’s creation and ongoing domination of Hollywood. Starting with An Empire of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood by Neal Gabler. From the book description: “Winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Award for history, this "wonderful history of the golden age of the movie moguls" (Chicago Tribune ) is a provocative, original, and richly entertaining group biography of the Jewish immigrants who were the moving forces behind the creation of America's motion picture industry.”

My point is that Jewish immigrants did not create Hollywood in order to create jobs for Black folks. The modern-day Whites who control Hollywood are also not in the business of creating jobs for Black folks. Nor are they concerned about portraying BW as healthy human beings, much less portraying BW as desirable women.

The Whites who created and continue to control Hollywood are ALL about lifting up their OWN people and portraying their OWN women as the pinnacle of beauty. THAT will never change. It’s not White folks’ fault that AAs refuse to Do For Self. It’s not White folks’ fault that BM denigrate and refuse to lift up the image of the women from their own racial group. It’s not White folks’ fault that Black female slave consumers actively support images that cut their own throats. All of those are choices that slaves make. God respects free will, and so do I.

I’m not saying any of this as an I Never Watch TV snob. Over the years, there have been a few TV shows that I regularly watched. I watched Babylon 5 and the newer version of Battlestar Galactica on a regular basis. However, the Battlestar Galactica writers put the BW character into a Stay Losing love triangle in which she (as the fiancé or wife, I can’t remember which) ultimately lost against a butch-looking WW character (Starbuck). The writers ultimately had this BW character commit suicide. [!!!] Long before it got to that point, I had stopped watching that show.

This pattern of negatively positioning BW characters is an old and frequent pattern, and once I saw the beginning moves in that direction with the BW character on Battlestar Galactica, I drifted away from watching that show. I don’t support things that cut my throat as a BW; I gravitate away from such things.

Anyhoo, the general refusal to disconnect from non-productive and/or actively harmful things isn’t a dynamic that’s limited to Black female slave consumers. Almost any type of positive change creates internal resistance within the person who’s contemplating making a positive change.

HERE'S an excellent blog post that discusses these dynamics. In order to reach escape velocity into a self-actualized life, you have to disconnect from anything and everything that’s pushing you down.

ADDENDUM

Be sure to read the blogger One Less Soldier's excellent follow-up post Houston… We Have A Problem: Happily Adrift In Our Own Demise… And Other Little Sticky Wickets.

Situational Awareness For Sojourners–Teddy Roosevelt Knew About “Weak and Vicious Minds”

The Modern Prevalence of “Weak and Vicious Minds”

Today many Americans are discussing yet another mass shooting.  Unlike the Black Marie Antoinettes and other “perpetually surprised” African-Americans who don’t pay attention to the prevailing conditions that exist around them, Sojourners take careful note of the world they live in. Including the violent, entitlement-mentality nuts who live in the world. Including the not-infrequent common denominator among more than a few violent nuts of having served in the U.S. military after 9/11 (with or without actual combat experience).

Nobody talks about the risk factors created by the presence of modern day U.S. military veterans. In this hyper-nationalistic era, it’s sacrilege for anybody to point out that a decade of wars fought by an all-volunteer force means that the military hasn’t been screening those volunteers as strictly as they would in peace time.

The endless wars also mean that the military hasn’t been telling the entire truth about how damaged and broken many modern veterans are. Oh no, it’s all swept under the rug with the cooperation of the masses of civilian American sheeple. Facing unpleasant realities might mean an interruption in the bread and circuses of watching Snookie and American Idol.

 

From Shot in the Chest 100 Years Ago, Teddy Roosevelt Kept on Talking (emphasis in bold):

On October 14, 1912, an unemployed saloonkeeper shot former president and Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt outside a Milwaukee hotel. Rather than being rushed to the hospital, Roosevelt insisted on delivering his scheduled 90-minute speech. By slowing the bullet, those lengthy prepared remarks may actually have saved his life.

Theodore Roosevelt’s opening line was hardly remarkable for a presidential campaign speech: “Friends, I shall ask you to be as quiet as possible.” His second line, however, was a bombshell.

“I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot.”

. . . The horrified audience in the Milwaukee Auditorium on October 14, 1912, gasped as the former president unbuttoned his vest to reveal his bloodstained shirt. “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose,” the wounded candidate assured them. He reached into his coat pocket and pulled out a bullet-riddled, 50-page speech. Holding up his prepared remarks, which had two big holes blown through each page, Roosevelt continued. “Fortunately I had my manuscript, so you see I was going to make a long speech, and there is a bullet—there is where the bullet went through—and it probably saved me from it going into my heart. The bullet is in me now, so that I cannot make a very long speech, but I will try my best.”

Only two days before, the editor-in-chief of The Outlook characterized Roosevelt as “an electric battery of inexhaustible energy,” and for the next 90 minutes the 53-year-old former president proved it. “I give you my word, I do not care a rap about being shot; not a rap,” he claimed. Few could doubt him. Although his voice weakened and his breath shortened, Roosevelt glared at his nervous aides whenever they begged him to stop speaking or positioned themselves around the podium to catch him if he collapsed. Only with the speech completed did he agree to visit the hospital.

The shooting had occurred just after 8 p.m. as Roosevelt entered his car outside the Gilpatrick Hotel. As he stood up in the open-air automobile and waved his hat with his right hand to the crowd, a flash from a Colt revolver 5 feet away lit up the night. The candidate’s stenographer quickly put the would-be assassin in a half nelson and grabbed the assailant’s right wrist to prevent him from firing a second shot.

The well-wishing crowd morphed into a bloodthirsty pack, raining blows on the shooter and shouting, “Kill him!” According to an eyewitness, one man was “the coolest and least excited of anyone in the frenzied mob”: Roosevelt. The man who had been propelled to the Oval Office after an assassin felled President William McKinley bellowed out, “Don’t hurt him. Bring him here. I want to see him.” Roosevelt asked the shooter, “What did you do it for?” With no answer forthcoming, he said, “Oh, what’s the use? Turn him over to the police.”

Although there were no outward signs of blood, the former president reached inside his heavy overcoat and felt a dime-sized bullet hole on the right side of his chest. “He pinked me,” Roosevelt told a party official. He coughed into his hand three times. Not seeing any telltale blood, he determined that the bullet hadn’t penetrated his lungs. An accompanying doctor naturally told the driver to head directly to the hospital, but Colonel Roosevelt gave different marching orders: “You get me to that speech.” [Khadija speaking: Now that’s an old-school man!]

. . . Blasted by political opponents and elements of the press for being a power-hungry traitor willing to break the tradition of two-term presidencies, Roosevelt told the Milwaukee audience that the campaign’s inflamed political rhetoric contributed to the shooting. “It is a very natural thing,” he said, “that weak and vicious minds should be inflamed to acts of violence by the kind of awful mendacity and abuse that have been heaped upon me for the last three months by the papers.”

 

Ladies, be advised that the baseline level of decency, character and resilience among the majority of modern Americans (of all races and ethnicities) is  FAR below what existed in previous eras. Recognizing this reality means being much more cautious about who’s around you than the average American sheeple (or the “perpetually surprised” masses of African-Americans). There has always been a certain amount of bullying among children and teens. There have always been romantic disappointments. There have always been workplace disputes. Injustice has always existed.

All of these things existed without an unending series of mass shootings. What’s the difference between previous eras and today? The difference is that modern day America is jam-packed with the “weak and vicious minds” mentioned by Teddy Roosevelt. Modern minds that are weaker and more vicious by several orders of magnitude.

Take Careful Note Of The Post 9/11-Era U.S. Military Veterans In Your Work And Home Environment

I know this will anger and offend more than a few audience members, but it needs to said out loud. For your safety and your loved ones’ safety. Let me repeat some of the comments I made during a recent email conversation:

. . . I’m so very sick of watching gullible AA slaves continue to speak of the US military as an “opportunity” for their children. None of the AA fools I've known who have signed up for that bs can explain why they’re risking their lives, except for a meager paycheck they feel they can’t get anywhere else. None of the AA cannon fodder or their parents will acknowledge that warfare tends to drive people crazy. Or that if a job literally destroys you, then it’s not accurate to call that job an “opportunity.”

 

The same applies to the AA wannabe cannon fodder and their parents. They get very angry when my response is to say that AAs need to stop encouraging/allowing their children to sign up for that bs. As the economy continues to fail, there won’t be enough money to try to fix these people’s broken minds and/or broken bodies. Better to avoid having those problems by not volunteering for military service.

 

Quiet as most affected folks are keeping it, the US is reaping and will continue to reap the whirlwind with all these deranged soldiers coming back. The AA military families I know don’t openly talk about how crazy their sons (and daughters in some cases) are when they return from the last decade of wars. But they quietly ask friends and acquaintances to pray (and keep praying) for their now-deranged veteran children.

 

The stories I’ve heard from the mostly working class, single AA military mothers I know about some of their veteran-sons’ behaviors after they get home are scary. I wouldn’t want such persons living in the same house with me. Or anywhere around me. Too many of these veterans are ticking bombs waiting to go off. The government keeps quiet about all of this as much as possible (for obvious reasons). Unfortunately, the numbers of veteran suicides and murders of spouses, etc. will increase to the point that the powers that be won’t be able to keep all this on the hush-hush.

 

. . . Guurl, these AA cannon-fodder parents are cray-zee!

They get enraged when anybody points out that this country has been engaged in wars for over a decade. And God forbid that anybody mentions that volunteering for military service during wartime equals signing-up to get killed or maimed. They and their foolish adult children are “perpetually surprised” when bad things happen as a result of Voluntary. Military. Service. During. Wartime.

 

Meanwhile, they’re constantly asking for donations of toys, money, food and prayers “to help the soldiers” (who didn't have to sign-up for that bs). And extra prayers for their now-deranged children. I’ll add that these requests/demands are typically framed in such a manner that anybody who doesn’t donate is made to look “un-patriotic.”

 

I feel bad for the Vietnam-era veterans who didn’t have any choice. Not to mention that was a previous era–before the US government’s massive corruption had been exposed to the masses. I don’t feel sorry for the modern day idiots who volunteer for US military service–to fight wars they can’t even explain why or who they’re fighting–after 10+ years of non-stop war. Similar to how I don’t feel sorry for the Iraqi and Afghan collaborators . . . err, interpreters who are “perpetually surprised” when the US military abandons them to their fates with their angry countrymen.

 

Didn’t the educated ones among those fools see the YouTube footage of the last US military helicopter taking off from the US embassy in Vietnam–while leaving all the Vietnamese collaborators behind to meet their fates with the victorious Vietnamese communists?

 

In both situations, a little bit of forethought goes a long way. Hmmph!

Previous eras’ American military veterans didn’t present as much of a security risk to the rest of the population because they were draftees drawn from a more random selection of earlier, old-school Americans. Old-school Americans had a higher baseline level of decency, character and mental resilience. Not the widespread

• spoiled,
• weak,
• poorly-socialized (grew up playing computer games instead of playing outside in the real world with other children; prefers impersonal digital communication over actually talking to other people*),

and all too often vicious minds of the current day American masses.

From an article in today’s edition of Veterans Today, Veteran Suicides and Family Killings – What Can We Do? (emphasis added in bold):

But perhaps a more frightening trend is the rate of veteran suicides, which Veteran Affairs (VA) placed at 22 every day as of February 2013. Every 65 minutes, a veteran takes their own life. And at least 1 soldier lost to suicide every day is on active duty. Veterans with PTSD are four times more likely to commit suicide. So what has changed to cause this continual rise in veteran suicides? Why are Iraq and Afghanistan veterans so much more likely to commit suicide than Vietnam-era veterans?

We know it is not duration of deployment, because Vietnam veterans spent year in country without any breaks at home like today’s soldiers get.  And, in anything, war is carried out more efficiently now thanks to technology and knowledge born of experience. 

According to professionals in both the field of psychiatry and long-time military members, it may very well have to do with the way today’s generation of soldier was raised. The young men who went off to fight in World War II had far greater responsibilities and faced more significant hardships due to the Great Depression.

And just as the nation’s worst economic crash to date crawled to a close, we entered World War II. Those fighting in Vietnam grew up exposed to a great deal of hatred and violence as the Civil Rights movement reached its peak. 

According to David Rudd, the scientific direction of the National Center for Veteran’s Studies, “My worry is that they have not dealt with enough challenges, enough disappointments, in life for many of them to build the kind of resilience that is foundational when you go to war.” 

How do you build that resilience? Through adversity and difficulty. Going through trials and tribulation, while a terrible experience no one wants to see repeated, granted young men in the 1940’s the coping skills necessary to mentally survive war.

Large numbers of modern day American veterans aren’t like previous generations of U.S. veterans. The same way large numbers of modern day American politicians aren’t like previous generations of U.S. politicians. The vast majority of modern politicians are unworthy of your trust. They’re certainly not worth you sacrificing your life to support their lies and political ambitions.

 

Ladies, take careful note of the post 9/11-era U.S. military veterans in your work and home environment.

 

[*Bonus Note: Anybody who wants to thrive in the real world will have to learn how to build rapport and make connections in person. As far as I'm concerned, the main underlying source of the decline described in THIS POST is that certain types of “virtual” things can’t be effective long-term substitutes for more direct forms of interaction. The whole point of this online crowdsource thing was to replace personal appeals for contributions based on personal knowledge or respect for the persons asking for donations.

No matter how much many of the under-30 set want to evade and elude the personal touch, there’s really no way around it in the long run.  Stable, sustainable networks are based on in-person interactions. The same applies to business. 

 

Stable, sustainable businesses  are based on some form of personal investment into something. Even with purchases that aren’t so apparently personal. Like the way many readers buy fiction: They actively seek out some writers’ books because they like those particular writers’ individual voices. Not because they thought their internet campaign was cool. 

 

Readers will do a one-off experiment with ebooks based on cool marketing, etc. But they go out of their way to purchase ebooks, movie tickets, and so on based on things like word of mouth recommendations from sources they trust, like friends and relatives, and so on. 

 

Ladies, it would be wise to cultivate your in-person charm.]