I'm Republishing Breukelen Bleu's Comments About Abortion Rights Because The "For Harriet" Facebook Page Apparently Deleted Them

Dishonest, brain-dead mammy mules will be the death of “mainstream” African-American women and girls. The uncompromisingly mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road colored girl(s) who run the For Harriet Facebook page recently did a post titled “Why Roe vs. Wade Still Matter to Black Women 42 Years Later.”

It seems to me that when you publish something like that on your Facebook page, you’re looking to host a spirited, full-spectrum of ideas conversation about that issue. Not the uncompromisingly mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road folks at For Harriet. Whoever it is that runs the For Harriet Facebook page apparently deleted the excellent comments made by Breukelen Bleu (writer of the Black Woman Think Tank).

The uncompromisingly mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road folks who control the For Harriet Facebook page apparently deleted Ms. Bleu’s comment while allowing the following comment to remain:

Ain’t that about nothing? Mammy mules piss me ALL THE WAY off with this type of dishonest behavior. If you’re too weak-minded to host an honest discussion about abortion rights, then don’t bring it up! Stop pretending to discuss the issues that are literally destroying the African-American (AA) collective.

Well, since the uncompromisingly mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road colored girls who control the For Harriet Facebook page apparently deleted Ms. Bleu’s comments while allowing sexist negro troll comments to remain, I’m republishing Ms.Bleu’s Facebook post and related comments here.

Breukelen Bleu said:

It never ceases to fail that when the subject of black female sexuality, reproduction and child rearing is broached, black folk become the most conservative, moral and concerned people on the planet. Previously unused muscles of morality and righteous indignation, suddenly SPRING into action, as they remind us of our 'responsibilities' to God, race and nation. With the recent passing of a bill in Congress that is another step in the ongoing assault on a woman's right to choose, there is suddenly much discussion taking place about how it will affect BW. (After the fact, of course. We were to busy marching for negroes to notice while it was going down). So now the discourse about why BW need to care about reproductive rights is beginning to pop up all over the internet. One of these discussions....
https://www.facebook.com/forharriet/posts/824345864278868…

...Is taking place on FB, around an article posted on the topic. In this discussion, blackmen (as usual) show up, to 'educate' us poor, dumb, baby killing negresses about the 'origins' of abortion and the political, social and economic 'agenda' of those who pushed for its availability many moons ago. One Concerned Citizen told us to...
............

">>Learn the history of abortion. It was intended to control the black population! The most dangerous place for a black baby is in his mother's womb. If you don't believe me Richard Nixon said it better. Black women should stop getting abortions! Black genocide. They have won."<<

He went on to say (after a few other comments where the word 'eugenics' was thrown around, along with history lessons on Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, Richard Nixon and some others)....

>>" I only ask that women of color know the modern history of abortion in America, that's it. I don't believe the government should not allow women to choose"<<
.............

Now, I find all of this to be quite humourous. Black folk are QUICK to remind BW about the 'history' of those who have sought to harm, weaken or destroy us - as long as assailants were OUTSIDERS. And while on any other day, under any other circumstances, it is the OVER reproduction of BW that is blamed for all that ills our race and community, when the topic of abortion comes up, suddenly, there aint enough of us. Suddenly, all these 'bastards' that we are breeding to destroy the black race' are THE most important members of the community.

But yall know that negroes be on some TRANSFORMER shit, so that aint nothing new. But in order to set the record straight, ima prepost a version of my response on that thread ^^^ above. Yall take heed, and the next time some negro come with that "eugenics' okey doke, set the record straight and tell them Breukelen Bleu said it.
.....................................

The black population NEEDS to be controlled. We have become a race of RECKLESS BREEDERS with absolutely NO concern for the quality of life that our children are offered. We are being made The Sacrifice by each other and outsiders to the tune of MILLIONS. If we focused less on breeding for volume, and more on breeding for PEDIGREE, maybe our race would stand a chance. We are birthing all kinds of degeneracy into the world which is devouring us from the inside out. It would be best if BW would simply stop screwing these fools in the first place - then abortion would not be as necessary. But when someone suggests that they simply STOP IT (screwing and birthing them altogether), the 'genocide' accusation is leveled again.
 
We damned if we do, damned if we don't.

But heres whats never considered. Men (of all races) make life and death decisions EVERY DAY. They carry guns as police, join the military and act as GOD presiding over the health care, politics and economics of every human being on this planet. BILLIONS of people die from the decisions (and whims) of MEN - and nobody questions it because MALES are supposedly superior and thus, have that right. Women, on the other hand, are taught that we have NO right to decide what comes thru us - no power over life and death. We are told to be but 'vessel's for the 'seed' of men, with no power over if and when our bodies are used to bring forth life. We are told this, at the same time MALES are given the authority to determine the fates of every human being on this planet, with impunity.

Procreation is the WOMANS DOMAIN. Males have NO say and are NOT to preside over it. But they killed off the midwives and herb workers and Wise Women so that MEN could control fertility and birth rites. They are OUT OF ORDER in this and the entire human race has paid dearly for it.

Anyone who believes the black women did not terminate unwanted pregnancies before the 'white man' came, is a fool. Women of ALL races have exercised their reproductive rights since the very beginnings. It was MEN who took those rights away, forcing us to fight to get them back.

Patriarchy banks on the human males ability to control the womb of women. As long as men hold dominion there, they control everything. It is NOT the place of men to do this, and it is not 'divine order' for them to dictate to women what is for OUR minds only. WE are the First Cause. WE are the source of it all. They, as males, come after. THEY dont get to dictate to the Source what our rights are.

That is NOT their place.

The greatest indicator of poverty on this planet, is MOTHERHOOD. Men used the wombs of women to control resources, hoard wealth and have bodies to fill their factories, whore houses and military ranks. 70% of the worlds poor are WOMEN and CHILDREN and it is DESIGNED that way.

Black folk wanna talk about 'eugenics' and 'genocide'? Lets start there. Lets talk about the 2000 people who were killed in Nigera last week - BY black men. Lets talk about the untold numbers of adult black females and children of BOTH genders that are violated, tortured and killed at the hands of men who look JUST LIKE THEM, all around this world - and THEN lets talk about the 'genocide' of millions of black women and children who have harmed, raped, and murdered at the hands of BLACK MEN over the years. Lets talk about THAT shit. The history of black folk didnt start when the slave ships showed up. Our history goes back looooong before that and when we start looking there, some of our folk got some 'splainin to do.

So, after we throw out the bible verses and Jesus quotes talking about the 'sanctity' of life, lets talk about how we give MEN the right to preside over life and death (even black men) EVERY DAY all through out this world. Lets talk about the guns and weapons and bombs and biological agents and GMO's and all of that shit that kills HUMAN BEINGS by the millions, every year. Lets talk about why is it ok for men to decide who lives or dies (oftimes in the most horrific of ways), but not women. Lets talk about why we presume that men are better suited for that task, than the woman who actually CARRIES life within her? Lets talk about THAT.

Now lets get to this; If we gone talk about the 'history' of all the medical injustices that black folk have endured, lets talk about the fact that a good portion of the medical procedures that are used every day were created and perfected by the torture and mutilation, both PRE and post mortem, of black folk. Lets talk about the fact that there is a significant chance that any medical procedure that black folk have done - especially those that may be required to save their lives - were perfected first on black and brown people - without their consent and under very horrific and painful circumstances.

Lets ask, if every time black folk see a doctor - do they ask him for the 'history' of all the injustices and terrible things that went into creating that drug/procedure/surgery/knowledge that now saves their crusty behinds and makes their lives better? Do black women ask how many black babies had to die for the life saving procedure that THEIR black baby received, to be created? Do black men run and ask their doctors how many black people suffered so that that prescription for the hypertension medicine, insulin and 'little blue pill' they love to pop so they can continue to get a rise out of them ashy dicks, long past their prime, could be written?

Lets ask THAT shit.

This selective morality, HYPOCRISY and FAUX OUTRAGE of black folk, who scream "GENOCIDE!!" when it comes to black woman's right to choose, but then go RIGHT up into that hospital to get some life saving procedure that was created and perfected on the bodies of enslaved, impoverished and oppressed black folk, needs to be called the fuck out. All this consternation over the loss of 'black life' is bulshit. Black folk dont care about black lives. If they did, they'd treat black women and children - the ones who are actually BORN, with much more respect.

No. This shit here is about CONTROL. Its about controlling BW and dictating fake morality so that we remain POWERLESS - not only under white supremacy, but under black patriarchy, too.

The next time so 'pro-life' negroe that you know goes to get a teeth cleaning or a pap smear, you might want to remind them to ask the doctor what black person had to suffer for that 'routine' procedure to become successful enough to keep their teeth in their mouths or the wombs from being ravaged by cancer. And since they are SO concerned about the 'history' of shit, remind their asses to cancel them appts until they have proven that no black person was harmed in the commission of creating it.

I mean, since we all need to be 'informed' and shit.

Breukelen Bleu ©2014.

Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial...

My Previous Comments About Abortion

During the comments to the post “Inception” And African-Americans, I said the following:

RevolutionaryAndJoyful,

You’re welcome!

I can tolerate the forced birth ideology a little bit better when it’s coming from sincere Catholics who have a consistently expressed interest in preserving all forms of human life. This is the “Consistent Ethic of Life” that Joseph Cardinal Bernadin talked about. Because the Catholics who are sincerely concerned about “the seamless garment” of life (apparently a reference to John 19:23 in the Bible), tend to ALSO oppose the death penalty, nuclear weapons, and most wars.

However, I’m disgusted by the vast majority of the pro-forced-birth, Negro Muslim and Negro Protestant AAs that I encounter. For many reasons:

(1) These people generally ONLY profess concern about fetuses. Once somebody is born, then the pro-forced-birth AAs’ actions demonstrate that they are no longer concerned about that particular individual’s life. This shows that their true motives are more likely driven by the pleasures of: (a) a cheap form of holiness that revolves around cracking the whip on women; and (b) comes at somebody else’s expense.

(2) The bulk of these people are NOT doing anything to clean up the current disasters created by the legions of existing unwanted, AA children. And they don’t have any sort of plan for how to clean this up. They’re not willing to risk endangering themselves and their biological children by taking these children into their homes. Not that I necessarily blame them. My issue is their lack of seriously thinking through the consequences of what they’re proposing (having even more unwanted AA children). As far as I’m concerned, this lack of follow-up thinking makes their position an utterly irresponsible one.

I’m not recommending that naive, unprepared people take these unwanted children into their homes. The “typical” parent can handle normal children. But the bulk of the children in foster care are NOT normal children. You really need specialized preparation to deal with most of them.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time working in the child welfare system (be it in court, or as a caseworker) can tell you an extremely ugly reality—many of the already existing discarded/taken away children in foster care are safety risks. For everybody around them. Many of them have negative genetic inheritances such as very low IQs and predispostions for severe mental illness. On top of these negative genetic inheritances, many of them have also been severely traumatized by their experiences of living with neglectful and abusive biological parents.

Nobody talks about the adopted toddlers who hoard food in their pockets. Or the toddlers who bang their heads against walls when they don’t get their way. Or the adopted first-graders who try to rub the genitals of every adult they encounter—because that’s what they’ve been trained to do by their mother’s new-baby-daddy. Or who masturbates in public. Or the adopted 8-year-old who sexually molests the adoptive parents’ younger biological children. Or who is revealed to be schizophrenic when they hit puberty. All of this came up during a post at the previous blog (which is now a chapter in the book—the chapter about single adoption being “Plan B” for many AA women who haven’t married by 35).

Nobody talks about the many failed adoptions that end up back in the child welfare courts.

I’ve never met a pro-forced-birth AA who had any sort of plan for dealing with the existing unwanted pregnancies that turned into the above-described deranged AA children. No, they’re through with the situation after the woman/girl gives birth.

(3) I’m annoyed by their often childish manner of evaluating ideas. Yes, it’s important to factor in who the source of a particular idea is. However, that’s only part of the scrutiny that should be given to ALL ideas, whatever their source. Even a stopped clock is factually correct twice a day.

(4) In addition to having no plan to clean up the existing mess created by existing unwanted AA children, the pro-forced-birth AAs don’t understand that the birth of more unwanted AA children will be the DEATH of the rest of us. Having an AA collective that is increasingly filled with low IQ, predisposed to be mentally ill, neglected and abused children who are likely to continue the abuse cycle when they grow up does NOT help any of us.

And let’s be real about our distate with so-called eugenics: The plain truth is that it’s the LEAST capable AAs who are having an ever-increasing proportion of AA births. Productive modern AAs generally don’t have more than 3 children. Many of our best and brightest BW are not having children (for a variety of reasons). Meanwhile, the AA female drug addicts, never-worked-a-day-in-their-lives welfare recipients, and criminals generally have at least 3-4 children—and it’s more like 5-6 births. This overall pattern does not bode well for the future of the AA collective.

I said the following during a post at the previous blog, Home Is Where The Hate Is: Black Religious-Inspired Bigotry in Place of Godliness:

I’ve been stunned into befuddled silence by the recent outbreaks of right-wing violence. From the assassination of a doctor who offered abortion services to the murder of a guard at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

I was even more stunned when I pondered how African-Americans’ religious-inspired bigotry helps create the atmosphere that makes these slayings possible. We love to engage in hateful, hypocritical, bigoted talk.

Our fake “holiness talk” isn’t about love of God. It’s about the pleasure of cracking the whip on other people. We revel in verbally stepping on people who are engaged in sexual activities that we have no interest in participating in, such as the gays. Meanwhile, the majority of our births are out of wedlock. Despite all of our “We want forced births to be the law of the land” rhetoric, we are avid consumers of abortion services.

We are hateful bigots.

We are shameless hypocrites.

We are self-destructive fools.

By our bigoted statements and actions, we are ultimately supporting White, racist politicians who will turn back the clock on all of our (already extremely fragile) advancements.

This is what happened when many confused African-Americans voted for Pres. Bush to have a second term in office. I had many arguments with many confused Blacks who told me that they were voting for Bush because of so-called “moral issues” (translation: their opposition to gays having rights). Many of the Black folks saying these things were shacked up and had illegitimate children. [Translation: “By stepping on gays, I get to feel a rush of holiness without having to engage in any sort of self-discipline.”] I noticed that some of this “moral issues” talk dried up after Pres. Bush did a “heckuva job” of ignoring the Black deaths and suffering caused by Hurricane Katrina.

By our bigoted statements and actions, we are ultimately supporting White, racist extremists who will turn their guns on US.

Even worse, I believe that our fake religiosity (which takes the form of bigoted statements and actions) is pushing us further and further away from God! The proof is in our ever-declining collective quality of life.

__________________________________________________

Magenta,

You said, “During slavery, BW were seen by massa as nothing but breeders and these black “pro-lifers” are doing nothing but reading from the same racist, sexist script. That is why you will hear nothing about providing assistance or stability to these mothers and children. BW are just incubators and nothing more to these people.”

I agree. Like I said above, I would have more respect for that position if the Black folks talking that stuff: (1) were consistent in their professed concern about “life,” and (2) had a plan for dealing with the existing unwanted AA children.

The Bottom Line About These Dishonest “Trickbag” Conversations About African-American Women’s Life & Death Issues

Ladies, beware of “talking head” colored girls who only pretend that they want to discuss AAs’ life and death issues. The real deal is that their Tightly Scripted To Only Fall Within Certain Parameters Conversations are a safety valve in support of the continued oppression of AA women and girls.

These tightly scripted conversations are designed to allow AA women to let off steam about the deadly woman-hating hypocrisy within the AA collective while also blocking access to the strongest analytical arguments in support of AA women's survival. These fake conversations are a trickbag to keep AA women corralled into the stale ideologies that have them living the very worst quality of life of all women in the U.S.

Addendum. Someone from For Harriet is stating that:

For Harriet This is a complete fabrication and a very strange thing to make up. I've reviewed every comment on this thread including those that have been removed. "Breukelen Bleu" never posted here. Her comments have not been deleted. Frank Purdue has, however, been banned. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. If, however, I've overlooked something, I encourage Ms. Bleu to let us know, and I'll happily apologize.

Like · 12 hrs · Edited

After being told by a commenter that Ms. Bleu did indeed comment in that thread, the For Harriet representative goes on to say that:

For Harriet I've looked through every comment including those that have been removed. I see no sign of Breukelen Bleu posting on this thread. Perhaps she removed the comments herself. That is the only way I, as the moderator, wouldn't be able to see them. Moreover, she has deleted the post on her page in which she accuses us of deleting her comments. FH has a staff of exactly two people. This is very much an independent media outlet. I don't think there's a complete understanding of what goes into running a community of this size, but we're working hard. I only heard of the spreading of this inaccuracy because someone sent me a link to the post elsewhere. The measures we've taken to moderate aren't catching everything, but when it's brought to our attention, we act. Facebook inboxes are open; email addresses are prominently displayed and Twitter handles are easy to locate. Feel free to forward concerns there. Comments beneath Facebook posts are the most ephemeral because of the sheer amount of content we post each day. And again I invite Breukelen Blue to shed some light on what I'm missing here. -Kim

Like · 6 hrs · Edited

For Harriet Screenshots would also be helpful, so we can look into the issue. -Kim 

Yes, Ms. Bleu did post several comments to that particular thread (that I've republished above). I and the other readers who saw Ms. Bleu's comments weren't having some sort of shared hallucination. We all read the same comments from Ms. Bleu, and then those comments mysteriously disappeared from that thread. In responding to the For Harriet staff person, another commenter said:

Elizabeth Henderson Ms. Bleu certainly did post here. Several of us read her comments when they were posted here. Perhaps, as they were a response to someone else's commentary, they were deleted as part of the banned person's.

Like · 1 · 10 hrs

Maybe that's what happened. I have no idea. I just found it extremely  . . . peculiar . . .  that Ms. Bleu's comments disappeared while the sexist negro troll's comments remained (until recent hours, when all of this was apparently brought to the attention of the For Harriet staff).

And yeah, it would be nice to have some screen captures of Ms. Bleu's comments. I didn't take any because I didn't expect her comments to disappear. But now that I'm on notice that peculiar and mysterious things apparently happen on the For Harriet Facebook page, for future reference I'll know to take screen captures of anything else of interest on that page. Starting with screen captures of the above exchange. Lord have mercy.

 

The Importance of Context and Nuances, Part 1

Tl; dr version: Stay fluid and stay away from binary thinking and ideological thinking. Take whatever position works for YOU in each situation.

Short version: Do what Whites do, and apply various “rules” in whatever way works to your benefit. Reject the “one-drop rule” in situations when doing so brings you a benefit as an AABW. For example, don’t let modern-day half-Black women replace and erase you.

Adopt the one drop rule when doing so benefits you. For example, don’t let other people use rejection of the “one drop rule” as a way of stripping the AA tribe of those of our historical heroes who happened to be mixed. Our historical heroes that were mixed were (and are) Black in that context. Be flexible and take whatever position works for YOUR benefit in each situation.

Long version: Unfortunately, African-Americans generally don’t “do” nuance. We like to think and operate in hard binaries. We also usually fail to think through the costs/benefits of the binaries we adopt. We lock ourselves into positions, even when doing works to our disadvantage. Meanwhile, other people are experts at keeping context in mind and in keeping their options fluid. All of which works to their advantage.

This post is the result of a couple of things. A few things that I’ve had mentally marinating for a while, and then a more recent question asked at another blog.

For a while, I’ve been thinking through my mixed reactions to the thoughts expressed in reaction to THIS reprinted post. On the surface, this sounds good and self-affirming for AAs. But, as the original writer emphasizes, she’s African. She’s not AA. The positions she advocates won’t necessarily work for you in your AA context the way they work for her as an African. It might not cost her “tribe” anything to reject the American historical “one drop rule.”

But in some contexts and situations, there’s a price tag for AAs in the blind, uncritical and universal application of this “I’m rejecting the one-drop rule!” position. Because many of us are blindly taking this position AFTER we’ve invested heavily—for years— in newly-described-as-biracial folks that we’re now absolving of any responsibility to repay our support.

The pattern with how many AAs use the “biracial” label is that we use it to absolve biracial persons of any responsibility for reciprocating the material, monetary, and career support that AA Blacks have already given them. And the support that most of us continue to give them.

And so, with our hip new slogan of rejecting the one drop rule, we preserve the same old pattern of our resources flying out to others while nothing ever flows back in our direction.

Somehow, we never use the “biracial” label as a reason to CUT OFF the flow of our resources toward these people. We don’t say—like I did when I was in law school—“If this person is saying they’re not really Black, then why are they allowed to have their hand out for a Black student scholarship from a Black women’s auxiliary organization?”

My friends and I had great respect for the monies that had been raised by Black AA church ladies, Black lawyers’ wives,  secretaries, school lunchroom workers, and other BW for the benefit of AA Black students. That money was precious to us because it represented the hopes, dreams and aspirations of generations of AAs who didn’t have access to professional schools. We wanted that money to stay in house among loyal members of the AA Black tribe.

Unfortunately, the older AA Blacks who ran these various organizations and church programs didn’t agree. They were okay with giving the money raised by elderly AA church ladies to mixed students who only said they were Black when there was something to be gained by saying they’re Black. And so some of that Black student scholarship and stipend money went to several mixed individuals who did not speak to other Blacks on campus, and who never reciprocated that material support. During our final year of law school when it was time to give back to the same AA Black organizations who had given all of us material and monetary support during our first two years, these no-speaking mixed people refused to give.

Which brings me to a peculiar position I’ve heard said by some AABW who are in interracial marriages and are raising mixed children. Some of them are making a point of raising their children to reject any connection to AA Black people. So they’re basically pouring ALL their material resources into children they’re deliberately raising to have ZERO affection, respect or loyalty to these women’s own tribe. Sounds to me like a fast track to becoming the Black grandmother whose descendants claim was just a family servant and not a relative.

I don’t get that point of view because whenever I invest in anybody I expect a return on my investment.

Then there was a recent question asked in the comment section to THIS excellent post. The commenter basically asked how membership in the AA ethnic group is defined. I thought it was a good question because it highlights a couple of points about nuance and context. Essentially that there’s a huge difference between modern notions of technical, legal citizenship versus traditional understanding of tribal and ethnic membership.

All the way back from caveman times, membership in most tribes, ethnicities and nations are based on BLOODLINES. In other words, based on SHARED ancestral descent.

The modern, Western, technicality-driven (like “anchor babies”) view of citizenship does not trump bloodlines and shared ancestral descent. Anchor-baby-driven, technical U.S. citizenship does not change a foreign-origin person's bloodlines or ancestral descent.

The children of White/Black/Latino/whatever type of NON-Korean immigrants to South Korea don't get to wake up one day after growing up in South Korea and proclaim themselves as being part of the Korean people. It wouldn't even occur to anybody who lacks Korean bloodline ancestry to try that. Folks only presume to do that with African-Americans because we've been negligent in setting boundaries with other people.

African-Americans (AAs) are those Black folks in the U.S. who are descended from the African captives who were held in slavery in the United States. Anybody who's not part of this shared bloodline is not part of us. Pres. Obama married into the AA bloodlines. His children are AA. But his bloodline (continental African and WW) has ZERO connection to AAs. He's not descended from the African captives who were held in slavery in the United States.

There are nuances to all of this. I'm not as annoyed with Pres. Obama calling himself AA because he's married into my “tribe.” *And I let that slide in mixed company because I feel that overall, it operates as a “credit” to my tribe.

I'm also not annoyed with Min. Farrakhan calling himself AA (even though he's of West Indian bloodlines) because he's married into my tribe (IIRC); and he's been loyal to my tribe. And most of all, he was willing to follow and SERVE the leadership of an AA man (Elijah Muhammad). Too many foreign Blacks want to preside over AAs in the U.S. And tell us what to do about OUR issues—like some of the folks who have entered this conversation and the earlier post's comment section. Which is our own fault because we generally don't set boundaries with people.

*Side note to other AA readers:  I'm leery of people who want to strip the AA ethnic group of anybody and everybody who might be perceived as an accomplished person. I feel that some of y'all need to watch that. In your excitement to call yourself discarding the “one drop rule” you're making it easy for non-AA bigots to subtract a lot of historical AA heroes/sheroes from our tribe.

There are folks out there who hate AAs so much that they don't want us to be credited with anything or anybody who's productive. These bigots are in a hurry to find a way to describe any accomplished AA Black person as anything other than AA and/or Black. And in your fervor to call yourself discarding the “one drop rule,” you're helping these bigots do exactly that—subtract illustrious historical persons from our Black AA tribe.

I notice that there’s an ongoing, persistent effort to change the historical narrative and either destroy, erase or distort AA history. Like THIS situation. I've never watched this TV show, so I can't speak to the merits (or lack of such) regarding this character.

But I was extremely disturbed by this clip in which the fictional head of the historical Universal Negro Improvement Association (which was Garvey’s organization) goes straight from hosting a UNIA meeting in which he's telling members about the equivalent of a “talented tenth” uplifting Black folks to placing an order for $80,000 worth of heroin from White gangsters.

Regardless of whomever the actor involved (and I like and respect Jeffery Wright’s work as an actor) claims to be modeling his character after (a West Indian policy king named Casper Holstein that I mentioned in THIS post), he physically resembles W.E.B. DuBois with that handlebar moustache. That bit about referring to Blacks as "Libyans" is a riff on how the real-life historical Moorish Science Temple calls all Blacks “Moors.”And the writers have apparently used the name of the real historical Black organization, the UNIA.

The writers are showing a DuBois-resembling, historical Black leader character as somebody who peddles heroin to other Black folks. This is a problem because most AA sheeple get their history from TV shows.

In specific terms of lifestyle optimization for AA women, you can see what happens when your history is erased and distorted: People start selling you lies such as the notion that the masses of AA women have always been overweight.

I reject the one drop rule when it benefits me to do so. But if I see that somebody is using the rejection of the one drop rule to subtract some of our historical heroes from my tribe, then I’ll adopt the one drop rule for the purposes of that particular discussion. Context and nuances.

Lest we forget: The historical reason why so many of our early leaders and accomplished ancestors were more immediately “mixed” than is typical for us is because those were the first AAs who were positioned to have access to education. Either as the slavemaster's direct offspring or as (already) “free persons of color.”. In that moment in history, out of all of us, those were the types of Black folks who first gained access to education.

The productive, loyal tribe members Black folks that many of y'all new school individuals are in a hurry to call “biracial” and not Black—like the slavemaster's son Booker T. Washington—used their resources to help lift up other, NON-mixed AAs. Back to nuances, I disagree with a lot of things Booker T. Washington advocated. Nevertheless, he created a college that is still educating AA Blacks today. Not everybody’s going to get into Harvard, like W.E.B. DuBois. Washington built something that is still serving AAs’ needs today. As a Black AA business owner, I’ve seen for myself just how very hard it is to create a functioning institution. Especially one that uplifts AAs.

Ladies, please learn to examine the costs/benefits angle with everything. It helps the AA tribe to distance ourselves from and discard toxic, useless people by calling them “biracial.” It does NOT serve our interests to subtract any of our tribe's esteemed historical members by referring to them as “biracial.” 

Rhetorical question—Why is this so hard for so many of us to understand? White folks have this down pat. When somebody who is half-White & half-Other is a “credit,” they're quick to claim racial & tribal connection to that person. Folks like Keanu Reeves are identified as White by many (most) other White folks. When somebody who is half-White & half-Other is a turd (like this half-White/half-Asian creep who did the latest mass shooting), they're quick to distance that miscreant from the rest of their race & tribe. Nuances, ladies—nuances.

In closing,

My concern is that more AABW learn to perceive nuance and context. And learn to be flexible with rules, the way everybody else is. Instead of AABW continuing the behavior pattern of rigidly applying slogans and rules in ways that undermine their own interests.

I disagree with throwing the “biracial” label on esteemed historical AA/Black heroes/sheroes. Because that serves to subtract too many justifiably acclaimed and loyal people from our tribe.

This is a separate issue from the identification of modern-day biracials and multiculturals. These modern-day folks are mostly used to replace and erase “un-mixed” AA Blacks. Half-Black women in particular have been used to replace Black AA women in the media. I draw a distinction between myself as an AA Black woman and THESE modern-day half-Other folks because it serves my interests to do so. The modern-day biracials, Cablanasians, and multiculturals don’t represent me or AA Black women like me. As far as I’m concerned, there’s a world of difference between these modern-day biracials, Cablanasians, and multiculturals and our esteemed, loyal ancestors who happened to be half-nonblack.

An Education Is A Terrible Thing to Waste

Former blog readers often send me links to the most . . . peculiar . . . conversations that are taking place in online African-American-Rwanda Zones. Even though intellectually I know better than to be surprised, I’m still amazed at how the vast majority of African-Americans are totally out of touch with human norms. And instead have normalized—for themselves only—the deathstyles of the dead African-American collective. This deathstyle existence applies across all economic classes among AAs. When the typical modern AA goes to college the end result is usually an educated fool who uses the big-word-terminology they learned in college and grad school to justify mass AA dysfunction and deathstyles.

The relatively few normal and thriving AA women that exist (that I refer to as “sojourners”) can immediately tell that these Rwanda Zone conversations are crazy, but don’t understand the warped thinking that underlies these discussions. Here’s a quick guide for perplexed sojourners.

Asexual Mammy Is Just As Deviant As Hip-Hop Video Vixen; She’s Just At The Opposite End of the Promiscuity Scale

Nobody in their right mind admires Asexual Mammy. No matter how much women who identify with Asexual Mammy complain about the fact that nobody admires (or even really values) Asexual Mammy. Sane people who are in touch with human norms can recognize that Asexual Mammy is just as deviant as Hip-Hop Video Vixen. She's simply at the opposite end of the promiscuity spectrum. Neither image reflects or projects healthy, attractive womanhood.

If Viola Davis has any sense at all, she’ll stop playing Asexual Mammy roles. If she has a piece of a clue, she’ll use her current buzz to get herself cast as an alluring, desirable woman. She's not getting any younger. If she’s really smart, she’ll form her own production company and cast herself in lead roles as a desirable, alluring woman. Her shelf-life for being relatively young enough to be cast as a desirable woman (as opposed to being cast as the desirable woman's mother) is ticking down. She should look at what happened to Angela Bassett (who took too long to wake up, and wasted her prime female leading actress years).

If AA female slaves had any sense, they would stop celebrating Asexual Mammy. And stop lifting her up as an example for young AA girls. That’s crazy, Rwanda Zone thinking. That’s deathstyle thinking, and it’s totally out of touch with human norms.

Those women who are in touch with human norms understand that it’s a competitive world. Sensible women have no problem with caring about the so-called “male gaze” because attracting a quality, loving husband is a preliminary building block to marriage and wholesome family life. The relatively few normal and thriving AA women who exist understand that advertising matters. Images matter, whether or not the images are consciously intended to serve as advertising. “Brands” matter. Personal brands matter.

Sojourners know that sensible people aren’t careless or negligent about projecting an attractive image for their collective “brand.” That’s why, as other bloggers have noted, White lesbians such as Ellen DeGeneres and Rachel Maddow were required to soften and feminize their images in order to have their own tv shows. That’s why White lesbian actresses (such as Amber Heard and Portia de Rossi) who want to be employed have the common sense to conform to feminine norms in terms of their self-presentation. Sensible women know what time it is. For those who don’t, an education is a terrible thing to waste.

I Don’t Want Any Biopics About Closeted, Asexual Mammies—I Want Biopics About Desirable Black Women Who Openly Lived Well

I don’t want a biopic about Barbara Jordan. Here’s why. While following the links from the Wikipedia entry about her, I ran across this passage:

"On page one and throughout the rest of his slim, fawning biography, Barbara Jordan: The Biography (which ought to be called Barbara Jordan: The Panegyric), Teutsch refers to Jordan as a lesbian. Page one states in part that "[Jordan] stood up for the underdog, constantly opposed prejudice against race, religion or sexual orientation, which was commendable considering the fact that Barbara was gay and her lifetime companion was a white woman, Nancy Earl." Nancy Earl shows up in Rogers' biography, too -- she shares a house with Jordan and is one of two people allowed by Jordan to know the full extent of her tragic illnesses -- but she comes off more like a friend, a particularly close one."
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue24/books.VSBR.html

It’s a competitive world. I can see how this would likely play out in any movie: the WW partner would be portrayed as conventionally attractive and feminine, while Ms. Jordan would be portrayed as an asexual mammy at best. Or as a "butch"-looking lesbian at worst. Thereby continuing to lift up WW’s collective “brand” while tossing BW’s collective “brand” under the bus. I don’t want to see some mess about Closeted, Asexual Mammy.

For me it’s not about homophobia. It’s about AA women’s collective “brand.” If there’s going to be a biopic about a closeted, civil rights era AA lesbian who dated White women, I’d rather see one made about Lorraine Hansberry, who carried herself with feminine grace and glamour.

What I’d really like to see are some biopics about AA women like Lena Horne and Gloria Ray Karlmark (one of the Little Rock Nine who moved to Europe, married a European man, and has lived very well). I want to see biopics of AA women who lived well in the outer world.

Sensible women know what time it is. For those who don’t, an education is a terrible thing to waste.

Educated Tunnel Vision: The Outer World Of Normal Human Lifestyles Is Invisible To Indoctrinated AA Women

One often hears the strangest comments from many AA women. Strange, convoluted statements that have equally strange underlying assumptions. It’s as if they have no idea that women who live outside AA Rwanda Zones and away from AA social circles are enjoying normal lives. Educated and indoctrinated AA women don’t understand or see that:

WW don’t live with deadly, literally life-threatening street harassment.

WW don’t live like that because WM protect and provide for them.

WW don’t have to give up the benefits of 21st century freedoms in order to be protected and provided for by WM as a collective.

WW and White girls don’t suffer like so many AA women and girls because WM protect and provide for WW and White girls.

AA women and girls—who live in Black residential areas—live under deadly, literally life-threatening street harassment.

AA women and girls live under deadly street harassment—in Black residential areas—because BM refuse to protect and provide for them.

BM refuse to protect and provide for AA women and girls because Black males don’t care about AA women and girls.

As a collective, BM will never protect and provide for AA women and girls. No matter how much AA women whine about it.

Nonblack residential areas don’t have Rwanda-style, life-threatening street harassment of women because WM won’t tolerate it.

Any AA woman who wants to live in safety needs to flee Black residential areas, and live in an area that WM keep safe for women and children.

Sensible women know what time it is. For those who don’t, an education is a terrible thing to waste.

Sojourners need to understand that, at this point in time, most educated AAs with advanced degrees are just as out of touch with human norms as the Black underclass. So, despite their sophisticated-sounding theories and vocabularies, it's usually a waste of time trying to communicate with them.

It's a strange thing because, unlike the Black underclass, educated and professional AAs are in contact with the normal outer world everyday when they go to work. However, their minds are stuck in "Rwanda" because of their indoctrination-based mental filters and blinders. It's best to simply step over and around them as you enjoy normal human life in the outer world.

ADDENDUM

Ahh, I see that I've hit a nerve with this post. Good. Hopefully, more AA women will question these "okey-doke" snares that are celebrated among AA slaves and among nobody else. This celebration of Asexual Mammy images is something that more AA women need to question.

Some of the hysterical, shrill responses to this post reveal that a lot of AA women have been groomed from waaaay back to be Asexual Mammies. It's an AA-cultural-dsyfunction "okey doke" trap for so-called "good girls" who are also smart. Especially a trap for "church girls." Consider how out of touch this is with human norms:

Throughout the ages, girls from around the world are encouraged to daydream of being clever AND pretty---like the lead female characters in almost all of the Disney cartoons. Growing up to be a princess of some sort who's smart AND pretty AND loved/married by a good man is a universal (heterosexual) human girl's daydream. Normal and healthy girls don't daydream about growing up to be (or look like) an Asexual Mammy. Normal and healthy adults don't encourage the girls in their orbit to emulate Asexual Mammy.

Those of you who were groomed since girlhood to celebrate, emulate and identify with Asexual Mammy are perfectly free to continue doing so. That's your free and voluntary (and dysfunctional) choice to sabotage yourself and your own interests. But no matter how much you scream and howl and shriek, sensible Black women are not going to join you in your various suicide-martyrdom missions. Including the suicide-bomber mission of encouraging AA girls to celebrate and emulate Asexual Mammy images.

Women from other ethnic and racial groups who are looking to eliminate all potential competition will encourage you to sabotage yourselves. But they're not going to join you in that. Neither will those AA women who know better than that. Those of us who know better are also not going to spend much time debating with you about your various suicide-martyrdom missions. Let the dead bury the dead.