Thank You, Kola Boof!

Thank you, Kola Boof!

I've always been a firm believer in giving credit where it's due. I was greatly relieved to see the news story "Zendaya ‘no longer involved’ in Lifetime network's Aaliyah biopic."

Ms. Boof's online petition against this blatant miscasting regarding Aaliyah raised awareness about the ongoing whitewashing of BW, and surely played a major part in this outcome. As Ms. Boof has said, it's not about this teenage actress. This girl's management put her in a bad position. Furthermore, since she's as much White as she is Black, her management can send her to audition to portray Marilyn Monroe, Madonna, or other historical White women in upcoming biopics. Let's see if Hollywood allows this actress or the rest of the biracial actresses (like Paula Patton, etc.) to portray historical White women.

It's not about this actress, it's ALL about the systematic whitewashing, replacement and erasure of Black women in the entertainment industry. As I discussed HERE, things have escalated to the point that roles portraying African-American Black women are increasingly reserved for women who are not African-American Black women.

Furthermore, it’s obvious that if Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway were starting their acting careers now, they would never get hired. As many of the comments I've read in the online discussions inspired by Ms. Boof's petition have noted, the same whitewashing is entrenched in today's music industry. If Ella Fitzgerald, Gladys Knight, Dinah Washington, Dionne Warwick and Donna Summer were starting their careers now, they'd never get any recording deals.

Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of the whitewashing and erasure of African-American Black women.

If Angela Bassett, Diahann Carroll & Vanessa Bell Calloway Were Starting Their Acting Careers Now, They’d Never Get Hired—And Many Of You Are Okay With That Result

I would strongly urge everyone to read the latest excellent post over at Not Your Girl Friday. Because she describes the “perpetually surprised” mindset that far too many African-American Black women* (AABW) embrace:

  There are a number of black women online, and I am POSITIVE it transfers to real life, that simply believe ANYTHING.  This is not meant as an insult, but for many black women whether this happens from a lifetime of being gas-lighted or simply refusing to listen to reasonable people assert reasonable things. These black women absolutely refuse to access the system upgrade required to practice discernment.

 These black women, yes I’m probably speaking to you, have the mind-boggling problem of  simply ACCEPTING ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE  without ever doing what is called “fact checking” first.

 This lot, because of their denial of the necessity of fact checking, their absolute refusal  to check the fruit of the vine BEFORE they irresponsibly jump in head long; and their outright dismissal of anyone who has gone before them and knows with certainty the ending results, consequently, leaves many of these women * perpetually surprised*  as many BWE writers have described.

 . . . These women, only after they have been perpetually surprised over and over again (be honest its happened to YOU), then bemoan the fact that their lots have been cast and they are stuck perpetually at the bottom of “whatever” totem pole they have found themselves.

[*By AABW, I’m referring to modern-day BW who have 2 Black parents and who are descendants of the Africans who were held in slavery in the U.S. Since a lot of y’all choose to play “confused” about who’s a member of the AA tribe.]
But here’s another feature of  The Girl Who Believes Anything (TGWBA) mindset that’s even crazier than what One Less Soldier described in her post: A lot of y’all who are TGWBA can’t even see things that are obvious AT FACE VALUE!

You can’t see that AABW are being replaced in the American entertainment industry. You can’t see that AABW can’t get hired to portray other real-life AABW. The roles portraying AABW are increasingly being reserved for women who don’t have 2 Black parents; and for those women who are not descendants of the Africans who were held in slavery in the U.S. In other words, roles portraying AABW are increasingly reserved for women who are not AABW. This casting pattern is obvious AT FACE VALUE:

 

Good God, they won't even let a BW play a BW cartoon character:

 

Instead of seeing the erasure, whitewashing, and replacement of AABW that’s been going on AT FACE VALUE, a lot of y’all have been making various convoluted excuses for why you’re okay with AABW being replaced by non-AA women and non-Black women.

There's nothing random or benign about this pattern. We've had several decades of an all-out assault on AABW's image. This was accomplished through the anti-BW denigration promoted by hip-hop and c/rap; the accompanying worship of the lighter, whiter-looking, half-other and "Cablanasian" women. All at the expense of BW who have 2 Black parents and who look like they have 2 Black parents.

So, to add it up:

• 50+ years of the Harry Belafontes, Sidney Poitiers, OJs, Wesley Snipes, Arsenios, Yung Bergs, Neyos, etc.;
• a little over 30 years of hip-hop, c/rap and the virulent denigration of BW that is part of that mess;
• a little over 30 years of masses of AAs openly worshipping the half-others and "Cablanasians" in our midst at the expense of AABW who look like they have 2 Black parents.

Instead of seeing the whitewashing that's been going on for decades, a lot of y'all don't seem to notice the entrenched pattern that's been in place. You somehow don't notice that, in particular, the bulk of the entertainers who've been occupying "Black" roles and "slots" in the American entertainment industry are White women's children. Here's a partial list:

Halle Berry

Lisa Bonet
Shemar Moore
Persia White
Rashida Jones
Jennifer Beals
Jasmine Guy
Victoria Rowell
Boris Kodjoe
Lonette McKee
Sidney Tamiia Poitier
Clark Johnson
Mario Van Peebles

 

Most recently, yet another WW's child has been chosen to portray Aaliyah. But a lot of you can't and won't see the pattern here. Even after decades of this. Even as this pattern escalates.

This pattern and the destructive fallout associated with it mostly started with negro male celebrities and their insistence on having only lighter, whiter, White and other nonblack women cast in their music videos and other projects. But the majority of AABW aid, abet and perpetuate this pattern by supporting these negro male entertainers. And by supporting entertainment products that erase, displace, and replace AABW.

 

AABW do have a choice. We can make the conscious, deliberate choice to only support the entertainment products that lift us up.

 

When you look at the pattern of what’s going on, it’s obvious that if Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway were starting their acting careers now, they would never get hired. Even though she’s dark-skinned, a young Cicely Tyson might be able to slip into today’s industry if she emphasized the fact that she’s of foreign Black (West Indian) heritage. You may be *perpetually surprised* to hear the end result described in this manner; but this is what the casting choices YOU support with your money add up to.

I accuse you of being okay with that end result because: You financially support the casting decisions that EXCLUDE today’s AABW actress equivalents of Angela Bassett, Diahann Carrol and Vanessa Bell Calloway from ever being cast to play AABW.

We’ll probably never know who all of this generation’s Angela Bassett, etc. are because today’s Angela Bassett and others can’t get work. They can't get work and they won’t "do for self" to create their own productions.

I’m sure you’ll be *perpetually surprised* when things get to the point that the only roles in which White Hollywood and negro male directors and producers are willing to cast AABW are either in porn or “reality TV.”

THIS is where all of this is headed.

African-American Women: Here's Some Of The Fruit That You've Earned With Your Knee-Jerk, Rabid Support of “12 Years a Slave,” Part 4

I'll keep this relatively short because the point is [should be] self-evident. {smile}

A lot of y'all got mad when I originally questioned your knee-jerk, rabid, UN-reciprocated crusades in support of 12 Years a Slave.

I've been keeping track of the many bitter fruits y'all are going to reap as a result of this entrenched knee-jerk behavior pattern of constantly throwing on your Superwoman cape in support of any and all random Black-skinned faces. All without ever asking the simple questions of:

(1) What's in it for me and African-American women like me to support this?

(2) Who benefits from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?

(3) Who benefits the most from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?
Well, let's see . . .

So far, there's the Vanity Fair magazine cover I discussed HERE. There's the growing bad feeling some of y'all are belatedly experiencing that I discussed HERE. There's the casting of two foreign Black performers as Dr. King and Coretta Scott King in an upcoming biopic about Dr. King that I discussed HERE.

And now there's this: Lupita Nyong'o joins 'Star Wars' cast. Your unsolicited caping in support of 12 Years a Slave has worked out VERY well for the foreign Blacks who are reaping the lion's share of the material and career benefits from that movie. Meanwhile, you and AA actresses are still empty-handed.

Thirty-four (34) years ago, the first negro male actor was cast in the Star Wars franchise (Billy Dee Williams). The second negro male actor was cast in the Star Wars franchise in 2005 (Samuel Jackson).

And now that the first BW will appear in the American Star Wars movie franchise, your unsolicited caping for 12 Years a Slave has helped a foreign BW become that first (and most likely last) BW cast to appear in Star Wars.

Nyong'o's casting is also the first time a black woman will appear in a Star Wars movie. The first time in franchise history, spanning six movies. That's something worth celebrating. But it also makes you wonder what's been going on at one of the most lucrative franchises in movie history for the last 30 or so years. When Nyong'o and co-star John Boyega make their debuts, they will be the third and fourth black characters — Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) and Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) were the only two black characters before this upcoming movie — in Star Wars history to have speaking roles. 

Full article HERE. I agree with this observation by a commenter named Karen over at Not Your Girl Friday about this:

“Caping” has worked out well for Lupita, if reports are correct she will be in the latest Star Wars. Apparently, there were no AA BW actresses to be found and given that in all of the Star Wars movies to my knowledge no AA BW actress was ever given a visible role, it does not bode well for AA BW actresses when they are not even be selected in home grown American movies. Other “tribes”/countries will not go out of their way to cast an AA BW in their movies because they maintain their boundaries and ethnic pride for their own which is normal.

It again shows what happens when AA BW blindly “cape” for others that never asked for their support and therefore will show no reciprocity in return –> namely, AABW receive nothing in return and the reward/benefits go to “others” while we continue to be marginalized and erased. Unless we begin voting with our wallets and send a clear message, this trend will continue and accelerate.

Yep, that sums it up.

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.

One Less Soldier Says, "Smile When you say that!: The Multi Cultural Editions"

I 100% co-sign what One Less Soldier (blog host of Not Your Girl Friday) said HERE.

Far too many straight African-American women are addicted to knee-jerk muling for other people. Other people like Black men, foreign Blacks, Latinos, gays and lesbians, transvestites, hunchbacks, etc. Anybody and everybody except themselves.

And instead of breaking the muling habit, some of y'all have started coming up with hip-sounding excuses to justify your choice to keep engaging in that same, old behavior pattern of knee-jerk muling for other people.

Furthermore, I would suggest that readers pay close attention to the very first comment to that post, which was made by an African-British commenter named JaliliMaster. She gave an honest description of the dynamics involved when African-American women catch a clue and start looking out for their own interests.

As JaliliMaster noted, a person who is acting in good faith is not going to have a problem with (much less a tantrum in response to) you asking the common-sense question of "How does this benefit me?" before giving knee-jerk support to anything or anybody.

And if a person chooses to have a hissy-fit in response to you asking the common-sense question of "How does this benefit me?" then you know what that person's intentions are toward you: Nothing nice - that's somebody who's looking to use you.

The Overall African-American “Tribe” Is Ruined, But You Can Still Thrive As An African-American Woman If You Get Back To Basics

Evia, who is a social science expert and the blog host of Black Female Interracial Marriage Ezine,  often talks about “indicators” that show where ethnic groups, nations or any other groups of people are headed. Years ago, many of the BWE/Common Sense bloggers saw that African-Americans (AAs) were on the way to becoming a permanent underclass in the U.S. Almost 5 years ago, Evia and I had the following exchange in the comments section of a July 2009 post.

Evia said...

I think Khadija, that some bw are reading our warnings here, but are still NOT connecting the cold, hard, bitter dots.

We've all heard by now about the swim club in Philly that didn't let the black kids use the pool.

This is going to sound harsh, but if as is being reported that the OOW rate among AAs has risen to 82% (???) as ActsofFaith Blog is reporting on her blog (and 70% was ALREADY just mindboggling), why is it that we don't expect for people to not to want to have anything to do with us AAs with either of those rates? We are a FAILED people--as a group.

You've continually warned--ever since I've been aware of you--about the permanent underclass that's forming--that the bulk of AAs will be stuck in.

I've been keenly aware of this too and this is why I've advocated that those AAs with common sense need to try to separate and get a new brand. AAs will very soon become complete pariahs. No one will want to associate with us. Other races and even other black ethnics cannot tell most of us apart from the Sheniquas and DeShawns even now if we're out of context. Most people already consider us a part of that permanent underclass. I know this may be painful to some, but AAs have been written off as a loss.

I even know some working class AAs who don't want their children to socialize with, go to the boys and girls club or any camp with, or associate with other working class AA children because the AA TITANIC is mostly underwater. Everyone knows that way too many AA children tend to be rowdy and out of control. No one wants their children to sink to where Sheniqua and Ray-Ray's children have sunk. Many AA parents I know have already taken their children out of public schools to get them away from Sheniqua and Ray Ray's children. There's going to be a lot of fallout. Things are going to get very ugly!

This is what we've been talking about here all of the time. I'm not quite sure why there's surprise about this story. There are black clubs that wouldn't want those children to use the swim club. The Ywca and Ymca in the last 2 areas I've lived in have raised the fees astronomically high to keep out Sheniqua and Ray-Ray's children. They let a few of them in after a 2-week waiting list and then a screening process. They check police records, school records, family records, etc.

So guess what? Folks will protest and that club may let those black kids in there, but the whites are then going to put their kids somewhere else.

Also, let me point out that many continental Africans ALSO don't want to have anything much to do with AAs these days. AAs have degenerated and everybody seems to know it except for some of us. You constantly talk about this and I constantly talk about the ABC-DBR effect on all of us, yet I think some people think we're exaggerating. LOL!

Many young continental African women here are STRICTLY forbidden not to EVER date an AA man. Some segments of AA women are still considered okay because we're considered education-oriented, ambitious and more responsible, but this general ABC-DBR virus is really a pox on all AAs. Yet so many AAs continue to make excuses, defend, rationalize, enable, cover it up and not call it out for what it is.

Some of us individual AAs will do fine, but the general group had better brace itself. AAs are in a free fall. The bitter truth is that many people in other groups do NOT want ANY connection with AAs unless it's on their terms.

And AAs have sat back and allowed the ABCs and DBRs to do this. There's no point in being angry at anyone else. 'We have met the enemy and he is us' (or those AAs who sat silently and allowed this to happen.)

July 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Khadija said...

[. . . . ]
Evia,

I 100% co-sign your comment. Like you said, other people have quite logically and rationally written AAs off as a liability/loss. And they should do so, because we ARE a failed people.

I saw that 82% OOW rate cited on Faith's blog and I still can't get over it. Even though I know better logically. I know that we're in FREE FALL; but each new indicator that documents just how low we've sunk as a collective is still painful to hear.

This is why I'm so frantic about encouraging as many AA women as possible to get OUT while they can.

Soon, AAs will be TRAPPED in unofficial "quarantine zones." AAs will be quarantined and KEPT FAR AWAY from everybody else for the safety and preservation of these other people. The bulk of AAs will be quarantined socially, economically, employment-wise, and in terms of residential areas!

The quarantine zones will be areas where the DBRbm will be free to rob, ravish, torture and kill Black women and children as they please. These places have already begun to emerge in Black residential areas. Places with names like DUNBAR VILLAGE and HOVEY STREET.-

The TRUE purpose of tv shows like CNN's Black in America is to WARN those few non-AAs who haven't caught the hint that we're to be avoided at all costs! They put all our various pathologies on display as a warning to others about us.

Evia, like you said, "AAs have degenerated and everybody seems to know it except for some of us."-

I know that as you stated,"some bw are reading our warnings here, but are still NOT connecting the cold, hard, bitter dots."-

Well...the unfortunate reality is that these women (AND their children) won't make it through what's coming our people's way in a few minutes: The Endless Night of Permanent Underclass-Pariah Status for AAs.

I just know that I've done what I can to sound the alarm.

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

July 9, 2009 at 5:56 PM

For those folks who understand the connections between things, there have been plenty of “indicators” over the years that demonstrate the final demise of the AA collective as a functional group of people. Ranging from official indicators like the out-out-wedlock statistics among AAs. To casual, everyday life indicators like the Mass-Fatherlessness-Created dysfunctional family dynamics on display in a lot of new school AAs' family portrait photos.

Another indicator of AA collective death and destruction is many new school AA women's penchant for choosing ideology over common sense. One example has been new school colored girls cheerleading casual sex and promiscuity, which was discussed here.

Former blog readers often send me links to various online discussions going on among African-American women. That’s how I became aware of the controversy surrounding the ideas expressed in this blog post. I don’t see anything that warrants genuine controversy. After all, the normalization of casual sex and promiscuity among African-Americans has created an absolute disaster for the (AA) collective over the past 50 years. I won’t bother to repeat the obvious connection between casual sex, out-of-wedlock childbearing (oow), fatherlessness and the deadly violence that currently exists in the dead AA “community.” Anybody who refuses to see the connections between all of this is choosing to remain deaf, dumb and blind. Which is their free and voluntary choice. God respects free will, and so do I.

Casual sex generally does not work to women’s benefit or long-term interests. Casual sex also generally does not work to the benefit of children who are born as the result of casual sex. The exceptions don’t nullify the rule. As I read various pro-casual sex comments, I had the nagging feeling that I've heard this catastrophic level of foolishness before. But I couldn't immediately remember the context.

And then I remembered where I had heard of such controversies before: this type of Ideology Over Common Sense played a large role in the mass AIDS die-off of American gay men in the 1980s and early 1990s. That's the context in which I had heard of Sexual Liberation Ideology Over Common Sense controversies before. I remembered reading interviews in papers like the Village Voice with the handful of sensible gay male activists who were imploring their fellow gay men to reduce their promiscuity and change some of their sexual practices in order to save their own lives. And these sensible White gay male activists were often viciously condemned by other White gay men as a result.

The ruined AA collective is one of two recent examples of what happens when a group of people disconnect sex from binding commitments to each other. The other example that most folks have forgotten about was the mass die-off of American gay men during the AIDS plague years of the 1980s and early 1990s.

The same way that many new-school AAs refuse to see the connection between casual sex, oow, and the death and destruction in AA areas is the same way many gay men from that era refused to see the connection between their promiscuity and their own deaths from AIDS. Even as their friends and lovers were dropping like flies all around them.

Another indicator was the plethora of fervent Never Spank Children ideology spouted by a lot of commenters in response to this post. Another indicator (that was an addendum to this post) is that new school AAs are extremely arrogant in their foolish choice to put experimental ideologies over common sense:

**ADDENDUM** Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. During the Spare The Rod And Destroy The Child post I repeatedly mentioned that I have never seen the “we don’t ever spank the children” parenting style succeed in raising decent children. I’m in my 40s and I’ve been actively paying attention to how relatives and others have been using various parenting styles for roughly the past 25 years. If you’re a “never spank children” believer who has only been alive for 25 years, that observation I mentioned should have raised some concerns for you.

Let me make it plain: I’ve been watching this “never spank the children” parenting style repeatedly fail for as long as some of you zealous “never spank the children” believers have been alive! I’m not saying that this observation by itself should change anybody’s mind. But it should have given some of the “never spank” believers who haven’t been on the planet as long a reason to step back for a minute. And think. But I noticed that not a single one of the 20-something, or even early 30s “never spank” believers gave that 25-year-long observation the weight or consideration that it deserved. That “as long as their entire lifetime” observation didn’t cause them to slow their roll for even a millisecond. They blew off that observation as if it had never been said. This kind of refusal to pause and listen for a moment is exactly what I’m talking about in this post.

That kind of behavior is not how I was raised. When somebody has been watching a particular phenomenon for as long as I’ve been alive, I listen. I don’t automatically believe or agree with them; but I do step back, sit down, and listen.

All of these ideological choices lessen the odds of having a stable, productive family unit. I don’t assume that every newfangled idea always represents progress. And I’m hesitant to discard traditional methods that have stood the test of time in favor of experiments. Especially not when the stakes are so high. Thousands of years of human experience have shown that stable and productive families are based on: (1) marriage; (2) the children being born within marriage; and (3) parental authority over the children during their childhood.

Forty-five (45) people were shot during the recent Easter weekend in my hometown Chicago. Six of those who were shot over Easter weekend in Chicago are children. These shootings mostly occur in Chicago's “Blackistan” areas. Residential areas in which there are very few marriages, very few fathers who live with and raise their children, and very little demonstrated parental authority over minors.

New school AAs like to pretend that there's no connection between the lack of marriage, the lack of fathers, the lack of parental authority and the rampant death and destruction that takes place in “Blackistan.”

If you want to thrive, and if you want the best for your future children, don't play dumb and dishonest. Nobody ever said that spanking guaranteed a good outcome. What I am saying is that any honest observer can see that traditional* methods of family formation and child-rearing on average yield much better results than the experimental practices that so many new school AAs have bought into. And even when there are problems and failures, the baseline quality of life that forms the context of those problems and failures is much, much higher.

[*By “traditional” I'm referring to the best practices of AA old school culture.]

Back to indicators: I recently saw an indicator that, at least for me, confirmed that it's GAME OVER in terms of the AA collective. I saw a number of new school AA women in the Black blogosphere echoing Jada Pinkett Smith's idiotic comments about the photos of her 13-year old daughter in bed with a 20-year old man. Whether or not one considers the photos “sexual,” common sense dictates that a responsible parent would never allow males to have that kind of unrestricted, unmonitored access to their underage daughter.

It's a waste of time talking to any adult woman who doesn't understand this. More than a few men will play dumb and advocate all sorts of irresponsible parenting practices—for girls (specifically for other people's daughters)—because some of them are predators who are looking to have access to underage girls. For large numbers of adult women to be too gullible to see the risk of harm this type of situation creates for underage girls is unprecedented.

Which is why this is an indicator of Game Over for the AA collective. When you have mothers and future mothers who don't understand the need to limit males' access to their daughters, that lets you know the AA "tribe" is ruined. Because this indicates the already-epidemic levels of molestation and rape among the AA collective will only get worse. Real talk: You can't build or sustain a healthy collective composed of increasing numbers of future molestation victims who will grow up to be like Tyler Perry, Mo'Nique or Oprah. Money alone does not create an emotionally healthy or wholesome life. It's a wrap for AAs.

AAs with old school values know that you have to protect your girls from the many males in their environment (which often include "friends of the family") who are looking to exploit them sexually. You have to protect them from the males that you know are trying to get at them. AND from the males that you don't know are trying to get at them. The undercover child molester who's your neighbor, your pastor, your imam, your brother, your nephew, your cousin is not going to tell you that he wants to sex your underage daughter. If you have any sense at all, you'll make sure that nobody has unrestricted, unmonitored access to your daughter [or son, but I'm talking specifically about girls in this post].

It's basic common sense. The same way you don't allow toddlers to play in a group of older children—because the toddlers would most likely end up being trampled by the older children. The same way you don't leave your child unattended with animals. The babies are the ones who pay the price (often in blood) for adult stupidity and negligence. Like this poor little boy who was killed after being left outside alone with his idiot mother's friend's 3 pit bulls.

I understand that a lot of new school AAs gravitate to experimental, newfangled practices because they themselves were illegitimate children who've never seen a wholesome, traditional marriage or family from the inside. I understand that a lot of new school AAs resent the traditional marriage and child-rearing practices that they never got to benefit from. I've noticed an envious, “sour grapes” undercurrent in many new school AAs' bashing of traditional marriage and child-rearing practices. I get that.

Nevertheless, if you want to increase the odds of you and your future children LIVING WELL, you need to get back to basics.

And leave these newfangled, experimental marriage and child-rearing practices ALONE.
 
 

"Bougie throws a massive side eye towards the Black women haters who want us to be outraged over Donald Sterling"

I 100% co-sign what Bougie Black Girl said HERE.

It's been a joy basking in the victory of the BWE social justice movement. In this particular instance it's been delightful watching African-American women like Bougie Black Girl refuse to fight Black males' battles for them.

BM athletes like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and others can fight their own battles. Or they can see if their non-black wives will protest and fight for them.

Self-proclaimed "New Blacks" like Pharrell can fight their own battles.

Or BM can choose to do nothing about this. Whatever. {shrug}

It's not my problem or responsibility. It's also not any other African-American woman's problem or responsibility. It's a blessing that so many AA women have finally caught a clue and realized this. {big smile}

African-American Women: Here's Some Of The Fruit That You've Earned With Your Knee-Jerk, Rabid Support of “12 Years a Slave,” Part 3

I'll keep this relatively short because the point is [should be] self-evident. {smile}

A lot of y'all got mad when I originally questioned your knee-jerk, rabid, UN-reciprocated crusades in support of 12 Years a Slave.

I've been keeping track of the many bitter fruits y'all are going to reap as a result of this entrenched knee-jerk behavior pattern of constantly throwing on your Superwoman cape in support of any and all random Black-skinned faces. All without ever asking the simple questions of:

(1) What's in it for me and African-American women like me to support this?

(2) Who benefits from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?

(3) Who benefits the most from this [movie, TV show, record deal, etc.]?
Well, let's see . . .

So far, there's the Vanity Fair magazine cover I discussed HERE. There's the growing bad feeling some of y'all are belatedly experiencing that I discussed HERE. And now there's this:

Carmen Ejogo has been cast to play Coretta Scott King In Ava DuVernay‘s MLK Biopic ‘Selma,’ reports The Hollywood Reporter. The London native will play opposite David Oyelowo, who’s playing Martin Luther King Jr. Already cast in the film is Tom Wilkinson, who will play President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Here's a photo of  Nigerian-British actor David Oyelowo and his wife:

Right. So, two foreign Blacks (one of whom has a White wife) have been cast to play Coretta Scott King and Dr. King in a biopic about Dr. King. Right.

Before some of y'all try to draw a [false] distinction, keep in mind that the AAs who participated in (and/or accepted) these casting decisions with the upcoming Selma flick only did the SAME thing that a lot of y'all African-American women consumers did with your rabid, knee-jerk support of 12 Years a Slave.

Namely, all of these decisions were made by African-Americans who were so fixated on various emotional considerations (oh, such as desperately looking for validation of dark-skinned beauty, showcasing White women's cruelty, etc.) that they didn't notice that they're economically cutting their own throats in the long-run.

You teach people how to treat you. The same applies to consumer behavior. Y'all taught Hollywood (and the AA slaves looking to catch a crumb in Hollywood) that the winning equation when it comes to movies about AA history is to cast foreign Black actors as AA historical figures.

Since you've shown that you're comfortable with financially supporting being replaced by foreign Blacks, you will be replaced. Across the board.

Regardless of whatever you thought you were doing by blindly running out to support this movie, this is the REAL message you sent with your rabid support of 12 Years a Slave.

Bonus Commentary. I've had multiple email conversations about the dynamics underlying all of this. Here's part of what I've said during several of these conversations:

AA women's fanatical caping for Lupita is a microcosm of a larger dynamic:
 
(1) BM happily accept gullible AA women's support and then kick AA women in the teeth (and to the curb) when these BM get where they think they're going.
 
(2) Latinos happily accepted gullible AAs' political support; and then kicked AAs in the teeth (and to the curb) when they no longer needed our support for their illegal immigration (now that they've overtaken AAs as the largest minority demographic).
 
(3) Foreign Blacks are mid-way through this same trajectory. Once foreign Blacks complete the process of replacing AAs in American universities, the American entertainment biz, and so on, the bulk of them will totally kick AAs in the teeth (and kick us to the curb). It's like Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football. {rhetorical question} I wonder how many times do AA women have to see this pattern played out? [A savvy former blog reader replied that AA women will have to repeat this lesson until they finally learn from it, and stop engaging in knee-jerk muling for other people.]

Charity Begins At Home, Part 4

This will be an extremely long post that you might want to read in portions.

Let me start off by saying that I've been delighted to see the discussion in the comments section to this excellent blog post. I've watched the shifts in African-American women's online conversations since 2007. Praise God, a critical mass of African-American (AA) women have finally learned how to put our own ethnic group's interests first and foremost. And many of us have learned how to follow the money and resources trail. All of which is the way every other ethnic group on this planet behaves.

Hopefully, the correct predictions I've made over the years has earned me a bit of patience from the reading audience. Recently, I've done several posts talking about the bitter fruit that AA women will continue to reap from their knee-jerk, rabid, unsolicited support of the 12 Years A Slave movie because it parallels some other catastrophic trends. Trends that are catastrophic for the masses of AAs, while creating material, monetary and career benefits for foreign-origin Blacks, Latinos, and other non-African-Americans.

I'm talking about multiple trends (in various fields of endeavor) that are rooted in reaping the benefits created by AA civil rights martyrs while simultaneously leading to the displacement and erasure of AAs. I'm talking about the displacement and erasure of AAs in higher education, political representation, and the American entertainment industry.

Having access to higher education is important. Follow the money and resources trail. Access to higher education has traditionally provided the only ladder up and out of poverty for AAs. Well, we're (and by "we," I'm talking about my own ethnic group, AAs) being replaced by foreign-origin Blacks in many elite American universities. I talked about this during my first month of blogging in September 2008:

Charity Should Begin at Home, Part 1: "Study: Universities prefer foreign black students"

Common sense and a healthy instinct for self-preservation dictate that charity begins at home. And it does. For everybody except African-Americans. We're too busy sharing what we don't even have, and putting other people's interests before our own. Before I get too far into this topic, let me make it clear that I am not advocating resentment against any other group of people. It is perfectly natural (and fair) for people to look out for their own interests. I'm simply pointing out a trend that is not in our long-term interests; and the fact that we need to do a better job of self-preservation.

Let me also make it clear that when I refer to "African-Americans" in this post, I'm exclusively referring to the people who are descended from those Africans who were held in slavery here in the United States. In the context of this post, I'm referring exclusively to the people whose struggle and dead martyrs paved the way to progress during the Civil Rights Movement. Before somebody says "us too," I'll note that there were others who participated. Like Panamanian-born Kenneth Clark (who conducted the doll study involved in the Brown v. Board of Education case). However, the overwhelming majority of the people who created, supported and died in this struggle were African-Americans.

We engage in self-oppression when we refuse to look out for our own interests. This is a large part of why African-Americans continue to suffer as a group. Our self-defeating behavior is part of the reason why other ethnic groups, including foreign Blacks, have been able to advance while we fall further behind. The only thing that remains constant is our position at the bottom of almost every measurable social index.

The core problem is our general refusal to properly understand our unique history, our unique struggle, and our unique situation within this country. Many African-Americans refuse to understand that other so-called people of color (including many of our foreign Black cousins) are actually RIVALS for many of the resources and opportunities that our people's struggle created. We want to believe that we are in "coalitions" with other people.

Umm. . . No. What has happened is that other ethnic groups have harnessed our energy and resources in support of their agendas. When African-Americans participate in coalitions, we allow others to capitalize off of our unique history and the unique debt that is owed to us. Resources that should go to us as restitution for the specific harms that have been done to us in this country are siphoned off by other groups. The African-American Civil Rights Movement created resources that should have been used as restitution for the centuries of slavery, followed by the century of official Jim Crow segregation that our people have suffered right here. Instead, these resources have been converted into vague "diversity" programs that benefit everybody else.

There's a story entitled, "Study: Universities prefer foreign black students" from the March 7, 2007 issue of The Daily Princetonian. Here's the link: www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/03/07/news/17622.shtml

The story describes the current situation. Here's the money quote:

"Blacks at Ivy League schools are over three times more likely to be immigrants than blacks in America's general population, a study published in February's American Journal of Education and coauthored by Princeton researchers suggests. Within the United States, first and second-generation black immigrants make up 13 percent of the total black population. In contrast, data from the National Longitudinal Study of Freshmen found that international black students---either first or second-generation---made up 23 percent of blacks attending public universities and 41 percent of those attending Ivy League schools." (emphasis added)

This is just the beginning stage of this trend line. I could compare it to the point in the 1960s when the Moynihan Report came out warning about the rise of single-parent Black families. We ignore this situation at our own peril. Many of us depend on set-aside programs to either pay for, or to get into, much of higher education. If these resources created by our civil rights martyrs continue to be systematically diverted to other people, then we're in a lot of trouble as a group. Any future depends upon access to higher education.

What will we do when the percentage of immigrant-origin Blacks among Black college students reaches 51%? Or 75%? Or 90%?

It looks like we'll do something similar to what we do in terms of Latino immigration. We stand and watch while legal and illegal Latino immigrants work at construction jobs in Black residential areas. Soon, we'll be watching our foreign Black cousins and their children go off to college while we remain behind in our slums.

Here's another money quote from the story,"What to do with the conclusions of the study depends on admission officers' definition of affirmative action, Massey said. 'If the purpose of affirmative action is to redress past wrongs and redress former slaves and people victimized by a century of Jim Crow, then you want to favor native blacks perhaps,' he said. 'If the purpose is to reflect the diversity of American society, then you want to favor immigrant blacks.'"

This ties into why I have extremely ambivalent feelings about Black immigrants who are pushy about claiming the label "African-American" for themselves. Other people re-defining our category to suit their needs helps to obscure situations like the one described in the article. After all, how does one measure or track this situation if immigrant-origin Blacks are claiming to be "African-Americans"? I also start to wonder if some of them are so quick to claim this label when there's nothing to be gained from calling oneself "African-American." Do they call themselves "African-American" just to reap the benefits of our struggle? Or do they do this out of a real sense of solidarity with us?

I've met a number of Black immigrants who stand in sincere solidarity with us. I've met a number who do not. I've also run across those who only claim any connection to us when there is something to be gained.

The story ends with a quote from an African student stating that he doesn't feel that Africans are overrepresented at Princeton. He goes on to add that, in economic terms, African children are disadvantaged compared to African-American children. I see nothing wrong with him saying this. He's just looking our for his best interests. I would be saying similar things if I was of immigrant origin.

When are we going to start looking out for our best interests? When are we going to use whatever influence we have with any of these college admissions officers to ensure that African-Americans get at least a proportionate slice of the resources that our martyrs created? Let me be clear: I'm not interested in blocking anybody else's advancement. I just want to make sure that my own group gets our slice. I've got some phone calls to make. I hope you make some calls too.

As I've repeatedly said: I'm not angry at non-AAs. I expect people to maximize their OWN interests. It's not anybody else's fault that AAs help various categories of non-AAs snatch up the opportunities created by AA civil rights martyrs. My point has always been to help other AA women catch a clue and learn how to look out for their OWN best interests as individuals and as African-Americans.

AAs have also slit our own throats politically. I talked about this during another September 2008 post:

Charity Should Begin at Home, Part 2: Black Folks' Mass Suicide by Coalition

African-American leaders are feckless and foolish. Most of them have an uncompromising commitment to mediocrity and political fantasies. One such fantasy has been the notion of a rainbow coalition. And we've been fools to buy into this fantasy. Most of us never developed the simple (yet life-saving) habit of asking, "What's in it for us [to support x, y, z position]?" Many of us still don't understand that what our (mis)leaders call "coalitions" and "alliances" actually consist of other people capitalizing off of our unique historical struggle.

Our lack of political common sense has already cost us. Dearly. In terms of political empowerment, we've already slit our own wrists. Our (mis)leaders encouraged us to support Latino and other non-White immigration, and to cry copious tears over the "plight" of various categories of illegal immigrants. We were encouraged to assume that non-White immigrants were somehow our natural, and automatic allies in the quest for justice.

Umm . . . No. People generally come to the United States to get paid. Period. There's nothing wrong with that. Like I said in Part 1 of this series, it is normal, natural, and fair for people to look out for their own interests. I would like to see more African-Americans acquire this mental habit. Somehow, we got it in our heads that other people of color are naturally inclined to help us in our struggle. NO. Helping us is not part of most immigrants' mission profile. People come here to find a better life for themselves. Not to join our struggle.

We are now reaping the consequences of foolishly supporting non-White (legal and illegal) immigration to this country. We are being displaced. We are being physically displaced in many areas of the country. This physical displacement leads to political displacement. Many currently Black congressional districts have large and growing Latino populations. NO Latino districts have growing Black populations. I've read reports estimating that this demographic shift will cause Blacks to lose 6-7 congressional seats after the 2010 census redistricting.

One example of this was last year's battle for the traditionally Black 37th Congressional District seat in Southern California. This district covers an area including much of Long Beach, Compton, and Watts. The death of Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald led to a special primary election. A May 8, 2007 article from Politico.com talks about this political race. Here's the link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3888.html

An African-American candidate ultimately won the seat. See the July 3, 2007 article from the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Racial issues take a back seat in 37th - Multiracial support has Laura Richardson poised to represent a largely Latino district. Her take: 'We are a new America, very diverse.'" http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/03/local/me-congress3

However, it is important to note that Rep. Richardson won a Democratic primary with 10 other candidates running. She then went on to win the runoff election against 3 other candidates. This is not an example of a strong, solid victory. It sounds quite fragile. Decades of believing in a "Black and Brown Together" fantasy helped make this vulnerable situation possible. We enabled our own political disenfranchisement by supporting non-White immigration. We slit our own wrists.

As a side note, Rep. Richardson is half White. She has an African-American father and a White mother. I don't know if she emphasized this fact during her campaign. I also don't know whether or not she self-identifies as "Black" or if she's highly invested in indentifying as something distinct from Black, such as "biracial." The media refer to her as African-American. Her parents divorced, and she was raised by her White mother. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002573713

The displacement and disenfranchisement of African-Americans in California's big cities is fairly obvious. What's not so obvious is that this process is being replicated in small towns across the South. Legal and illegal immigrants are overrunning rural towns all over "Dixie." Praise God, some of us are starting to wake up and see this for what it is: NOT in our interests. A Los Angeles Times article from August 31, 2008 entitled, "Immigrant raid divides a Mississippi town" mentions the variety of reactions to an immigration raid.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-raids31-2008aug31,0,219718.story

The above story talks about the employment angle of illegal immigration. What about the political repercussions? What happens in these towns (and the South in general) if illegal immigrants are given amnesty and the ability to vote? Answer: The same thing that is happening in California. Blacks will be pushed aside in our traditional population centers in the South.

Miami is a sneak preview of what will become of Black folks' political fortunes across this country if we don't change course right now. Looking at Miami, it's clear that living under the heels of Latino political overlords is not a pretty picture for African-Americans.

An article from the Winter 2008 volume of City Journal entitled, "The Rainbow Coalition Evaporates" also describes how some of us are belatedly coming to our senses. http://city-journal.org/2008/18_1_blacks_and_immigration.html

I just hope that this realization hasn't come too late. We've already slit our own wrists, and the blood is flowing freely. There's still time to bandage some of the wounds, but only if we immediately start looking out for our own best interests.

Political offices are important. Follow the money and resources trail. Holding political office leads to controlling lots of "good government jobs." Having access to these "good government jobs" is extremely important for an ethnic group (guess who) that refuses to "do for self" by creating and supporting their own business infrastructure.

This trend line of AAs being displaced, replaced and erased by non-African-Americans is even further along than it was when I first mentioned all of this in 2008.

The way AA women consumers spend their money is important, and creates generational effects. Follow the money and resources trail. I gave the specific examples of decades of entertainment money going from Greg Morris (Mission: Impossible, 1966 TV series) to his son actor Phil Morris to Phil Morris' White wife. And from Michael Warren (Hill Street Blues, 1981 TV series) to his half-Black son Cash Warren, to Cash Warren's nonblack wife, Jessica Alba and their totally-White-looking daughter. The photos in that post tell the story.

In more recent years, it's come to the point that AA women consumers launched crusades in financial support of being erased from their own history (Red Tails).

And now in 2014, AA women are giving fanatical financial support to non-AA outsiders reaping the lion's share of the monetary and career benefits of a movie based on an AA person's autobiography (12 Years A Slave). As a people, we're allowing ourselves to be erased and/or replaced across the board. Even down to allowing outsiders to tell our historical stories in place of us.

We do these sorts of things and then wonder why our group (as a collective) has not, does not, and will not prosper. Like it's a mystery. While other people use our resources to pass us by.

In each case, AAs were worried about "being fair" (meanwhile nobody else worries about being fair to us). In each case, gullible AAs assumed that "we're all in it together" with foreign-origin Blacks, Latinos, and other immigrants from the third world. Umm . . . no. While gullible AAs are worrying about "being fair" to other folks to the detriment of their own interests as AAs, these other folks are focused on looking out for themselves. First and foremost. As any sensible person and group would. 

Hopefully, incidents like the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case will break AAs out of the bad habit of reciting that okey-doke "Blacks and Latinos" mantra that Rev. Al "Hot Comb" Sharpton, Rev. Jesse "Baby Daddy" Jackson, and other AA misleaders love reciting.

BONUS COMMENTARY. Our misleadership class really did us a disservice. As I've repeatedly emphasized when talking about inter-ethnic Black affairs, the problem hasn't been foreign-origin Blacks. The problem is with AAs' general refusal to set boundaries with outsiders in general, including with foreign Blacks. A simple thought experiment will show what I mean by this.

Imagine that you made the voluntary and uninvited choice to move to the West Indies or an African country. Can you imagine fixing your lips to tell the native inhabitants that "it's a two-way street" that you don't like the things they say to and about you as an immigrant? 

No, you probably can't imagine doing that because there is NO "two-way street" in that type of scenario. As an *uninvited immigrant, you're on THEIR street in THEIR country! Many of the locals would probably be quick to tell you that if you really have a problem with the people of that country, you're free to take yourself back home to the U.S. And they'd be totally justified in telling you that. Because you're a guest in somebody else's home country.
 
Well, the AA misleadership class has so many AAs mentally frozen in an oppositional relationship with the U.S. that we've forgotten that this is OUR country!

OUR ancestors' unpaid slave labor created this country's wealth. Claim ownership of your country! There's NO "two-way street" between you and any immigrant. It's YOUR street in YOUR country. That YOUR ancestors built. Keep it all in perspective. I'm perfectly fine with folks who have good manners and are good guests. They're welcome, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know about you, but I don't like it when uninvited guests show up in my house and then want to talk greasy to me.

Keep it all in perspective. For me, the starting point of any squabble with nonwhite, non-European immigrants is the fact that my people’s Civil Rights Movement led to, and influenced, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Prior to African-Americans’ Civil Rights Movement, White Americans were quite clear about keeping non-Europeans out of this country.

One of the few good things about the post-9/11 environment is that it made White Americans rethink their open door policy with these nonwhite immigrants. And considering how many of these nonwhite immigrants are racists with "stank" attitudes, I say “Good riddance to bad trash” whenever they’re deported. This is why I’m less offended by the government’s anti-Muslim crackdown than I ordinarily would be—because I want the racist, "stank"-attitude Somalis, Arabs, Pakistanis, etc. OUT of this country. I’ve seen these people and their attitudes at the mosque. I don’t shed any tears for most of them who are hassled or deported. Most of them can’t leave this country fast enough for me. The same applies to anybody else who's a bad, uninvited guest with a "stank" attitude.

*There's a difference between invited and uninvited guests/immigrants. The UK is an example of a country that specifically invited folks to come there in the modern era (after WWII). From Wikipedia:

As a result of the losses during the war, the British government began to encourage mass immigration from the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth to fill shortages in the labour market.^[13] The 1948 British Nationality Act gave British citizenship to all people living in Commonwealth countries, and full rights of entry and settlement in Britain.^[14] Many West Indians were attracted by better prospects in what was often referred to as the mother country.

The ship MV Empire Windrush brought the first group of 492 immigrants to Tilbury near London on 22 June 1948.^[16] The Windrush was en route from Australia to England via the Atlantic, docking in Kingston, Jamaica. An advertisement had appeared in a Jamaican newspaper offering cheap transport on the ship for anybody who wanted to come and work in the UK. The arrivals were temporarily housed in the Clapham South deep shelter in southwest London less than a mile away from Coldharbour Lane in Brixton. Many only intended to stay in Britain for a few years, and although a number returned to the Caribbean to rejoin the RAF, the majority remained to settle permanently.^[17] The arrival of the passengers has become an important landmark in the history of modern Britain, and the image of West Indians filing off its gangplank has come to symbolise the beginning of modern British multicultural society.^[17] See Windrush image "here". .

Now that's an example of folks who were invited to enter a country. Most of the immigrants (of all types) who talk greasy to AAs were NOT invited to come here. Keep it all in perspective.