Race and politics

Political Correctness

2007-01-13T07:36:00.000Z

What is it that white folks understand by the phrase "political correctness"? If any of you guys are reading my blog please enlighten me. It seems to have become a sort of catchphrase encompassing white resentment and anger... oddly.

From Wikipedia I got this

Political correctness (also politically correct or PC) is a term used to describe language, or behavior, which is claimed to be calculated to provide a minimum of offense, particularly to the racial, cultural, or other identity groups being described. The concept is not exclusive to the English language. A text that conforms to the ideals of political correctness is said to be politically correct

Which seems fair enough to me. From that I can't possibly see what would be so offensive to you guys? Providing a minium of offense is so hard? Presumably one would be far happier offending relentlessly with impunity then.

I mean look at they have phrases like "It's PC gone mad!" (which must be yelled in a high pitch whiny voice for full effect). To illustrate the "madness" these people wheel out examples of other white folks weird interpretations of what PC is... and proceed to get upset with other races (or anybody not a white man) as a consequence.

An current example would be the annual yuletide tradition of moaning that "minorities" (whomever these mysterious peoples may be) are erroding Christmas, taking away our rights and so on. They show councils banning tinsel and tree fairies; which don't forget are central to the nativity celebration , or celebrating "the holiday period" and "seasons greetings" instead of the all important CHRIST-MASS. Many of the moaners have been strangers to church far longer than yours truly btw, yet that's beside the point.

These people say they feel as if these oh so important rights and cultural values are under attack from "minorities" (we know they mean muslims for goodness sake, even when attacking PC as a concept they employ the useage by euphamism or cowardice in not outright saying whom they mean). But I'd really love to know if anybody EVER in their long lived life met a Muslim (or anybody for that matter) who was upset or offended by Christmas. I seriously doubt it. Most people of non Christian faiths I've met seem scornful of the lax way Christians celebrate their religion and would expect more not less.

Ever met a black man upset by blackboard or black bag or the very word black to describe black things? I never have. Things like this are the examples churned out when white folks moan about PC.

I mean take a look at these people... and these The first guy writing this crap uses these distraction techniques and examples of fripperys to divert from what PC actually is. The second is a insight into the mind of the anti PC brigade far more revealing than what I could say here.

A quote from a guy on a Myspace forum

"this is often a mask for ignorant racists to justify whatever they want to say '[INSERT RACISM/HOMOPHOBIA/IGNORANCE], yeah and you can just imagine what the p.c brigade would say about that!'"

See they'll cite and reference the stupidest examples of a confused liberal busybodys idea of PC which is usually a money saving or getting venture at others expense and hype this up. The real point of PC isn't Christmas decorations or any of these silly little things. This is the misappropriation of the term PC. Instead of being some sort of a blugeon for the white masses to express their dissatisfaction with everybody not white (lets be real people) you should remember what it's about. Man you can watch videos of white folks in the 60s and 70s marching in unison against wogs and pakis and now act so innocent as if that could never have possibly been them or even this country. As if it happened somewhere else or not at all. You can watch white folks on video in their thousands crying and violently protesting blacks attending the same schools as them not even 40 years ago.

PC as I understood it is about RESPECT. The principle of not hating people and taking care of peoples feelings. Not discriminating people for any basis, gender, race, age etc. It's not about not saying black bag but about not thinking "black nigger", "silly bitch", "fucking muslims" and denying a person his/her basic human rights. Which as I've pointed out was the status quo before the evil of PC... To be against such a principle of fairness and equality or even good damn manners says much about a person, I'll be unPC and call it straight out... Nazi bastards!

Getting People involved

2007-01-13T07:34:00.000Z

Some small things I've observed over the years. May help you if you're trying to organise an activity group, or action program to get something done or maybe just an event...

If you're somebody else who has experience with this sort of thing maybe you could add to what I've said and make this blog better?

First of all you'll find people are PURE talk and as they say talk is cheap. Sure everybody will say they want to participate and help out but when it comes down to it you'll struggle. This isn't because they were lying or fronting (though in a few cases that may be true) but because you haven't given enough explanation or direction. See people are sheep and want to be told exactly what to do.

Somebody said to me earlier that people are nuff selfish these days and nobody cares. I disagree. From talking to people lots of folk care but simply feel lost or helpless and don't know how to help or else care but are cynical of big organisations and haven't the imagination to think they could do something. You have to be a director.

Say to people that you want to start a group to do XYZ and you should meet up to discuss ideas is way too vague. They won't come because they don't believe in you. You must have a clear and concise idea of what it is exactly you mean to achieve and several steps to start getting there. You need to have something concrete to present. Nobody wants to go to "chat about ideas" because everybody knows what that means. It ends up a talking shop where people regurgitate politics from books they've read to each other and sound impressive and nothing actually happens. Then you go home feeling good because you got something off your chest... That's pointless (but common).

To avoid this trap, not only have a plan detailed but be ready to allocate basic tasks from the get go. People will know you're not messing around. The tasks should be direct and leave no room for leeway at first. This is about authority partly and establishing that belief but also it will cut down on those who will say they were unsure of what was meant. Giving somebody a simple task at first increases their readyness to do something more difficult next time.

During later meetings depending on progress you can start delegating more and leaving more room for initiative with your members in what they do. They'll be into it by then.

Going back to the beginning part, when you're looking for serious people, maybe sponsors or community links and contacts don't be put off at first by scepticism or reluctance. A lot of the time these folk ARE willing to do their part but they're just seeing if you are genuine. See lots of people have proposals and plans for stuff and present them with great gusto to lawyer for example who enthusiastically gets involved only to find that the people expect HIM to do all the work. That you'll leave them holding the baby. This passing of responsibility makes folks nervous and they want to check you out to make sure you're bout it bout it before commiting to something.

So once you have your group members busy doing tasks and your plan looks like it's happening, NOW you can go looking for sponsors and serious links/contacts. Now you have something to show them.

The people you chose to work with in the first place shouldn't simply be the biggest talkers with all the ideas, sometimes they're the first to show out. Watch people for a while and think of the most dilligent or responsible. Can you trust somebody who can't make a meeting on time and is always late to have that list of numbers and adresses for by the next meeting deadline?

On to organisation, always have a plan B. If John is the driver and the one with the minivan to get you/your stuff about, don't make John you're ONLY option. Always have a back up.

If you make contracts with people read it clearly. For example I work at a building where lots of organisations and people set up events. You would be amazed at how many don't read what they signed. They don't know for example that they're responsible for organising their own cleaning, that they have to provide registered door staff, what time they're supposed to be out, noise levels, licensing requirements as regards to the law and so on... None of that is difficult or hidden yet many a time I've seen people yelling at the building management about why they can't have their deposit back. Read what you sign.

If you left it to Stacey to organise the catering don't leave it till the day or the day before to check she did it. Check the catering companies reciepts with her and be straight with that. Be clear everyone knows they're role, if you're organising that's down to you.

Don't ever view another organisation doing something similar to you as a rival. This is so counter productive and yes it comes down to your personality type so there isn't too much I can say about it only to try and recognise the devil of competitiveness when it rears it head. Try to share resources and advice, see where they've had success and where they've fallen down. Yes this sounds wishy washy but damn so many groups and organisations I know spend nuff time arguing with others.

Take advantage of things out there. Your local library probably runs several programs quite cheaply that can help you or would let you have a quiet room cheaply. Talk to the CAB to find out about benefits you can use or sources of funding. A lot of public resources money goes unused or used by others simply because people don't know it's there in the first place. They ain't coming to you, go find em.

I'll add more as I think of stuff...

Bleating Sheeple

2007-01-13T07:30:00.000Z

So somebody got shot

As happens every now and again. Which, along with other reptitive events and issues, seems to be the cue for much caterwauling and hand-wringing, arguments and wailing. The usual responses

"nobody cares"
"we need to do something"
"we need to have a________"
"there should be a________"

And people arguing (online) about how much they care and big essays about how bad it is, what the problems are and how it's somebody's fault and blah blah blah.

Bored now.

These people sound like sheep crying for a leader. "help us, tell me what to do" they seem to be saying. "Give me the answer" it sounds like. But life ain't like that. There isn't always a messianic leader figure to come hand out a programme and all the answers or speak clever words to make the pain go away. Sometimes people should stop moaning and looking to somebody else for direction and do it themselves.

Example

"we need after schools programmes and stuff like that to help the kids"

Well go and bloody well set one up then! Newsflash... they exist already. Go and join one if you don't fancy setting it up. Then you can have all the direction you need and contribute. Or send em money or whatever. Not complicated. Frankly if taking the step to either find this out or call somebody is too big an effort then stop the annoying complaining about what there NEEDS TO BE!

"we need an independent media"

We have it in many forms. The question is if you support it or not. Hmmmm lol

Instead of saying "there needs to be a_______" why not go see about how to set up one? Get help and do it. Many folks I know have done just that. They ain't got time for the caterwauling and cyclical recriminations because they're too busy in the mix. Or as I said go and join up something already there.

All the complaining does is contribute to the state of apathy by spreading the false belief that nobody cares and nobody is in the mix which simply isn't true. It's disrespectful imo to people getting busy with community while y'all sheep wail and whine.

BAH!

Google is your friend

People of color

2007-01-13T07:29:00.000Z

WORDS

They have power.

No word just "is". Nothing is just a word.

I don't like words like ETHNIC or COLOURED or terms like PEOPLE OF COLOUR. I think it's pathetic.

They all have something in common. They use white people as a frame of reference and call yourself by something you aren't. Ethnic in relation to whom? Who is not ethnic? Which person is uncoloured? Is white no longer a colour? What use is the term people of colour? What do I have in common with a Japanese guy that I don't with a white guy? Why should I and said Japanese guy link up and form a club of terminology soley on the basis we aren't white?

All these terms give power to white people by default.

Like that old one "half caste" to describe biracial people. That gave power to the concept of a caste system and supported the idea that one caste or colour is superior to another. The term gave the idea legitimacy.

Coloured, ethnic, person of colour... these do the same thing.

Revisionist historians on EMPIRE

2007-01-13T07:22:00.000Z

This is a long article but it makes good reading.

If you follow trends in recent news people are trying to rewrite history and present the British Empire as a somewhat benevolent entity, something to be proud of. Despite what many people may feel.

A resurrection is haunting the British media, the bizarre apparition of "benevolent empire". It takes the form of documentaries and discussions steered towards the conclusion that colonialism was not such a bad thing after all and that something of a celebration is in order. Trouble is, to get there, some creative reworking of the facts is needed. After a recent brouhaha about Britain's imperial history on Radio 4's Start the Week - in which I took part - the presenter Andrew Marr worried that the debate had been "pretty biased" against empire: there was a lot of enthusiasm and a "warm nostalgia" for empire, he suggested in the subsequent phone-in, even in former colonies, "still something there, absolutely".

Only the desire to recover some imaginary good from the tragedy that was empire can explain the elevation of the neoconservative ideologue Niall Ferguson to chief imperial historian on the BBC and now Channel 4. His aggressive rewriting of history, driven by the messianic fantasies of the American right, is being presented as a new revelation. In fact, Ferguson's "history" is a fairytale for our times which puts the white man and his burden back at the centre of heroic action. Colonialism - a tale of slavery, plunder, war, corruption, land-grabbing, famines, exploitation, indentured labour, impoverishment, massacres, genocide and forced resettlement - is rewritten into a benign developmental mission marred by a few unfortunate accidents and excesses.
Soundbite culture thrives on these simplistic grand narratives. Half-truths and fanciful speculation, shorn of academic protocols such as footnotes, can sound donnishly authoritative. The racism institutionalised by empire also seems to be back in fashion. The book accompanying Ferguson's current Channel 4 series on 20th-century history, The War of the World, tells us that people "seem predisposed" to "trust members of their own race", "those who are drawn to 'the Other' may ... be atypical in their sexual predilections" and that "when a Chinese woman marries a European man, the chances are relatively high ... that only the first child they conceive will be viable." Not far from the pseudo-scientific nonsense that once made it possible to punish interracial relationships.

Behind such talk and the embrace of the broadcasters is the insistence that we are being offered gutsy truths that the "politically correct" establishment would love to suppress. This is the neo-conservative as spunky rebel against liberal tyranny. Yet Ferguson peddles nothing more than the most hackneyed, self-aggrandising myths of empire, canards once championed by old imperialists such as Macaulay and Mill and rehashed now by the Bush administration: western imperialism brings freedom, democracy and prosperity to primitive cultures. The myth decorates US and British foreign policy spin while trendier versions have also emerged in platforms such as the Euston Manifesto. By anointing Ferguson and his fellow imperial apologists such as Andrew Roberts as semi-official historians, the British media are colluding in a dangerous denial of the past and lending support to contemporary US imperial propaganda .

The evidence - researched by scholars such as Amartya Sen, Nicholas Dirks, Mike Davis and Mahmood Mamdani, Caroline Elkins and Walter Rodney - shows that European colonialism brought with it not good governance and freedom, but impoverishment, bloodshed, repression and misery. Joseph Conrad, no radical, described it as "a flabby, pretending, weak-eyed devil of a rapacious and pitiless folly". Good governance? More famines were recorded in the first century of the British Raj than in the previous 2, 000 years, including 17-20 million deaths from 1896 to 1900 alone. While a million Indians a year died from avoidable famines, taxation subsidising colonial wars, and relief often deliberately denied as surplus grain was shipped to England.

Tolerance? The British empire reinforced strict ethnic/religious identities and governed through these divisions. As with the partition of India when 10 million were displaced, arbitrarily drawn boundaries between "tribes" in Africa resulted in massive displacement and bloodshed. Freedom and fair play? In Kenya, a handful of white settlers appropriated 12, 000 square miles and pushed 1.25 million native Kikuyus to 2, 000 restricted square miles. Resistance was brutally crushed through internment in detention camps, torture and massacres. Some 50, 000 Kikuyus were massacred and 300, 000 interned to put down the Mau Mau rebellion by peasants who wanted to farm their own land. A thousand peaceful protesters were killed in the Amritsar massacre of 1919.

A collective failure of the imagination now makes it difficult for us to think about the globe before European and American domination. Greed and violence are hardly exclusive to one culture. But colonialism destroyed or strangled possibilities and potential for progress, such as Mughal Emperor Akbar's "sul-e-kul" or "universal good" which underpinned his governance. The scale of European imperialism inaugurated a new chapter in the history of greed which still shapes all our lives. Natural resources - cotton, sugar, teak, rubber, minerals - were plundered in gigantic quantities. The Indian textile industry was the most advanced in the world when the British arrived; within half a century it had been destroyed. The enslaved and indentured (at least 20 million Africans and 1.5 million Indians) were shipped across the globe to work on plantations, mines and railroads. The stupendous profits deriving from this enabled today's developed world to prosper.

The point isn't for Europeans to feel guilt, but a serious consideration of historical responsibility isn't the same thing as a blame game. Forgetting history is tempting but undermines a society's capacity for change.

Among the many facile assumptions encouraged by these imperial apologists is that those who criticise colonialism are absolving tyrants and bigots in Asia and Africa from responsibility for their crimes. Of course it is possible and absolutely necessary to condemn both. Indians must acknowledge their culpability for atrocities during the partition, for example. But that in no way exonerates the British Raj from its pivotal role in the tragedy that led to over a million deaths.

A wilful ignorance of other people's cultures and histories encourages the notion that freedom, democracy and tolerance are intrinsically western. As Amartya Sen has argued, the subcontinent has long been home to traditions of free-thinking and debate. Participatory governance was not Britain's gift (recall Gandhi's indigenous village republics), even if parliamentary democracy as an institutional form was adopted in some ex-colonies. Free trade is another mythical western contribution to world history. Amitav Ghosh has reconstructed the forgotten history of a vibrant trade culture between medieval India and Africa. When the Portuguese arrived, they demanded that the Hindu ruler of Calicut expel Muslims, "enemies of the Holy-Faith", from his kingdom. He refused and was subjected to two days of bombardment.

Indeed, one legacy of European colonialism that we all reckon with is the self-fulfilling prophecy of the "clash of civilisations". The claim that east and west are bound to come into conflict is merely an extension of imperial practice which found it useful to seal off porous cultures into fixed categories. This tragic "lie of the colonial situation", as Frantz Fanon called it, rebounds on us tragically in the terror unleashed in the name of Islam and Bush's "war on terror". If we are to undo the destructive legacies of empire, it won't do to invest celebratory falsifications with credibility. To make sense of a shared present and look towards a more humane future, we need to start with a little informed honesty about the past.

Priyamvada Gopal teaches postcolonial studies at Cambridge University and is the author of Literary Radicalism in India: Gender, Nation and the Transition to Independence

mailto:pg268@cam.ac.uk

Story

Reminds me of that other myth widely gaining popularity without being challenged, that Africas started slavery by selling each other so we are culpable.

Africans like Europeans and Asians had feudal servitude and serfs. A houseboy or maid is not a chattel slave. The difference is so stark as to make comparison meaningless.

Also it discounts the way in which nations were colonised and enslaved. Europeans set neighbours against each other and set king against king. Some in avarice no doubt but mostly in fear. It was sell or be sold as people tried to keep themselves alive. Even then the most far thinking must have seen their own demise as inevitable. Drastic measures indeed.

Europeans today are moaning that they shouldn't have to "keep saying sorry". As far as I recall I don't remember any apologies. Only denial and blatant revisionist history to lessen the impact of such things. This new idea of Colonialism as a lovely thing is a naughty as saying slavery was a minor event.

We are also told to "stop harking on about it". Only a fool ignores their own history and I'd love to hear them tell the Japanese to stop harking on about Hiroshima or tell the Jews to forget all about the gas chambers... move on! Imagine! We should ignore our past to ease their consciouses. That's what it all boils down to.

Update:
----------------------------------------
New silly article

These people can produce so much crap it makes my head hurt

Africans do not equate to gays in civil rights discussions

2007-01-13T06:32:00.003Z

Im tired of homosexuals using black people to further their own struggle. Comparing themselves to us. Its a completely invalid comparison which doesnt stand the slightest scrutiny.

I was shocked when a person I was debating some aspect of homosexual rights with said to me "how can you say then when you're black?". As if this person thought that simply by my being black I must understand gays and be onside with them. This person was equating my race to a sexuality issue that is present in all races.

This "minority" term I believe has confused people. We hear "blacks, jews, the disabled and gays" being lumped together as if everybody who isn't a white male is a "minority" and therefore share the same ideals or identify with each other. Newsflash: we don't. Most Africans and many of the descendants are highly conservative in such respects.

Here comes the inevitable bit where you call me homophobe as if the mere word will cow me into silence or accepting nonsensical arguments. It won't. I'm not a homophobe in the sense that I FEAR homosexuals or their influence. I fear nobody. Think of it like hydrophobic oil. Water and oil don't mix. The water and oil don't repel each other, just that water (straight people) bonds to water quickly and strongly and leaves oil alone.

I ignore gay people because they aren't relevant to me. I don't wish to intrude on their lives or restrict their rights. I don't want to stop them doing anything they want to do beyond getting in my face. What I want people to do is stop this stupid and insulting, YES insulting comparison. I'll get to that later. But here's why it's invalid....

The Rev. Joseph Lowery
"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he argued. "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."

The Rev. Jesse Jackson
"Gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution,

There was no Gayland from which all homosexuals stem. Gayland was never raped, the gays never enslaved or brutalised, never lynched, never colonised, never systematically robbed of their gay language, culture or gay ideaology. Never taught through centuries of brainwashing to hate the appearance of themselves and despise their fellows as assuredly many black folk to this day still do.

The major point here is that Africans and their descendants suffered and continue to for WHO they were. They had to justify WHAT they were and the stigmas remain to this day. Gays merely were restricted from open behaviours. They lived like Oscar Wilde and cherished members of their societies. The cherished civilisations of Europe and Classical Greek and Roman texts are full of heroic and noble gays. Never animals or goods here. Not for them. This is a modern fallacy.

Now its too easy to get drawn into a who suffered more discussion so Ill leave that aside for now. There is a more fundamental reason why this argument of theirs makes no sense.

The visual thing is the difference. Anybody can see Im black. I can be discriminated against merely on sight. Silently in somebodys thoughts. A potential employer, teacher, mortgage advisor, etc etc can SEE Im black. Sometimes they can use my cultural name or even my voice to judge me. You can not tell a gay person from a straight one. Unless they actively want you to know.

Therefore its the behaviour of gay people, their extravagant femininity, the extroverted offensiveness that makes them discriminated against. I worked with two gay people. One was a she thing and the other was a normal dude. I could get along with the normal dude. He didnt feel the need to tell me no nastyness and details he knew that people dont want to hear. The other dudes at work invite him to the pub he gets on with people... you understand? This is a homophobic environment Im talking about here. Everyone knows he is a gay, but nobody gives a shit.

The other muthafcuker now... he is a typical TV Graham Norton sissy little thing. Nobody likes him, wants to work with hime and he irritates the hell out of people because he is always pushing his nonsense. "my boyfriend and I this, my boyfriend that" Nobody likes him. He wears stupid sissy clothes and bops to girly pop music.

Now both of them are gay. See, the point is not wether gays are gay by choice... that is irrelevant. However they came to be gay, they both are. One CHOOSES to be an offensive extrovert and behaves in a socially unnaceptable way and thus, he is unaccepted. No big drama. If you wanna be a nasty pervert and sex man, go keep it to yourself.

You can not say well Im calling for gays to compromise their gayness by hiding who they are and not being true to self. NO. Because their being gay involves sexing men. Simple. It doesnt involve all the dressing as women and acting stupid. That is fashion culture and it is choice. I might walk around naked at home and call it being true to myself (I enjoy it) but I wouldnt do it at work because it is not appropriate.

Now back to the point about insulting. Somebody in another group asked me why a straight person being called gay is an insult. It is. Gays are percieved (largely through their own actions) as sissys and emasculated men. In the media they portray themselves as effete wannabe girls. To liken the males of my WHOLE race to such people is a deep insult.

The N word

2007-01-13T06:32:00.002Z

Making up stupid rules like "i can say it but you can't" is just childish bullshit like trying to spell the word differently. Nigga is still Nigger no matter how you spin it. It makes us all look dumb.

Then you have people who have whites who hang with them that they "allow" to say the word. WTF? What kind of silly childish charade is this? Now those people feel free insulting me?

If Nigger is how you like to think of yourself blackman then why not Jiggaboo, Spook, Sambo, Coon, Shit-drop, BOY, goods, monkey, merchandise, Property, Cattle, 3/5 of a human? Go on... call your mama a monkey...

It's no better than saying Nigger no matter how you spin it. You might have forgotten the word but most of us haven't and more to the point... they haven't.

Lie to yourself about what it means if you like (you're only fooling you btw) but Nazis, Police and every white person on earth knows what it mean. When I got harassed back in the day by skinheads or police I know what the fuck they meant by the word and it was anything but friendly. To call myself by what my abuser names me is retarded.

Like women walking around taking pride in being "bitches" you only look a fool. You come to internalise the word. You believe yourself nothing better than a no good lazy stupid singing slave fit for labour... that's what a nigger is or didn't you know?

You can't say "im gonna spell it different and take the power out of it and make it my own word". It never worked. I can imagine Marcus Garvey and Malcom and them lookig out at the future of the black people and crying to see us behaving so fucking stupidly.... They struggled for equality... to be regarded as human being as opposed to animals or children (never forget that) and you turn around and name yourself slave? With pride? FFS!

I don't care wether white people say it or not. It's not my concern and changing what white people think of us has never been my business. If you stop them SAYING nigger they only think it in their minds or go somewhere else away from you and say it. They know exactly what it means too. I wish black people would just stop that bullshit. This ain't really the arena for this kind of topic which should really be held in house or in private as opposed to this....

History of Black folk in UK

2007-01-13T06:32:00.001Z

Blacks have been here since roman times, probably as roman soldiers and so on. I think Septimus Severus is a name of an black roman who ruled here once though imo his race is questionable. Blacks however came in large numbers during the 1500s as seamen to work in the navy or as maids and porters etc. There was such a large number of them that Elizabeth the first who is like Britains most worshipped monarch, wrote letters to her ministers complaining about it.

Britain was the biggest and most biggest slaving nation but due to it's own laws slaves couldn't be owned on British soil itself. Weird huh? Which mean that blacks here during those times were essentially free though one can imagine what society was like towards them. It's not as if there was any social mobility in those times for anybody let alone Africans.

A most famous one of this period was Oluadah Equiano who was a slave from the Igbo tribe in what is now Nigeria. He was taken like most slaves to the Carribean but earned his freedom and became a free man. He then lived as a navyman and a merchant and even owned slaves himself. He came to England to settle and married a white woman. He then became an abolitionist and wrote an autobiography called "the interesting narrative" or alternatively "the african". I suggest you read that as most books written during the slaving time are quite eye opening. Dont let his sycophancy throw you off, you find that with most black writers of the time.

Umm After that time blacks faded into the main population and became mixed race populations in places like Cardiff (which is the capital of Wales) and in Liverpool. Liverpool was the centre of ship building in Britain and an important city in slavery industry. The museum of slavery is in Liverpool and it's very interesting.

In 1913 John Archerbecame the first black Mayor in Britain when he was Mayor of Battersea. He's also known as a campaigner for black rights.

During the first world war blacks came over to help with the war effort as Britain applied to it's colonies for assistance. The first mass migration of the modern age came during WW2. Britain applied to it's colonies for recruits and they came in numbers. Many Carribeans came over and the first numbers were pilots, soldiers and so on. A lot of these early settlers stayed to become doctors and so on. A few set up local cricket teams and a community began to grow.

There was also a small West African Community who formed the West African Students Union back then. In 1919 and 1921 there was the first and second Pan African Congress held in London as well as other cities. The 5th PAC was in Manchester in 1945. Marcus Garvey lived in the UK in these times and was very influential.

After WW2 the population of Britain was massively lowered and there were massive labour shortages. So Britain applied to it's colonies again and passed a law giving everybody in the colonies the right to stay and be a citizen. People from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (then all one country I think), Jamaica, Barbados came in big numbers. The first ship arriving with Jamaicans was called the Empire Windrush and that generation of black britons who came at that time are know as the Windrush generation.

They filled lots of public service jobs. The transport system, nursing, bus driving, dockyards, mining... stuff like that. Black women came to dominate fields like midwifery and it was unusual to not be birthed by a black woman or to find a hospital which wasn't mostly staffed by them. Even now actually. London Transports recruiting drive also became historical, see here and here.

Apparently the initial migration out of the Carribean was toward America, being geographicaly closer and also suffering labour shortages after the war. However the democrats goverment of the time passed laws limiting the numbers of Carribean immigrants to 100 per Island per year while the British advertised locally and on the BBC world service for people to come over.

But the local population of Britain wasn't so pleased to have them. They met racism. Signs on inns and apartments said famously "no blacks, no dogs, no irish". The only places blacks could get places to live in London were in Brixton south London and Notting Hill West London. So they became large Carribean dominated areas naturally. Similar things happened in other cities, though over the years obviously blacks are now all over the cities and regions. We are still laregly concentrated in the West Midlands and mostly in London however.

Since the blacks could only get housing in the poorer districts of big cities, this led them into competition and conflict with poor working class whites who percieved them as coming to take "their" jobs. Tensions grew. Out of this tension race groups like the National Front were born.

This led to events such as the Bristol city authorities stopping employing blacks to appease whites. Paul Stephenson then organised a boycott in 1963 of the cities buses and the bus company was forced to change it's policy.

These carribeans brought with them their music, food and evangelical religion (more like what african american churches are like as opposed to English at that time) and other cultural things too. The overwhelming number of black britons at that time were jamaicans with other small island nations too like Trinidad and St Lucia.

A few Africans from the continent came as students. These were the children of the elite politicians from nations newly independant such as Ghana. They were known as the posh Africans. Some of them had been coming for generations and had long associations with the universities. Many of them settled and added to the black population. Some did go home to fill their role as rulers however.

The kids of these settlers in the 50s grew up in the 60s in extreme racism. But being that generation they were also weirdly trend setters. It took decades to find a black cultural identity. To find out what Black British meant. Nobody knew. Their parents were fiercly loyal to Britain having been educated in a colonised system and were largely content. The kids however were more reactionary and less prepared to put up with the racism. They had been born here and "go home wog" meant nothing but provocation.

The schools were very racist in those days. Some would argue nothing has changed but back then they taught golliwogs in schools, Sambo characters and so on. The Golliwog figure in British history is contentious. To this day whites reject the notion of the golliwog as racist. Yet it was the biggest slur used by generations of whites towards the black migrants. It was not only slurs, blacks were automatically put into special needs groups and the bottom classes in schools. This trend, though less blatant has still not been reversed.

There was a distinction between the youths who liked Soul and those who liked Ska. Ska was popular with dreads and skinheads. In those days, note skinheads were not what they are now. Skinheads came from Shineheads, a Jamaican term. The white kids of that time were aping the black kids. They were just rockers. The soul boys and girls went to their parties and the Ska heads to theirs. There were many black british soul singers of the times.

What started back then were "blues partys". Why they were called that is baffling to me as all they were was private house parties you paid on the door to enter with illegal alcohol and stuff. Very much a mainstay of the black community at the time.

Also in 58 were the Notting Hill riots. I can't recall how it started, I think whites started attacking random black people on street and creating a climate of fear. Finally the black youths unlike their parents took set and starting hunting white youths to attack too. It was a time of molotovs cocktails, knife fights and so on. Massive police presence typically in those days arressting any black caught up in it.

The Notting Hill carnival grew out of that as a street party celebration of calypso and steel band to promote culture and peace. It grew and grew annually. I should also mention that there are other carnivals around the country and the Leeds carnival is probably the oldest.

The next few decades were turbulent for race relations in terms of police harassment and white gang/black gang fighting also social harassment and a depression which as usual hit the blacks hardest. It led a Conservative Party MP named Enoch Powell to make an infamous speech in 1968 known as the "rivers of blood" speech. He predicted race war in the country and criticised the governments policy of immigration and allowing so many blacks into the country. Many other opportunist and racist MPs pandered to the white working class resentment and fostered these feelings as opposed to tackling the issues or attempting to address racism.

Benjamin Zephanniah is a poet whose work in synonymous with this period.

The street tension led to fighting and more riots and so on though never in the apocalyptic manner that Powell predicted. Mostly life just went on. Reggae took over the carribean replacing ska and the change was mirrored in the UK too. Lots of Reggae artists from here sprung up at that time. Soul singers too lemme not forget.

In this time it's also important to mention Lover's rock. A softer reggae with mostly female singers talking about affairs of the heart. A UK creation from Carribeans over here which influenced Jamaicans back home. Famous names include Janet Kay and Carole Thompson. This is a good link to the fashions and dances of the time. This link explains the roots and origins of the Lovers rock.

During the 70s things with the police got real bad. They had the "sus law" look it up. Which was used to harass black youth on the streets. The music of this time was dub and roots and mostly protest music. The carnival had grown so much it was reggae mostly now. There was a depression on in Britain at the time and the massive unemployment under the Labour government hit black folks hardest.

Rastafarai really caught on in the 70s and with it roots and dub reggae. Afrikan consciousness grew in those days paralell to the similar growth in the US and Jamaica combined with the independance movements ongoing in Africa. The music reflected this and many movements started from this period of social change and revolution. Africans and Carribeans who had been settling in Britain and met each other for the first time here began expanding their thinking and developing more pan afrikanist thought.

The infamous summer of 76 was the hottest british year on record and an eventful one. The west indies cricket team came over to play england. Now cricket tests last WEEKS mind so the hype and furore went on for ages. The English team was captained by a white south african, remember South africa was aparthied then. He made comments about making the so-called-great west indians grovel. Now imagine those statements from a white south african in a hot sticky summer with conscious protest reggae playing out among a largely Rastafarai based black youth... LOL Unprecedented numbers attended every game every day. Also this was the great west indies team who ruled the world for years and were legends in the UK especially among blacks. They won.

But that summer wasn't done. Carnival had yet to come. The police massively overpoliced it as they had been troubling people those whole few months. They provoked a bunch of youths by running at them and it all kicked off. A massive riot that went on through the night with battles between police and blacks with the outnumber police running which is still spoken about LOL. Remember our police dont carry guns.

That became a regular part of carnival for the next 15 years though not quite on that scale again. At that time Carnival was an all night event. Every year they threatened to ban it but strangely enough it survived.

Anyway to the 80s now. Sus law and police continued to be used heavier and heavier. We REALLY hated the police back then and they hated us back. The whites now had racist groups like the national front and football hooliganism gave them a power base. More fights between them and blacks.

Blacks were starting to play major sports now, we had already begun our domination of british boxing and now we were moving into cricket too. But it was with football that trouble came. Football is the worlds no.1 sport no less so back then. We faced the discrimination of coaches who didnt believe blacks capable of playing and the hatred of fans who threw bananas and called players monkeys. John Barnes one of the best of his era famously kicked one off the pitch on live TV which sparked the debate on racism in sport and society. Cyril Regis and Clyde Best are remembered as trailblazers in the league but in 1978 West Brom Albion had three black players in their starting line up and this generally the turning point for black players. Funnily enough their revolutionary coach, Ron Atkinson who did much to change things then, later in the 2000s became infamous for being caught on microphone calling a famous black player a "lazy nigger".

The Toxteth riots in Liverpool ocured in 1981 as a direct result of the "sus" laws. This enabled police to arrest black people off the street on the mere suspiscion they were about to do something. Police harassment grew to ridicolous levels. An operation called "operation swamp" targetted black areas. Riots kicked off in many other cities.

Back then police would arrest people violently and call them names like jungle bunny and most commonly wog. Certain police stations like Stoke Newington and Brixton became infamous for beatings and even some suspicious deaths in custody.

A major event around this time was the firebombing of a party in new cross. 13 black kids died. The police failed to find any leads or guilty party. It sparked outrage and inspired the documentry "13 dead ain't nothing said" which was explosive. Black people marched on parliament in 10s of 1000s and shut the city down. The papers reported it as rioting but it was a peaceful march.

Then came the Brixton riots. I'm not sure how it started, I've spoken to many who were there but among all the riots that took place over here in all the cities. This is the most notorious. Obviously by now Blacks were all over the city but Brixton still remained the cultural center of black life and the greatest concentration of us were there. I think a police injured somebody or a kid was stabbed and they tried to get him to hospital but the crowd thought they were arressting somebody in distress. The people fought with the police again. This time it was so bad the gov commisioned a report.

A policeman called Scarman investigated and laid the blame at the polices heavy handedness, the sus law and so on. He spoke of the racism and lack of community trust and things which seem obvious now but not then. The Scarman report was a powerful piece.

Oh yeah from around this period Notting Hill where carnival was started started to be gentrified and blacks sorta moved out. Now it's so white and house prices so crazy nobody would believe the history of the area. When they made that Hugh Grant movie in the 90s people protested why we aren't in it. I think it's a fair representation of that area NOW. We don't live in that area anymore except for Carnival two days a year. :)

The 80s saw the greater rise in the continental african population. Where the carribean uk population is spread all around the country though mostly in london and west midlands, the african community is (mostly) in london and surrounding sattelitte cities too. The African community comprised of majority Nigerians and Ghanains though many other represented nations too. Africans took on a lot of minicab jobs and traffic warden jobs. To this day there is an over representation of Africans in these most undesireable jobs. But like the Carribeans they settled and gained success in various fields too. There are many African business and areas just likethe Carribean ones before them.

There was much community division back then between africans and carribeans. The elders of both peoples failed to reach out to each other and instead of viewing each other as brothers and sisters there was mistrust. Since carribeans were the massive majority there was bullying in school of africans and I can testify to that as a schoolkid of that time lol. Though this was a new generation of kids who were both.

Like damn near every black briton my age and younger my friends are about 50/50 african and carribean in origin though since we mix up with each other so much now who knows? Funny thing is after more than 60 years here we still call ourselves "nigerians" "jamaicans" and so on, even those born here lol. This trend is changing with the new generation, the young teens of nowadays being more aggressive in unashamedly calling themselves black BRITISH.

The 80s was also the birth of UK hiphop with minor local success. Everybody was then into US artists mainly. However UK soul and Reggae became explosive and very big with major stars of that time. The sound systems that had been spawned in the 70s were at their peak in the 80s. They began challenging and clashing sounds from Jamaica and the states and everybody I mean everybody wanted those tapes. Being in a sound was big things in those days and it was the main black british social scene. Like most black british things it is rooted in JA culture.

Trevor Sax of Saxon Sound System

Tottenham riots in 1985. Over police deporting and strongly arressting a woman Cynthia Jarret. She like many others died in the arrest. Riots ensued and a policeman named Blakelock was killed and the blame place on a man called Winston Silcott. with two others. He was jailed for the murder of PC blacklocke. He was acquitted later but served seventeen years on another murder charge anyway. He's out now as of two years ago and is a local community leader.

Blacks have been involved in politics here in the UK for a while. Operation Black Voteis the evidence of this. Bernie Grant was probably the most popular though Diane Abbott, Britains first black woman MP has held her seat since 1987.

One of those sound systems of the late 80s began incoporating other muscians from various genres and grew very big. That was Jazzy B and soul 2 soul. They had international success and were probably the best of their era. That was the first black british music of its own. We had had lots of artists for years but they had done American music or Carribean music. We did Jazz, Soul, Disco, Funk, Pop (obviously) and mostly reggae. Oh and we rapped too lol. Think Slick Rick, Rebel MC, Monie Love, Wee Papa Girl rappers etc.... But with soul 2 soul people started to get the idea to be proud in making original sounds and musics.

Now we're in the 90s. Desmonds and the real McCoy are on TV. The inner city white kids in the 80s had had Acid house music and the rave scene. Blacks took that in this era of inovation and fused it with reggae and dancehall to create a totally new Jungle music. Jungle was the black british sound of it's time. Goldie and Grooverider paved the way for artists like Roni Size in the game. At this time almost every young kid seemed to be in a "sound" though they were nothing like the big sounds of the 80s. These were little house party affairs. The pirate radio thing that had been taken on in the 80s blew up big time in the 90s. Pirate radio was the main vehicle for playing music that official stations wouldn't and advertising raves and events. Many a UK artist originated in the Pirate radio scene. I should mention Omarr too and Mica Paris since they were heavy in the soul scene here. The 90s also gave rise to Beverley Knight who is considered Britains best ever soul star.

Anyway I digress. Carnival changed now. Gone were the days when annual riots were still so crazy but they were more uhhh vibrant back then. This was the time when police changed the carnival from being an all nighter to insisting sounds pack up by 7pm. Also by making it a government event. They killed the spirit of it. Oh sure Carnival has grown now and it's bigger than ever with 2 million each year attending but the sounds are gone for the most part and the gov allocation means funny sounds like those owned by radio stations or those playing rock, trance, house ie not our music took over. Carnival became gentrified and very white. There are more techno and rock sounds than Reggae and Calypso. I'd say 96 was the last "proper" carnival. Jungle was at it's peak then and Garage music was just beginning. The main focus was still rightly on Soca and Calypso... The big reggae and dancehall sounds of the past were still around and known. Many won't agree but Carnival is dead now... imo anyway.

In the mid 90s a black kid called Stephen Lawrence was killed by a racist gang. The cops completly bungled the investigation and to this day allegations and claims are being made. The boys who did it were all over the papers and due to miscarriages of justice got away with it. They were attacked by the crowd at their aquital and that falsely blamed on the FOI. It's a scandal that still is in the news for the way it was handled. It also sparked the Mcpherson report (again by a policeman) which cited "institutional racism" by the police. That phrase caught on in public lexicon and began to be applied to other areas such as schools and workplaces. You can read a summary of the independant inquiry here.

Unfortunately the 80s and 90s also saw the introduction of crack, and of IRA guns. Not sure if you know about the IRA but they were an Irish terrorist group operating against the British (blowing stuff up and kidnapping/assasinating officials etc) but they also supplied guns in large numbers to the black community. Our criminals took on the White gangsters and each other and black on black crime as the call it took off massively. Add in the mix of US gangster rap and our new generation of kids is well... life ain't nothing to them no more and all they do is talk about gangsterism.

Garage, that music of the late 90s which took over from jungle had it's soulful beats, it's singers, catchy songs and pop face. In contrast to Jungle which had by then become very dark and actually split into a few different genres, Garage was catchy and radio friendly. Which gave it crossover appeal and encourage white kids to get into it in big numbers. It went mainstream. People forgot to tell the gangsta kids though. Raves and events were constantly locked down from shootings and foolishness and garage ended. Well it spawned two kids. One is funky house which is more or less a happier updated version which is aimed at an older crowd but mostly white.

The other was GRIME which is darker, more gloomy and made by streetkids. Grime is black yes but there are large amounts of white kids doing grime and the whole scene of British R&B, Grime, HipHop and soul is for some unfathomable reason called "urban". Many of us older black folk hate the word because we see it for the Elvis type stealing it is. But the youth embrace it fully. They're urban kids, black, asian and white all doing grime and mostly rapping about black on black crime. The bigger name of this type of music would be Dizzy Rascal.

The main Story of Garage would be the So Solid Crew who were the biggest stars and most succesful group of the period. Not quite sure exactly how many members they had but Megaman was the frontman and other notables include Asher D and Lisa Maffia who went on to have decent solo careers. At their height So Solid were not the biggest thing in garage, they were the biggest thing in Britain. Due to events in the general climate surrounding garage at the time and way beyond So-Solids control, the media inspired a police crackdown on So-Solid events and basically stopped them touring the country. They made a documentry to explain themselves which wasn't recieved well by the media. Things weren't helped when Asher D was arrested for gun possesion and other members also had run ins with the law. Megaman was later charged with murder but had those charges droped. Since release Asher D went on to make a critically well recieved movie bullet boy and resumed his acting and rapping career.

The major change in the UK music scene recently has been the cable TV station Channel U which showcases soley that urban music. Grime being the main focus it also shows UK hiphop and Soul as well. It's now more and more easy for kids to get their material out there and the scene is really taking off since you can be seen instantly by other kids across the nation where as before underground artists had to struggle through word of mouth. Now UK hiphop and Grime is on the up though sadly I haven't noticed the same change of fortune in soul for some reason. That's still largely a niche thing for older crowds. Lethal B and Sway are benificiaries of this new era.

Channel U is more popular than MTV Base now which also suggests that people are finally beginning to invest in local music and kids prefer buying kids who are from where they are instead of always buying American. Of course this has meant competition is fiercer which means the quality of tunes and videos should slowly rise.

In the early 2000s another famous case that affected the black community was the murder of 10 year old Damilola Taylor (a nigerian kid) which happened in Peckham south london. Peckham since the early 90s is the largest concentration of Africans in London and mostly Nigerians. Like the Stephen Lawrence murder nobody has been found guilty of this one either. Now there are so many names like Damilola's that nobody can keep up and it looks bad for us in the future out here.

Another thing affecting the black identity in the UK is the inter-racial aspect. The social politricks played in the 80s turned black woman against black man in a big way and we haven't gotten over it. Black men date white in a massive way and the women are catching up. A few years ago black David Mathews wrote a vitriolic piece in the Evening Standard newspaper entitled "why I won't date a black woman". Needless to say it got mainstream approval and prominence in the paper. The figures are not as high as made out but it is definately an issue. I actually believe the trend is slowing now but mass media loves it. You wont find a single black couple on British TV now, it's always mixed. Anybody famous has to play that game too to recieve their adoration.

The UK black population was now settling into a pattern with Africans and Carribeans but in the late 90s the Somalis started arriving in large numbers which added another dimension. At first largely marginalised they saw themselves as different to other blacks here and wouldn't mix. Somalia they left was a war torn country and many of the refugees had been caught up in that which made adapting to this place hard for them. This has now largely changed and they are beginning to settle into the black community.

Darcus Howe used to be a race campaigner in the 60s and 70s but has moved into film since the 80s and has made several documentries for Channel 4 which have caused controversy. "who you calling a n****" was supposed to examine the racial tensions that exist between racial groups. He focussed on blacks versus asians and Carribeans versus Somalis. He was criticised for being sensationalist and doing more to stir up trouble than actually address any issues.

Speaking of a black british community is strange when in reality there is no such thing. Or is there? Hmm. See we still call ourselves by where we're originally from. Still rock our flags. There are a small minority of vocal Carribean and African elders and especially newcomers (of which there are many) do not trust each other. They sow division and reinforce stereotypes. Africans are quick to believe Carribeans all thugs and Carribeans quick to believe Africans all fraudsters. Both think the blacks already here are not as moral or cultural as them and so on. You will find massive stupidity and division from individuals from any of the three perspectives. Mainstream media is quick to exploit this and play it up. But then having said that I remind you that of my generation it is changing. These divisions are really overexagerated and don't affect life that much. This lil bunch who call themselves black british and so on certainly pay it no mind. Also the roots of Black British identity started with Pan African movements way way back so surely there is hope...

The speech is derivative of Carribean accent and british with slang from US hiphop, africa and jamaica thrown in. Oh and the regional accents make it funny too. See EVERY one of the major cities here in England has it's own accent. Very distinctive and anybody knows exactly where you're from if you open your mouth. Yet weirdly on top of the us black kids have that black british urban thing which still makes sense. Hmm I can't explain it. Somebody from Birmingham, Liverpool, London and Manchester will all have those cities accents like any resident but well speak the same slang and overtones of the carribean derrived british urban thing. If that makes sense.

Anybody from UK think I left stuff out let me know. I took most of this info from various sites around the net as well as own memory. Nothing comprehensive seems to be out there so it's most likely I omitted stuff or got stuff wrong. Tell me.

I compiled this piece using sources from

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/home.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttp://www.untoldlondon.org.uk/index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/index.shtml

http://www.stringofpearls.org.uk/obv/transport.htm

http://www.connections-exhibition.org/index.php?xml=welcome/_/welcome.xmlhttp://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/golliwog/

http://www.portowebbo.co.uk/nottinghilltv/revealed8.htm

http://www.geocities.com/londonriots/nottinghill76.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/default.stmhttp://www.urban75.org/brixton/history/riot1.html

http://www.obv.org.uk/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

http://www.dialogueworks.co.uk/newswise/months/feb99/lasen.html

http://www.blink.org.uk/index.asphttp://arts.guardian.co.uk/

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/B/blackhistorymap/index.html

http://www.blackpresence.co.uk/history.php

And my own readings and memory :)

Integration

2007-01-13T06:32:00.000Z

defintion of integration Some of these are funny!

None have anything to do with what is being bandied about these days though. Let's see... maybe they mean multiculturalism? Perhaps. I especially like the australian example there. Interesting. I reckon though that more people today merely mean integration not as a tool of calculus but as the simple opposite of segregation.

Funny thing is... before the abolition of slavery, we (whites and blacks) were as integrated as we could possibly be. That's right. We lived right among each other in bigger numbers than we do today. As master and slave we were together all day long. Black mammys raised little white children and even suckled them, you weren't anybody as a southern white dude unless you had been suckled by a black mammny. That's as integrated as you can possibly be.

After that however... things changed. Go back to my blog on economics and recall the example of Tulsa. Blacks were doing this worlwide. Our own communities, our own business, setting our own agenda.

Then we got sidetracked from the very necessary HUMAN and CIVIL rights movement into the dubious INTEGRATION movement.

The results? fairly obvious now and none for the good.

Black schools in principal are a GOOD thing. Here is why they were not at the time. They were established to set a white agenda and keep us in our place, run by and monitored by white people and government. A black school that is black owned, run with a curriculum set by black people now... very positive.

The integration way is to say we are all people and all go to the same school. Here is the problem. In the west (UK and USA) blacks are the minority. In UK whites are 95opulation and in USA it's about 70The government and those who set the agenda is mostly white and it was designed by whites. That is not a school for all humans integrated and fair. That can only be a white school.

As MLK who is always being quoted by these people say "we are integrating our way into a burning house". This does not merely apply to schools I use that as a simple example. It goes across the board, especially to the highly important and underrated media and business field.

Check the NAACP. Originated, set up and managed by whites with the clear agenda plain as day and pushed ever since. All sorts of "black" organisations, individuals and groups who push "integrations" are simmilar in background.

You are not free while we all work for THEM and have them involved when we set up our own things. That is not racist. It is common sense.

Every other damn race sees it as common sense (until we apply it to us).

Some of these people QUITE clearly have stated their agenda.

"we should keep fucking till we all become one"

Because I'll be frank. Most of these people are either with interracial love interests or are the biracial products of such unions.

THAT is one of the goals of the "integration" mantra.

The other should be clear to you after reading the economics blog. It's about stopping us even thinking about relying on ourselves and doing for self and our community. While we are busy being "human", whites have NO problem being white, asians have no problems being asian, Jews and arabs got no problems building their communities and being exclusive and latinos and everybody else has NO problem whatsoever being multicultural (while decrying the notion lol). They laughing at us.

They "all just human" to your naive face and go back and work for the betterment of THEIR community while you help them do it. Which was kind of the point I was making when I mentioned their agenda in schools? To build up their businesses and make them successful. Don't go thinking I want THEM to change for us. That's ass backwards and putting ourselves future in somebody elses hands. Asking for shit.

We need to ignore that and do it for ourselves. Big difference.

Here's a funny thing. One fellow even called me a communist! Now I know in some quarters "communist" is like some sort of evil word, like nazi or something.... lol. Check my satirical blog on "how to argue effectively" (not my work btw) and especially the point on "hmm you remind me of Hitler". Things to say when you run out of substantial comments!

He said we should all be individuals "just humans" and get on for ourselves. Which is fine if you are blind.

None of the other races did that. Nothing big or impressive was ever built like that. No society runs like that. I don't know why we are constantly being told to do so. While you are busy being individual nothing is changing. Don't go telling me the predictable respones that "whites don't do all this community stuff" as if they are examples for us. The thing is, they don't need to. They don't need little community projects or unity. They unified and running shit already. They can afford to be individuals. WE can't.

This whole integration thing comes down to the common analogy of society as the cultural melting pot versus the salad bowl. I'm definately a salad person here.

Would these integrationist blacks do away with Chinatown, Little Italy, St Patricks day, Bar Mitzvahs, Ramadan and Christmas? Daaamn I like eating Indian food and Chinese food. I like going about London and seeing all the different groups. Having friends from different groups all happy and secure in their ownselves.

Would these intergrationist blacks shit on everybody elses right to self expression and self determination like how they shit on their own?

Or do they only apply their kum-bai-ya logic when discussing us... as in WE should be integrated into what is already there built by white folk? WE should just ak right and do what they do...

This is not INTEGRATION. It is ASSIMILATION.

Groupthink. Borg Mentality.

Understand that!

Black people are the only group of people, ethnic
or racial, that has consistently sought to integrate
and continues to seek integration, though white
society has repeatedly rejected them....

The reality of integration is that the integrating group loses all self-determination, since all plans and goals must be
processed through and approved by the dominant society
into which the minority group is integrating....

Integration and equal opportunity are grounded in the belief that dominant white society will voluntarily share power with blacks.

Power is rarely shared, especially between competitive groups.

Power holders have no desire for equality.

Claud Anderson

I figured it out. It really is this simple!

2006-02-05T02:20:00.000Z

Since I was small and first exposed to racism I always wondered why?

I learnt all about slavery and colonisation and wondered why? Experienced racism as a youngster and again thought why?

Why do they hate us so?

I started to read. All sorts of sociological explanations for supremacists. Some convincing at first but lacking in depth, some amusing but merely tapping into my anger without really explaining anything. I have heard that "they" are scared of us so they hate us. Fair enough... but why the fear in the first place. Don't misunderstand, I've seen and acknowledged that fear first hand.

I have had a friend who works in a good job in the city. A banker. Now he got into a dispute a work. Normal stuff that happens everyday in his high pressured office. Yet his boss called him aside and told him to remember that he was big and black and shouldn't go intimidating people like that... presumably he meant the brother shouldn't have yelled back.

The fear thing is not an explaination. It merely makes me want to question the fear.

Why?

Recently though I think I have it boiled down to simple economics. I have been musing on just how much money is made from us.

First I read some african americans being proud that their combined GDP would rank them as a richer "nation" than some on earth, top 10 I think I read. Not many considered that they all work for "the man", don't produce anything and are merely consumers and labourers. None of that money stays with us. Each individual is one paycheck away from bankrupcy and ruin because of their consumerism. No black banks, lenders or anything like that. All of our money is with "the man".

Then I read about modern colonialism and realised Africa has never been free. None of the companys that mine, drill and pump out all the resources like gold, diamonds, coal and oil are African. None of the major commercial farmers are African. It's all European, American and increasingly Asian owned. Fascinating. What I'm saying is that Africa does not own the means of produce for itself.

I learned that all of the famous rich black tokens on TV are EMPLOYESS of white men. They usually have white managers, lawyers, accountants and bank with white people. I learned that the so-called black entrepeneurs and businesses that are famous in entertainment are dependant on white owned parent companies. From Bob Johnson to Russel Simmons, all have white bosses.

I first figured this out when Ice Cube mentioned Jerry Heller on his attack on NWA after leaving. "you can't be a n****r for life crew, with a white dude telling you what to do". But then after reading up on the entertainment industry in general I find that it's not exactly a rarity.
And I recalled W.E. Du Bois and his talented tenth theory of trickle down economics from a progressive black middle class. Hmm. The black middle class as discussed on a previous blog have nowhere fufilled their supposed role that I can see. Not in Africa, not in Europe and not in America.

I then watched Rosewood and read up about Tulsa Oklahoma where they burnt down a self sufficient black economic base.
I also read up on red-lining and how even in our own neighbourhoods the businesses are owned and run by outsiders who are also usually our landlords. This was like the final peice of the now clearly obvious jigsaw.
So here it is.

It's not fear or hatred or anything like that at the root. These are mere manifestations and symptoms of the main issue. Oh they have DEVELOPED hatred alright. One only needs to look at the klan and similar groups to see that. They have gone to all sorts of levels. From Eugenics, to bell curve books, to whipping up hysteria over black male sexuality and violence they are relentless in the actual HATRED. Focussing on these is important because it directly affects us. I'm not suggesting we ignore that.

But still. None of that is it. This clouds and covers the central KEY issue.

ECONOMICS!!

Economics. They control and always have controlled OUR money.

Money is the root of all evil

Maybe... But it is certainly the root of ALL white supremacist racism. That is what they fear. Not us per se. It's the fear of losing our money.

Money is why they enslaved us in the first place. Money is why they stopped once machines came in. Money is why they exercise all the controls described above and could never commit the economic suicide of stopping their attempts to destroy black unity....

Black unity, Black organisation is the thing which seems to scare them the most. The idea that we could take away their money by investing it in ourselves.... terrifying!!

We are worth TRILLIONS to them. Only so long as we are consumers!! In order to do that it means keeping us in our place. That place is being unaware of all of this.

Have you considered all those supposed black men in music entertainment who are doing such a great job and making their way in the world? How many of them send messages of economic independance and self determination? How many of them talk on the community? Now compare that with the amount who send messages telling you what clothes to wear, drinks to consume (that word again), what cars to buy and so on. Who makes these things that are being advertised to you? Hmmm

Going back to where i mentioned that most people especially black people are one pay check away from financial ruin. This is where the programming comes in. The more an individual makes the more he is driven to spend. That keeps him in his place constantly. The pressure he puts on himself to keep up with this rampant materialsim is the shackles on his feet in the 21st century.

Now bare in mind when I talk about "the man" I'm not talking about your everyday white dude. He is just as unaware of most of this as are you. It's not like they all recieve the "white supremacy memo" with instructions of how to keep us down. Nothing so dramatic and silly like that. They don't have to try. Simply fit in to a system and play our roles assigned and programmed into us. As Carter G Woodson explained in the mis education of the negro:

"When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his 'proper place' and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary."

The reverse is true with the white dude. He finds for himself his proper place because like us, he is programmed to do so. Not by an illuminati. But by an evolving system. Individuals are insignificant. It's a white power SYSTEM that is at play here. Not cloak and daggers meetings in boardrooms in the whitehouse or number 10. Uh uh.

Back to black unity. If you as a black person can read this and decide that you still don't see the point in investing in us, our neighbourhoods, buying from our businesses, employing us...

Then I'm really lost

The middle class debate

2006-01-10T21:27:00.000Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4595072.stm

This got me thinking. I get mad that these people are highlighted as supposed role models for me when the only thing they have in common is that they are Toms. All of them.

They are not the black middle class. They are the coconut class.
I must be careful of sending out the same messages the coconut class accuse us of. The coconut class is not to be confused with a black middle class you see.

The black middle class is vibrant and existant and always has been. We always have had the best of us in good positions, academics, doctors, lawyers, engineers and so on. We should champion these people. I want my children to be successful in such careers if they so choose. The problem is that among all these countless people who live out their normal lives everyday and some who are proactive and "down" there exists a small minority of clowns I call the coconut class.

These are the fools who call themselves "professional" and other words to dissaccociate themselves from the black african collective at all levels. These are the ones who the gave examples of.

What happens though is that the media and the coconut class themselves promote themselves to positions of high visibility through shared interest in demonstrating that the only way to be succesful is to imitate whites and be subservient. The message to the youth becomes confused. The juxtaposition of the medias pets and lackeys with the success and position they are accorded shows them that to be successful, one has to be a sellout.

The coconut class seize upon this and berate us for our jealousy saying that this is what WE believe. That when one such as I calls them sellouts I am attacking their success and drive, accusing me in irony of being a victimologist. The whole premise is that we are low and gutter and they are civillised. For their minds, when you call them the coconuts they are, they ignore all the reasons why. They just imagine you are jealous and assume you are not as succesful. I have heard their arguments countless times before. It's because they equate coconutism with success so for one to reject coconutism they assume one is scared of being successful. They can not envisage the one without the other.

When you talk about black unity and success it scares them because it reminds them that there was another way to be a success besides the coconut route they chose. That is why they attack and beat down any such talk insisting that their way of coconutism is the right way.

That article itself shows the destinction between the great and praiseworthy black middleclass and the insidious coconut class unintentionally. It mentions that the head of the college of surgeons is a black man. That's great. It also mentions that not many know that. That is because he is not a self publicising sellout lackey like so many others. He just gets on with it. The one thing the prominent people in that article have in common is that that they are not only black middle class but simultaneously coconut class as well.

Their success depends on their fame due to their lack of real talent (politicians and so called leaders of the community especially). They have to go to levels to maintain that fame/successs. The successful and good black man who is the head of the college of surgeons and the sister in charge of the nurses mentioned are not famous because their jobs are jobs of merit and they are the great black middle class.

NEVER to be confused with the all too prominent coconut class.

We should counter this by showing them/us the REAL black middle class I lie?

BTW the coconut I refer too is in the sense of what US friends call an Oreo or UK people also call a bounty.

Not this again!!

2006-01-06T23:55:00.000Z

I keep seeing this on myspace. It's ridicolous. Some white people passing it about like it was the secret of life, some self affirming bullshit and some black dudes running scared of it or even agreeing! I dealt with this before on the black/ebony folks group but suprise suprise my response got deleted. I'm redoing it so that clown in there can't delete me and each time I see this crap I'm posting a link here.

First off here is the nonsense in full.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.You call me "Cracker", "Honkey", "Whitey" and even "The Man" and you think it's OK.But when I call you, "Nigger", "Kike", "Towelhead", "Sand-Nigger", "Camel Jockey", "Beaner" or "Chink" you call me a racist.You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You say that you want to make a change in this country.How? By protesting everything that we believe in? By trying to change everything that has made this country run fine for centuries?

You have Martin Luther King Day.You have Cesar Chavez Day.You have Yom HashoahYou have Cinco de MayoYou have Ma'uled Al-Nabi

You have BET.If we had WET(white entertainment television) we'd be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.If we had white history month, we'd be racists.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists. You enjoy the thought of Driver's Licenses for illegals. We enjoy the thought of people obeying the laws of the land in which they reside. No negotiations.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.You call each other "niggas", but when we call you that, you call us racists.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us. But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

We work hard to perserve our history.You come along and try to re-write it.

We want a safe environment for our families and children.You want to bring the ghetto to our neighborhoods.

I am white.
I am proud.
I am an American.

But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists?

Now I'm gonna address this one point by one point.

You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
Who is being addressed here? Is this every single black person? Does every single black person sneer at white people? Bare this "you" in mind as you continue this piece because it shows the author thinks of black people as a one mind one being group of people like the borg in star trek. We all apparently do these things...

You call me "Cracker", "Honkey", "Whitey" and even "The Man" and you think it's OK.
Who said it was OK? I didn't. The government didn't. A racist term is a racist term. If you think LAWS are not being enforced then go and complain. Why sit in silence and brood up feelings, then go and mumble about racism you encourage?

But when I call you, "Nigger", "Kike", "Towelhead", "Sand-Nigger", "Camel Jockey", "Beaner" or "Chink" you call me a racist.
So now this is all about all non whites, so I have figured out the "you" part. Blacks, Jews, Arabs, Latinos and Chinese... hmm pretty homogenous group there.

You know this point got me thinking about the "politically correct" nonsense white people complain about. Like you WANT to be free to call me a nigger. Like the word is just waiting to burst out in all its hate and the frustration of having to be polite is killing you (the author).

"You say this, why can't I say that?"

Babytalk. Some individuals are racist why can't I be racist and mean to ALL of you too. That's what this means. "I want to judge an entire race because somebody called me a cracker". This is the mentality behind this stuff.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?
Since when are ghettos synonymus with any race? Mr author has mentioned quite a few races here, some of which are popularly linked with ghettos and some not.

You say that you want to make a change in this country.How? By protesting everything that we believe in? By trying to change everything that has made this country run fine for centuries?
Uh huh. Slavery, Sexism, Jim Crow, Free labour, Racist policies and indoctrination... land of the free my ass! I guess these shouldn't have been protested against?

You have Martin Luther King Day.You have Cesar Chavez Day.You have Yom Hashoah You have Cinco de Mayo You have Ma'uled Al-NabiYou have BET.
No. YOU have BET. It's white owned and it shows a vast host of shows with extreme negative depictions of black people. It reinforces anti black sentiment for the amusement of it's audience, largely white.

If we had WET(white entertainment television) we'd be racists.
You do have WET. It's called TV. Be it ABC or NBC, HBO or Showtime. It's all yours. You own it all and by market forces dictate what goes on it. The standards shown and set are all yours and the culture enforced Mr white american author (see the end) is ALL YOURS! WTF do you think Friends is? Sex and the city? Black entertainment? FFS!
You get upset because we want a little break from all that white power all day long? One measly channel out of 100s that isn't even ours and certainly isn't positive or reflective of us and you begrudge us that? Daaaaaaaamn!

If we had a White Pride Day you would call us racists.
Everyday is white pride day

If we had white history month, we'd be racists.
You have white history 11 months of the year where you write out black history and wipe us out of the books. It's because the books were ignored that fools like Mr author can spout this stuff. If your revisionists hadn't written us out of the books and pretended we didn't exist we wouldn't have needed to do it. Black history is merely history that was ignored.

You don't know what you're saying here. Even during that measly little month you bitch and complain and blather on about how unfair it all is.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
What rights do you need? We have higher unemployment, racist education and policing and systematic killing and legalised . Nobody in government looks out for us. Colin and Condi are YOURS. Everybody in power is representative of you and yours. WTF would you need to march for?
Besides, marching and political demonstration is in the constitution no?
The frigging KKK march all the time. Stop whinning.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it. But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
No. Most of us bleach our skin, with chemicals you sell us, we dye our hair blonde and straighten it for you and we even put contacts in our eyes and yearn to date your women. YOU get stroppy and call US racists when we DON'T want to do this. If we are not bending over backwards trying to be you or please you, you go and whine like this?

You call each other "niggas", but when we call you that, you call us racists.
Again, don't go generalising. We don't ALL like being called niggas. Not even a significant minorit of us do. Go ask any sensible black person if they like being called a nigga. Go ask Oprah or The NAACP if they call each other nigga.

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.
WTF??? Are these all the groups you mentioned now? Or just black people as described below? We shoot you? Simply muthafucka... how many black people YOU know that own gun factories or bullet pressing plants?

If you wanna be racial mr author and make crass statements I can too. You put landmines in our ancestral homes, start wars, rob the people and have killed MILLIONS in decades which you continue to profit from.

But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
Like Amadou Diallo for example? What fucking threat was he? Look it up.

We work hard to perserve our history.You come along and try to re-write it.
This is the cheekiest part. I can't even believe people would DARE. Your ancestors Mr author wiped ours out. Along with our language, religion, culture and whole identity when you superimposed yours upon us. You wrote us out of your history books. Yours fail to mention how many billions they made out of slavery. Or how the modern west and industrial age was financed by our flesh and using our labour. Your books omit our civillisations and kingdoms you mischeviously attribute to anybody else going so far as aliens in you bizzaire desperation to avoid the startelingly obvious. Your books ignore the teaching of your own greek ancestors who told all about these things...

WE rewrite your history? WE are not even in a position to do so. How many african american historians specialise in European history and bring our bias and racism there? Now turn that question around...

An example. In zimbabwe in deep africa, there are ruins of an old kingdom we all know is black. The carvings, the faces everything matches the surrounding culture. We know all about it. White conquerors came and wrote books saying it was all white and then if not that arab or asian because they all decided WE couldn't have done it even though its sits right there black as ever.

The outright BULLSHIT of that last statement of the authors is so ludicrous.

We want a safe environment for our families and children.
Aww bless. Like this is an exclusively white preserve. Have you ever seen non white societies without white interference and meddling? The most civilised peaceful places imaginable.

You want to bring the ghetto to our neighborhoods.
First, tell me where whites ever brought a safe environment anywhere on their many travels on earth? Please? I would like to know where among that mess of genocide and ethnic cleasing that took place under the guise of "colonisation" peace was established. Was it in Namibia where whole peoples were wiped out? Was it in Congo where 12 million where killed? Was it in Rwanda where division and seeds of future wars were mapped out? Tell me of this peace you speak Bwana?

Secondly where do WE want to bring the ghetto anywhere. Remember where the first ones came from. They were where yours put Jews to gather and die. Then they were were your Jim Crow put ours to work in "debt" and amusing principle you extended worldwide but I digress. We want to bring the ghettos... You know who put crack in the ghettos? You know where the guns and liquor comes from because I don't. I don't know how many blacks own poppy fields and cocoa plantations or as I said, gun factories and distilleryes or breweries. I must have missed that bit.

Anyway. It is YOU who buys into the ghetto and keeps it popular. Oh yes. The ghetto music and image performed by trained Tom's (turncoats) is all for you. Look at the people who buy thug hiphop and attend the shows. Ever seen a 50cent audience? All white. Ever seen a DipSet crowd? All white. All ghetto glorification. Any real people in a ghetto are trying to get out not celebrate it. Except those on the outside for whom it is amusing and glamorous.

We want to bring the ghetto? No. YOU want to import it at OUR expense.

I am white. No shit?
I am proud. No you aren't. You have way too many issues and insecurities which you blame on others to be anything approaching proud.
I am an American. Yeah but the Europeans have the same selective memory in lot's of places. But, you call me a racist. This whole posts shows you are.
Why is it that only whites can be racists? Is that what the law says? Or what your own victim like mentality tells you?

Black unity

2005-12-31T21:31:00.000Z

Black Unity? what is that for?

Most people read the title of this blog with mixed feelings. Some were intrigued, some were bored and rolled their eyes. Some turned away in disgust and others decided right off that I'm a racist white hating nutcase...

I'm tired of having to defend the ideals of Garveyism and pan africanism or black unity all the damned time so I'll do it once and then reference it each time.

See people attack the idea of blacks working together and building together for all sorts of reasons. The very notion seems to send them into a terrible fright. It's true! I say black love, they say I hate white people... no I don't get it either. I say black love they say what for? We are all people why cant we love others first and stop concentrating on race, it's just not important anymore. They wheel out cliches like "I'm in the human race" to further depict you as some type of anachronism for feeling race pride. Indeed the very notion of race pride is to them primitive. In fact no matter what angle you bring black love from these people will find SOME problem with it. Why? What on earth for? I'll explain later.

You then have some whites (and black sympathisers) who scream "reverse racism" and say that they as whites are not "allowed" to feel race pride and it's not fair. First off everything in western society IS white pride. The magazines, the TV the values and the sociological structure. When the magazines talk about the ideal beauty or perfect person of any lifestyle it is a white face presented. To find a black ideal to relate with one needs to find a niche magazine like ebony or something. This is to be expected where blacks are the minority. It makes sense that the mass media reflects the many and not the few. I have no argument with this, I merely point it out to demonstrate that white pride is everywhere and dominant. Incidently these people who protest against black love would do away with such niche magazines, after all we are all human.

The second point about this not being allowed fable is more direct? Who is not allowing you? I'll tell you. Other white people. They call themselves "liberals" yet they are anything but. They are people with an agenda of divisiveness. It is THEY who complain about things like Christmas upsetting "minorities", it is they who say that white pride is offensive and things like that. It is they who by doing these things, whip up hysteria within the white populace who feel growing resentment towards these minorities they percieve as somehow corroding their rights. I never heard of a black person complaining because bin bags are black yet these liberals do in order to "protect" us. That is the pretext. The reality can be found by reading the daily mail on any given weekday. Whites in uproar about "political correctness gone mad" we can't do this or that no more they bleat... conviently this trivilisation of issues masks the more serious issues of racism which when they rear there head in a genuine fashion get treated with the same contempt.... but I digress.

Back to black unity!
The notion that black love = hate of whites is ridicolous.

To have pride and respect for oneself does not stem from negativity. To have pride is not a 'counter culture' as CONdelezza Rice asserts. It should be natural and accepted as such. In fact, if an individual did attempt to pride themselves and their race by denigrating another it would be indicative that that person had issues and was NOT secure about the things they professed to be. Racists of whatever color are insecure about something.
Black unity is nothing to fear. Rather the lack of it is.

Look at us now. Broken families, low education, our businesses and interests all owned by other races, high prison rates, and shameful infant mortality and literacy levels. We have kids who find their role models in degenerate effette men whose sole aspiration is to throw money away in a hedonistic binge. We have ongoing mindless gender wars and we divide ourselves on all sorts of frivolous basis. Colourism, tribalism and nationalism are still massive factors with "the black community". Where are the black banks and factories? Where are the black owned importers and exporters. Are we only into hair shops and food markets?
Who can look at the totality of that and tell themselves we need LESS black unity? Seriously?
WHO?

These people have never had the attacks from racists of other races I have contended with surely. To sit and listen to one of us say these things is shameful enough (or it should be) but to hear it mockingly from asians and whites? To have racist folk tell you that your race is all on welfare and begging off them despite the fallacy of that statement or it's historical ignorances is still a thing these deniers haven't heard before.

AND THEN TO HAVE BLACK FOLK TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT BLACK UNITY IS OUT OF FASHION AND WE SHOULD SIMPLY BE THE HUMAN RACE.

Well I'll tell you now that is a frigging myth. They do not see you as their equals. They see you as low down and degenerate. Oh not your friend or girlfriend (yes I know lol) and no not every non black thinks that, but enough of them do. Enough of them to hold you down from getting jobs you want in THEIR firms and companies. Enough of them to pull you down in THEIR schools and institutions. Yet that is where the black man seeks his fortune. In non black places.
The racist white man is no less racist towards the asian than he is the black but with a difference. He RESPECTS the asian. Why? Because they UNASHAMEDLY embrace racial pride and dignity. They are not shy to open businesses and employ asians only, not shy to go do it in non asian neighbourhoods. Some of the blacks I speak to won't do it in their own neighbourhoods. They would rather see success as joining up a white company and being a star in that environment.

With no racial pride other races will not respect us and more importantly WE can't respect ourselves. How can we believe in ourselves when we are always going to others, working for others and are therefore... AT THE MERCY of others. No matter how much you make for another, you are ONE paycheck away from NOTHING. Remember that.

Where is our pride today? The USA was built by the labour of african slaves and Europe built with the money financed from sale of those slaves as well as the pillage of Africa. And still today they are cheeky enough to insist WE owe THEM. They get away with it because we lack racial pride.

The person who hates the idea will claim he has nothing in common with blacks from elsewhere in the world. That he is different and seperate.

You'll note I have expressed no hate for white people here. None. I don't hate them. I see them as irrelevant to discussion of black self determination. That is far removed from Black pride and power. We are not black merely as a reaction to them being white but because black is what we are. We don't need to justify this!

The white racists, they hate the idea of black unity and doing all they can to stop it from "cointelpro" to methods today where they call us "racists" if we so much as speak to each other or date black exclusively for example. These people in public berate us for being dependant on them yet their system works hard to keep us there. White racist femininsts destroyed the black family and replaced the black man as family head with a welfare check... the legacy of this remains today. They oppose any moves we make towards our own schools or basically our own anything. Yet they moan when we use theirs or rely on their system. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.

The black people I spoke about in my Toms blog have absolutely NO racial pride. I said earlier I would address why they hate this sort of talk. There it is. They seperate themselves from the black people they see as beneath them and as a reminder of what they would like to forget. They secretly (or not so secretly) believe the white racist is right. They are scared he is telling the truth... or they outright embrace it. These are the people who tell you that they are part of the "human race" and we are all just people and how their blackness doesn't matter and it's not important. They will be anything but black. Several posters have been shocked by that now infamous woman on the Tyra Banks show who outright denied she was black. Rather like the blind Klan member on Chappelle's show.

I read a topic which proudly said something like, if black USA was a nation it would be the 15th richest in the world. Sounds all well and good until you consider where black USA spends that money and in whose businesses. Without a plan or economic base (black unity) self determination and progress of the black man and woman will not be possible.

Uncle Toms

2005-12-31T21:25:00.000Z

You wanna know what an uncle Tom is?

Uncle Toms are people who despise their very blackness. They hate it! They wish desperately that they could have been born into another race. They do everything they can to deny to themselves that they are in fact black and take on all they can of other races to separate themselves. They absorb and parrot all the worst things white people say about blacks and they believe it wholeheartedly… except about themselves who they excuse because they are enlightened.

Uncle Toms are also the people who by their actions do everything they can to bring black people down around them. The drug dealers, the pimps and so on. The dictators who exploit their people for money, the blacks who deal in arms or who make war on other blacks for their white paymasters. The people at work who get scared by another black presence as if it threatens their own job security so they either make the other black persons life a misery or conspire to get rid of them.

The coons in the media make up the most visible Uncle Toms. The people who make money selling to white audiences the worst and most negative stereotypes and portrayals of black people. Those stereotypes whites made to mock and justify their hate of us in decades gone are now used by Toms as entertainment. They are the rappers who talk about “hos and bitches” or the actors who continue to do the steppinfetchit routine or play the Sambo on TV. They are the writers who portray the black man as a beater of his woman and womaniser or constant dog. Their target audience is usually WHITE in the main. Other confused blacks lap up their stuff too however.

Toms are people who so hate everything about their black self that they glorify that which is exemplar of other races. Their mixed children are praised for having "good" hair. They diss other black kids for their big noses, lips and nappy hair. This is what is shameful to them and what they seek to mock in other blacks. They proudly tell you how their partner has "spanish in them" or something like that as a big badge of honour...

Toms hate being called what they are. They know on some level what they are doing but to accept it, even to themselves would expose them. The defensiveness of these people is remarkable. They turn it around claiming not to know what an Uncle Tom is. Then (get this) they do the most devious thing of all:
They claim they are only being called Uncle Toms because they are succesful and talk properly and everybody else is jealous. He assumes that him talking properly sets him apart from other blacks, it is HE the Tom who equates his success to not acting like the typical negro. It is he who equates black with faliure.
They say we are calling them Toms because they are not in the ghetto speaking poorly and carrying on in low down behaviour. However when you look at this you see that it is the TOM himself who is equating being black to being low down and speaking poorly. It is he that imagines this is how the black collective acts and he that imagines we are all jealous because he doesn’t and we do. He usually says such things right off without even waiting to see if he is speaking to somebody who speaks properly or not. He ASSUMES black people (except him) speak poorly and act low down because that is how he as a Tom views his own people. He considers himself lucky to not be like what he thinks we are.They say we are calling them Toms because they don’t dress in a certain way or listen to a certain music. They say (rightly) that there is no way of “acting black” and they should not be made to conform to stereotypes. Which of course is true. There is no ONE WAY to be black. There is no music we should all listen to or clothes we should all wear… we aren’t robots. But do you see what is happening here? The Toms have TRIVIALISED the issue of being a Tom. It is not about fashion as being made out here by them. It is about self hate. Not about what they do, but about how everything about them is an attempt to be separate from what THEY see as black. Listen to what you like, wear what you like… but don’t hate on other blacks for doing it too when it comes to what is theirs!

Toms are not Toms simply because they either dyed their hair blond, or wore weave or straightened their hair, or wear blue contacts or have a white partner or said they hated rap or wore rock chick clothes or spoke Polish or something like that. Each one thing in itself is merely a personal choice of expression and nothing to do with your blackness whatsoever. Though I must confess if I met a dude/chick who did ALL the above I would have my suspiscions LOL A Tom would do something like bleach their skin, straighten their NOSE, thin their lips… you see the difference here? A very rejection of their blackness resulting in self mutilation. A Tom says things like how he/she wishes they were not black, and stuff like that.
A Toms worst worst sin and the reason I personally hate them is as follows. They deny racism and by doing so act as our WORST enemies of all. Seriously.

There is nothing a white racist loves more than an uncle Tom who pretends that racism does not exist.

Either they were coddled and never experienced it (which I find hard to believe) or they have so far distanced themselves from other black people that they no longer empathise. They can’t see themselves in the others anymore. For them there is no such thing as institutional racism. For them there are no thousands of black people in prison or failing black people in education, for them the myth of equal opportunities at job interviews is something they have faith in. When they have made it, they look back at the masses who didn’t and think why didn’t they?

They separate themselves, there must be something special about them and they begin their journey towards hating the rest of the race and seeking an identity elsewhere. First step is a non black partner. Now I know I said this in itself does not make one a sellout but it is a signpost. Once you have the white partner you must neutralise all threatening things about yourself to make them at ease with you. Any race pride or something linking them to black people has to go too. Or usually. In most cases not because the non black partners demands it, far from it… it’s because the uncle Tom feels his race is offensive and does not want to offend his new partner with it. He/she also feels this new partner will help them to be more succesful, present a good image. Once they have done all this accomodating and distancing the actual Tom behaviour comes in. This is where they begin to hold their fellow blacks down. They do this either actively or by holding them up to ridicule and examination for their new peers. This shows the new peer group that they are one of them.

They then seen themselves as some new black elite beyond the average savage negro and saved. They think they never had it so good. Pure Tomish behaviour. They look at the broken black family with runaway daddys, teen mothers and crack and say "we" blacks never had it so good....

As for Africa they despise and hate the place. Either they are fully westerners in their minds and see no point in thinking of any connection with the place (to the approval of the color blind white liberals) or they actively believe all the brainwashing and caricatures of the entire continent and reject that which they have been taught to fear. They see the place as barbarous and primitive and are thankful they were saved from such… Marcus Garvey would be turning in his grave. They think in terms the average european does. Africans always begging and starving or fighting wars. See now I can’t berate europeans or blacks for that matter for not knowing the issues involved, how blacks own none of the companies that take the wealth out of their countries, how all the talented people and graduates leave, how the wars are usually financed by private companies from overseas, and how africa is in no real debt considering the theft of colonialism and slavery but naïve 60s leaders were forced by IMF and world bank equivalents of the day to follow ridicolous policies…. See I wouldn’t call somebody a Tom for not knowing all that. But for a black person to be SOOO ready to believe the worst of other blacks and to wholeheartedly hate on africans as I have seen some Toms do I can only call that person a sellout in the terms described above.

Africa for the Tom also exists as a place anywhere in the west where blacks congregate. All he thinks of africa he thinks of black neighbourhoods and he is so glad to not be in them.

For the Tom exists questions like "why SHOULD I buy from other blacks? What for? Business is business and they would only cheat me or charge too much or be rude or something""why should I be unified with other blacks? We are all just people" Nothing in the Toms mind can see that with no unity people are weak yet the Tom is quick to highlight that weakness as a justification for running away!! This is the problem I have. How these people are a constant threat to black unity. They moan about the lack of it yet do everything possible to hinder it's progress.