Thousands - if not millions - of Boston Red Sox fans have believed for the better part of a century that their favorite team was cursed in the early 1900s, when the team owner sold the star player off to the New York Yankees. From that fateful transaction all the way through 2004, Red Sox fans watched helplessly as fate seemingly conspired to destroy their hopes and dreams over and over again.
I have never been a baseball enthusiast, but i do have some family history with being sold. I can attest that having the most talented and beloved members of a family sold away by those claiming "ownership" does indeed have a negative impact on that families ability to function going forward. Also, these effects can extend over generations as the wounds are slow to heal. Congratulations to the Red Sox; here's to hoping that the curse is finally lifted.
2004-11-07
The Curse Has Been Lifted
2004-09-11
A Day That Will Live In Infamy
Americans chose many different ways to commemorate the third anniversary of the attacks on our nation. Some chose a quiet ceremony, respectfully marking the passage (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5962227/), others chose to ostentatiously declare that despite their failure to protect us in the past, they could do so in the future (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5962986/). I still have not forgotten a single moment of that day - when I arrived to work, how quickly I realized I needed to return home, how difficult it can be to leave an island, how empty the skyline now looked and how the military jets that looked so exciting at air shows could now look so terrifying when on a search and destroy mission. Amidst all of the chatter and the calls for us to realize that 11 September 2001 signified the opening of another front in World War IV (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm), I began to ask myself a few, small questions.
Can a group of a few thousand irregular soldiers, ensconced in caves on the other side of the planet really declare war upon the most powerful nation on the planet? Can a mouse declare war upon a lion (http://www.greatbooks.org/library/selections/lion&mouse.shtml)?
Can we really claim to be liberating the Shia from the terrible reign of Saddam Hussein, if we are fighting against them at the same time (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5949556/)? How many of this group we are attempting to save should we kill to avenge the deaths of 2700 of our citizens? Where are the actual perpetrators of the attack and why have they not been dealt with yet.
When I see indiscriminate killing in an attempt to bring democracy to a nation, I hear an echo of earlier indiscriminate killing in an attempt to "civilize" (as if murder were an accepted process for civilization) the original inhabitants of this land (http://www.indigenouspeople.net/gooddead.htm).
When I hear economic rationalizations for this war - our economy depends upon oil, we have to protect our national interests, etc. - I also hear the reverberations of earlier actions we took to initially establish the wealth of this nation (http://www.providence.edu/afro/students/kane/triangle.txt).
Must we really launch another war with no end in sight, solely to protect moneyed interests that run deep amongst the Bush and Kerry clans? Is there no way for this society to build our gleaming towers to the sky except upon the blood of others?
Happy Anniversary.
2004-08-21
Why Do Black Republicans Play This Game?
By now, you have all heard that Alan Keyes has changed his mind and decided that it is okay for someone to run for the US Senate in a state other than that which they commonly reside (Keyes Will Run for Senate in Illinois). What might be news to you is that Keyes has reversed another long-held belief and now supports reparations for the descendents of slaves (Reversal of attitude:
Alan Keyes on reparations). Feel free to peruse the reading material and then come back to help answer the question of this post: why?
Black Republicans insist that they should be taken seriously, that they have a legitimate and consistent philosophy that will provide better results to Black Americans than the Democratic Party has delivered over the last 40 years. How can they be viewed as anything but a joke (and a sick one) when every "strongly held" belief is tossed aside in service of their masters? Why should we believe their claims of insult when they hear themselves described as house Negroes?
For the record, Alan Keyes was the loudest voice railing against Hillary Clinton being a candidate for US Senate from New York. His claims in 2004 that his run is in no way comparable - Hillary chose NY as she believed she could win there, while IL chose him as they believed in him - is laughable. Let's pretend for a second that I believe a single word this man has ever uttered and that he was right in saying that Ms. Clinton chose NY because she felt she could win that race - what does that really mean? Nothing more than that the people of NY have the same values and goals of a Senator than Ms. Clinton represents. The most significant change she made to run for the office from NY was taking off a Cubs hat and putting on a Yankees hat. Alan Keyes has changed his position on an issue that has strong support within the African-American community (reparations) but one that is far afield from any Republican in national office in the country today. It is so far out of modern Republican political dogma, that it can only be viewed as a blatant attempt to pull some progressive Black voters from Barack Obama. Are their Black people so self-deluded to fall for this feint? There are, but they are already Black Republicans, a very small group indeed.
This blatant shilling for Blacks to vote Republican - regardless of there being absolutely no interest on the part of Republicans to do anything for Black people - is not unique to Mr. Keyes. Every member of this subclass we call "Black Republicans" exhibits this trait and it can be seen in their undying, unyielding loyalty to their white overseers to the obvious detriment of their own blood (and don't let any of them tell you that they are no kin of ours - the one thing slavery has surely done is destroy our family ties). Let's do a quick summary of the examples of this betrayal:
- Clarence Thomas - went to college and graduate school on affirmative action programs, now finds them objectionable.
- Colin Powell - went to Vietnam as an ROTC lieutenant and wrote in his biography of the distaste he had for the wealthy sons who bypassed Vietnam in the National Guard, now he works for the poster boy for keeping his ass out of danger.
- Armstrong Williams - this conservative commentator has made a living critiquing Black people who are not living up to his moral code, but he received his start from that old racist Strom Thurmond - now famous for raping a Black teenager and impregnating her with a daughter he never revealed to the public until after his death. Armstrong kept ol' Strom's secret and has never said one word against him.
One has to hope that the worst Keyes will do to African-Americans is lose to the third Black Senator ever elected since the end of the Reconstruction era, but hope is not a plan. Every person of good-will in this country should put their efforts to ensuring his defeat, but any means necessary.
2004-08-13
Is It Best For Blacks to Divide Our Vote?
Over the hundreds of years of our existence in this country - as well as the preceding centuries as inhabitants of this British colony - one common thread can be found: the desire by those outside our community to divide us one from another. The rationale behind this is obvious and clear: separately, our power is diminished. Indeed, separately, we cannot even discuss "our power" and must face the world as individuals, alone, with no more support than a single individual can claim. Arrayed against the largest empire of the modern world and the republic that has usurped its position around the globe - what can a single individual do? A good case can be made - in more detail than will be allotted here - that the American cult of individuality is the merely a tool of the powerful to disempower the majority of country.
Any person, who sees they have common interests with others - would do well in a democratic society to work in concert with others to achieve their common goals. To claim that Black people - regardless of the variety of African and trans-African cultures from which we originate - do not have common interests is a falsehood. We cannot survive without one another - to whom will we share the cultural traditions that have guided us for thousands of years; from where will we access the basic services we need to live - without others who share those same needs. Or perhaps you expect to have your locks maintained by SuperCuts? The drive - the fight - to have Black doctors, lawyers, police officers, etc. is not merely because we want those who look like us in positions of power and importance. It is because we want those who can look at a Black person and see a human being be the arbiter of our health, our liberty and our protection. For that is the only way we will be able to stand atop the steps to our own homes and not be seen as a terrifying criminal, worthy of being shot down in a hail of 41 bullets.
As a group, African-Americans must decide what our common interests are. Then, we must work together to see those interests area realized. That requires our voting in concert.
2004-07-20
Kuwait: the Siren of the Gulf
A post here last week pontificated, rather adroitly, that Allawi could only be described as a dictator - not a president. It appears that the folks at Newsweek are belatedly awakening to the reality of the situation. Were the stakes not so high, it would be humorous to witness the gears slowly turning in their tiny, tiny heads.
Not to belittle such an august journal of weekly happenings and happenstances, but their analysis is still tepid at best and does not follow the path to the logical conclusions:
- Iraq is in a state of disorder.
- A dictator - searching to establish order - must act ever more ruthlessly.
- Once having shredded every fiber of decency to obtain order, dictators look back with pride and rarely choose to step away from positions of power and subject themselves to the rule of the people they have just subjugated.
- Having consolidated his dictatorial power at home, dictators routinely look for new challenges to undertake.
That is right, set your clocks folks because it is about to get interesting. Two possible outcomes are vying to become the future of Iraq even as these words are writ, either:
- Allawi will fail in his efforts to consolidate control over "a country the size of Texas" or
- Allawi will succeed in his efforts and seek to expand his authority over his neighbors. The prize will most likely be the weakest one: Kuwait.
Never trust any predictions of the future that even hint of real specificity, but I would venture were Allawi to implement his will over the people of Iraq, he will invade Kuwait within two years of having done so.
Wars lead to debt and debt is a harsh master. Debt always has demands and those demands must be fed. Unfortunately, the only way to feed them is through acquisitions by hook or by crook. Having newly become the sole remaining neighborhood power broker, Allawi's US-supplied army will turn its gaze upon a barely more than helpless Kuwait and feel compelled to invade as surely as they did for Hussein.
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
