Learning from Conscious Living

Before Plymouth or Jamestown or Even Roanoke Island, There Was San Miguel de Guadalupe

In his book, Black Indians, William Loren Katz, claims that the first foreign colony on 'U.S.' soil was neither Jamestown, nor Roanoke Island. More interestingly, he asserts that while Europeans left the colony several months later in 1526 because of harsh weather, a labor storage, and inadequate shelter, "Africans remained to build their own society with Native Americans." For reasons which he believes are related to a belief that "U.S. life began with the arrival of English-speaking Anglo Saxons" and its challenge to "white U.S. heritage", the story of San Miguel de Guadalupe, which was settled near what became Georgetown, South Carolina, garners very little attention in terms of pre-British, pre-United States North American history.

The story of San Miguel de Guadalupe begins when Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy Spanish official in the Spanish colony of Hispaniola sent an expedition in 1520 to canvass the North American mainland to establish a colony. Though, according to Katz, Ayllon wanted to build "friendly relations with the local inhabitants," Ayllon's men, among whom was a slave-hunter, captured seventy Native Americans. One of these natives, Chicorana, would help Ayllon persuade the Spanish king  to permit a settlement on the mainland of the U.S.  "The  king's  orders  forbade  enslavement of the Indians, and added 'you be very careful about the treatment of the Indians," but this had little effect as "one hundred enslaved Africans", along with Spanish men and women, were on the crew headed for San Miguel de Guadalupe.

Though dogged by Indian desertions, Ayllon and his crew resolved to settle the land in hopes of exploiting African labor and nature's land. This would be short-lived. In a matter of time, "disease and starvation ravaged their colony and internal disputes tore it apart," culminating in a slave revolt, in which slaves fled to the Indians and the departure of the surviving Spanish settlers.  In a series of events, "African began  setting  fires and Native Americans (who also hated slavery) sided with the slaves and made trouble."

What was left of this was a mixed community of Africans and Native Americans and the "first settlement of any permanence on these shores to include people from overseas." The frequency with which Blacks and Indians established familial ties of interdependency and mutual respect throughout American settlements suggests that San Miguel de Guadalupe being described as the "first colony on this continent to practice the belief that all people -newcomer and native- are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"  is likely accurate.  We may never know the exact nature of Black and Indian life in San Miguel de Guadalupe, as the story still remains ignored and understudied, but what San Miguel de Guadalupe clearly foreshadows is how Indians and Blacks would learn how to consolidate their power to overcome a common enemy. Much of the lessons of San Miguel de Guadalupe is about adaption, except in this story the enemy did not permanently stay, as the rest of American history would fold out, but slithered away like a snake.       

My Appearance Before Charlottesville City Council

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

What does it mean to live in a just society? Does having the right to vote define justice? Does an equal applicability of the laws constitute justice? Certainly. But what about less technical issues? What about the nature of representation? Is a system whereby the majority determines all the rules just? If you find yourself in the majority, then perhaps this last question poses no great challenge, however, if you find yourself in the minority, then such a system appears to be only somewhat democratic. Ultimately, these rules are not just those agreed upon through legislative process, but include civil obligations, social attitudes, and standards of  objectivity. In other words, justice should not be politicized, as some objective limited to the state, but necessarily is a mandate to the people. Since the people are the antecedent of the state, then the burden of creating a just society in contingent upon the strong will of the people. Not a segment of the people. Not the majority of the people. The whole of the people. Here begins the critique of popular American thought. Unfortunately, the point has been missed by most Americans that democracy is the most ideal and least achievable practical form of  government. No doubt, the creation of rules is a necessary and proper first step, but the American project has basically stopped there.  The bifurcation and stalemate of our political  and moral energy attest to the disinterest in maximizing the input of diverse views and opinions. Nowhere has the abandonment of the democratic ideal been more tyrannical than with the white majority's firm belief in creating rules and institutions that deprive the minority population of real power and influence....

And old habits die hard.

***********************************************************
My Speech Before the Charlottesville City Council
Monday, October 15, 2007

"I stand here tonight to give my support to the representatives here as well as those citizens who have expressed their support through petition in denouncing the historical inaccuracy and offensive depiction of Sacagawea  and more broadly Native Americans. I believe that there is no argument that can be formulated that sufficiently counters the objections that we have made. Some critics ground their argument in a perversion of fact by supposing that Sacagawea is somehow reacting to having finally arrived at the Pacific Ocean, but I think that this supposition is  implausible.

This fundamental truth manifests itself through depictions of Native Americans elsewhere in public statues in Charlottesville. The George Rogers Clark statue on West Main Street conveys a violent confrontation between European-Americans and the indigenous people of North America. To sum up that scene, the Native Americans are being shot at and trampled as they try to resist foreign invasion. Perhaps if people took the opportunity to look at the back of the statue, which features a European-American about to ambush and indeed kill unarmed Native Americans, then the message of that statue and the message of the Lewis and Clark statue would be realized. Just as the George Rogers Clark statue symbolizes the conquering of a land and the conquering of a people, so does Sacagawea cowering at the feet of Lewis and Clark mean to symbolize the beginning of the end of the Native American civilization.

For these reasons, I support the hundreds of citizens who would like for this statue to be corrected through some means that gives dignity to the Native American peoples and truth to American history.

If I may leave you with this, what if every Native American in these statues was replaced by an African American? What if, instead of Sacagawea, that statue depicted York, a Black enslaved person who also went on that expedition? Would you feel different?"

Watch Clip Here. After player buffers, fast forward to the 10 min mark.

Sweep Around Your Own Front Door

As a kid, my father used to play a gospel song by the Williams Brothers called "Sweep Around"

You know there are too many people trying to take care of
others people's business and they can't even take care of their own.
What you need to do is take six months to mind your own business
and six months to leave other folks business alone. All I'm trying to say is:

Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around mine
Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around mine

You smile in your neighbors face and talk about them behind their back
but if you found out they were doing the same thing to you, you know you
wouldn't like that. (Oh no) Who we're to judge, what other people do, take a look
at yourself, and you could find some faults too.

I was reminded of this song because Congress is now considering a bill that would label the Turkish killing of over a million Armenians from 1915-1923 a genocide, but how can the United States condemn another country when it has never properly dealt with genocide on its own front door. Figures upwards of 100 million have been cited to show how many Native Americans died as a result of violence inflicted on and disease brought by European invaders, so where are the resolutions for that? As well, where is a post-facto resolution on the hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans who died on their way to the United States or the millions of Blacks who died as a result of that brutal and harsh institution known as slavery? Or what about the African Americans who were lynched without having any right to a trial or even the right to have Black witnesses? What about that? What about sweeping around our own front door!

Everyday Prejudice/ Racialism v Racism

After an Asian-American friend told me that her Korean parents would disown her for marrying a Black man, though they perhaps would not be averse to her marrying a white man, that got me to thinking, "What are some of these social rules, norms, and perceptions that govern race relations and serve as a barrier to racial peace?" I scoured the Internet to find out.

Against Chinese Americans

"One in four Americans has "strong negative attitudes" toward Chinese Americans, would feel uncomfortable voting for an Asian American for president of the United States, and would disapprove of a family member marrying someone of Asian descent, according to a landmark national survey." [1]

Against Black Americans

"Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate against Blacks, starting with the most obvious down to the least obvious. Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl racist remarks at us....Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that Blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It's unbelieveable that it took them that long to fight back. Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians..Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion whites forced upon them? [Kenneth Eng, Asian Week National, 2]

Against White Americans

That white perceptions of the extent of racial bias are rooted in a stupendous miasma of ignorance is made clear by a number of salient facts. First, as will be shown below, there is the statistical evidence indicating that equal opportunity is the stuff of fiction, not documentary; and secondly, the simple truth that white perceptions of racism's salience have always been splendidly naive. Indeed, as far back as 1963, before there was a Civil Rights Act to outlaw even the most blatant racial discrimination, 60 percent of whites said that blacks were treated equally in their communities. In 1962, only 8 years after the Brown decision outlawed segregation in the nation's schools (but well before schools had actually moved to integrate their classrooms), a stunning 84 percent of whites were convinced that blacks had equal educational opportunity. In other words, white denial of the racism problem is nothing new: it was firmly entrenched even when this nation operated under a formal system of apartheid [3]

Against Asian Women and White Men

"Interracial marriages between Asian women and white men is still predatory, purely paternalistic, if not outright capitalistic. Few white men are initially attracted to an Asian woman because they are beautiful by definition, nor because they know them personally and wish to know them better. They are specifically attracted to them because of the supposed stereotypes, cultural, sexual, anatomical—which is incredulously outrageous—regardless if these stereotypes are viewed as negative or positive. In the Asian community, especially among college students and young professionals, this subject is probably the most contentious. Both sides argue for and against, but in my opinion as an Asian male, the reasons for white males to "score" with Asian women is the reason why the practice should actually fall under the protection of federal Civil Rights Laws. Bottom line: If the white male's perspective regarding Asian women were to be totally publicized, it would be found objectionable to all—except maybe to themselves, of course." [4] 

Against Hispanic Americans

"A substantial and growing portion of the population gets more in goods and services from the government than it pays in taxes. When considered on top of the economic problem the cultural and political problems outlined by Huntington become even more serious. We can not afford - either economically or culturally - to continue on the current path on immigration policy. We need to deport the illegals, stop Hispanic immigration, and put both the need to maintain the existing culture and the advantage of much higher skilled and talented immigrants as key factors in determining who is eligible to immigrate to the United States." [5]

Against Middle Easterners

After the September 11th attacks, I have found myself paying much closer attention to fine details. Surveying my surroundings as if it's not only my responsibility, but a natural instinct. Some would say that it's racism, and others would say it's merely a reaction to a tragic event in American history. I must admit that I pay no more attention to Middle Easterners during my daily life than I do any other, but when it comes to suspicious activity, my level of awareness sky rockets, and I immediately feel a sense of urgency [6]

****************************************************

Racialism versus Racism

What is racialism? And how does it differ from racism? Many people may wonder what I mean in the header of this page by "racialist". Racialism and racism do share similar assumptions, namely that generalizing groups of people is valuable to understand the nature of racial relations and the inequality within the American context, however racialists fundamentally believe that race and racism are solely the product of social engineering, not of inherent qualities of people. In other words, in commenting on active and passive white supremacy and white male privilege, this is not an attack on white inferiority in that whites are heartless human beings who can't see pass their own white identity. Instead, in suggesting that white supremacy underlies social rules and norms, I hope to capture the extent to which contemporary Americans are victims of a prior social order that depended on placing races within a hierarchy. Moreover, our actions, specifically in terms of political representation, media representation, and employment, often mimic these traditions. In some respects, we are oblivious to the ways that we continue to pass the torch of white privilege, but in other respects, we consciously take on the spirit of this anachronistic practice. For instance, political parties often deliberately overlook women and minorities in canvassing for a party candidate because those individuals may pose a threat to the overall success of the  party in a particular district.  Since  white men were the traditional ruling class, and in some ways still is, people often struggle with their own prejudices with a female or minority candidate even for female and minority voters, but  notice this approach assumes that the rules of a prior social order are somehow pertinent to political success today. And of course, the rules are. So the best way to excite change is to cast doubt on the assumptions about the old social order that are blatantly racist and sexist. This is in no way saying that all white men are evil or that there is a conspiracy against women and minorities, only that institutions and rules that were established in a prior period continues to gain ground within the current American milieu, despite the growing resolve to try to undermine the prior order. In essence, racialists don't just hammer at the wall, they want to shake the ground on which it rests.

 

Subliminal Messages about White Male Supremacy

These are all the statues in the City of Charlottesville, Va.

"The Aviator" about James Rogers McConnell

Thomas Jefferson

George Rogers Clark

View The Back of This Statue

Lewis and Clark

Robert E. Lee

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

Frederic William Scott, Erected 2007 at U.Va.

Why aren't there any statues in Charlottesville that feature a woman or minority as the subject? And why isn't anyone doing anything about it?

Here are some pathetic examples of how minorities and women are given public recognition (Click on Image to Enlarge)

Yeah I Said It. And I'll Say It Again!

In my first year of college, I asked a few white friends of mine if they believed that there was such a thing as 'African American culture'. Despite the fact that these students were educated, came from families that were well-off, and seemed to be culturally competent, they denied that African American culture existed. I don't think that they meant to imply that African Americans didn't generate any cultural outputs worth valuing. Rather, they wrongfully assumed that such outputs merely constituted 'American culture'.

This reasoning is endemic to the white population at large in that they deprive African Americans of ownership of African American authentic forms of expression. In terms of the power dynamic at work here, there is little benefit to the white population in assuming that Black Americans assert an equally deserving historical place separate from them. Acknowledging the significance of the nation's most important minority population would be in some respect denying or downplaying whites' own importance, which has been treated as the only such source of legitimacy and pride. Dare I say that an African American presence in the United States has without question contributed to the most fundamental questions of American identity. What would the Constitution be had it not been for the struggle of African Americans to call upon white Americans to make that document come alive? What would American cuisine, and in particular, Southern cuisine be without African Americans' creative use and preparation of meats and vegetables to create all-American comfort foods? What would American culture be had it not been for gospel, blues, jazz, doo-wop, R&B and rap? In one word, boring.

Of course, I can say this because there is nothing that can make me tap my feet or clap my hands like a Black gospel singing "Praise the Lord Everybody" or Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin". There is absolutely nothing that could evoke more emotion in me that a Black Baptist minister preaching on Sunday morning. Sure I may walk away asking myself, "Now how did that sermon relate to those scriptures?" But my church experience, which I have had a lot of being the child of a minister, was never really about following the Bible to the letter, it was about the experience. Was it possible to join others in a democratic spirit to praise God, to worship him with all the vocal sound I could muster, with all the energy I possessed? The spirited nature of African American worship has left its imprint on politics in that African Americans want to inject conviction into the debate, especially convictions that attest to the common humanity and interconnectedness of all humans, the secular and divine equal standing of all Americans, and the right of all groups to participate in the governing of these United States, with Martin Luther King being the epitome of this. No one will tell you that of course, but when I listen to Barbara Jordan's speech from July 25, 1974, I know that she is not an aberration. I do not doubt that any African American would have appealed to the same ideals. Unfortunately, a woman that I think is one of the most tragic and influential politicians has been long forgotten. Even when I ask my African American friends about her, they have no clue who I am talking about. That is not to say that I was not shocked when a white friend (a college graduate might I add) told me that he didn't know who Frederick Douglas was. The dangerous thing for all Americans is to buy into this white ideology that we all are just 'American' because we really do miss out on the richness of African American and American culture.

Chicago Mass Choir, I'm Gonna Praise the Lord

If Only Shirley Chisholm Were Alive Today

What Black Person Doesn't Know This Poem

Frederick Douglass and John Brown's Raid

An excerpt from In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Edward Ayers.

Read Full Excerpt.

Frederick Douglass and John Brown had known each other for years. Brown had long been active in the Underground Railroad and had become famous for his violent exploits in the days of Bleeding Kansas three years earlier. He toured the North raising money for the crusade against slavery and basking in the praise of abolitionists. Brown had crossed paths with Douglass several times and had even stayed for a while in the (B)lack abolitionist's home in Rochester, New York. He had told Douglass of his plans to launch a rebellion in the mountains of the border South to spark mass exodus of slaves.

Douglass had no idea that Brown's plans had progressed so far until he received a letter in the summer of 1859, "informing me that a beginning in his work would soon be made, and that before going forward he wanted to see me, and appointed an old stone-quarry near Chambersburg, Penn., as our place of meeting." Such a meeting with a man of Brown's history was not to be taken lightly or without sufficient precaution. Douglass, accompanied by an imposing ally, a former (enslaved person) named Shields Green, came to the Pennsylvania town by rail. Along the way he went through New York City to raise money for the cause.

John Brown, it turned out, had chosen Chambersburg as a base from which to prepare an attack on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia....

John Brown had become well settled in Chambersburg when Frederick Douglass came to meet him. "When I reached Chambersburg," Douglass reported, " a good deal of surprise was expressed (for I was instantly recognized) that I should come there unannounced, and that I was pressed to make a speech to them, with which invitation I readily complied." He would speak that evening. Giving a public talk would be Douglass's best cover...

Frederick Douglass had some idea of what he was getting into when he came to meet Brown: "I approached the old quarry very cautiously for John Brown was generally well armed, and regarded strangers with suspicion. He was then under the ban of the government, and heavy rewards were offered for his arrest for offenses said to have been committed in Kansas." Brown sat at the quarry pretending to fish. "He looked every way like a man of the neighborhood , and as much at home as any of the farmers around there," Douglass recalled. "His hat was old and storm-beaten, and his clothing was about the color of the stone quarry itself- his then present dwelling place. His face wore an anxious expression, and he was much worn by thought and exposure."

Douglass and Brown discussed the plan. Brown wanted Douglass to come with him, to help lead the grand emancipation of the slaves of the upper South and perhaps all slaves in the United States. "The taking of Harper's Ferry, of which Captain Brown had merely hinted before, was now declared as his settled purpose, " Douglass related, "and he wanted to know what I thought of it. I at once opposed the measure with all the arguments at my command." Douglass argued that any slaves who fled their masters to join Brown would be killed, as would everyone in the party. Such an attack, moreover, would be "an attack upon the Federal government, and would array the whole country against us." Brown "did not at all object to rousing the nation; it seemed to him that something startling was just what the nation needed."

Brown thought his army would be impregnable once they took Harpers Ferry. Douglass fervently argued that "even if surrounded he would find means for cutting his way out; but that would not be forced upon him; he should, at the start, have a number of the best citizens as his prisoners and that holding them as hostages he should be able, if worse came to worse, to dictate terms of egress from the town."

Douglass, a man who risked his life every time he spoke, looked at Brown "with some astonishment, that he could rest upon a reed so weak and broken." Douglas told "him that Virginia would blow him and his hostages sky-high, rather than that he should hold Harper's Ferry an hour." Douglass could not dissuade Brown, though the former slave felt certain that his abolitionist ally " was about to rivet the fetters more firmly than ever on the limbs of the enslaved." They talked all day Saturday- before Douglass would speak in Chambersburg's Town Hall that evening- and part of Sunday as well. As he left Brown, Douglass asked Shields Green what he had decided to do, and "was surprised by his cooly saying, in his broken way, 'I b'leve I'll go wid de ole man."

John Brown believed his plan would work because he held a special dispensation from God. "Without the shedding of blood," he quoted from the Scriptures, "there is no remission of sins." In his eyes the Old Testament decreed that violence in the the name of the Lord was holy, good, and necessary.

The Real Face of Jesus

  Despite the pervasive religious temperament in this country, which puts  the U.S. atop the list for the most religious nation in the developed country [1], very few Americans are aware that popular depictions of Jesus as blond-haired and blue-eyed are terribly inaccurate. British scientists and Israeli archaeologists have recreated what they think is the closest match to a typical Galilean Semite. [2] With help from a diverse pool of scientists like anthropologists, archaeologists, geneticists, dentists, and nutritionists, they have challenged the very image  of Christianity. Though, I believe that this study challenges a much deeper preoccupation. It contradicts the legitimacy of white authority in the world.  Speaking as the descendant of American enslaved persons, I am aware of the  ways that Christianity has been manipulated in substance and symbolism to  justify the subjugation of African Americans. For example, when illiterate enslaved persons learned about Christian beliefs and values, the Bible's apparent support of slavery was one of the first lessons they were taught. In one such religious setting, slaves were told, "Servants, obey your masters. Do not steal or lie, for this is very wrong. Such conduct is sinning against the Holy Ghost, and is base ingratitude to your kind masters, who feed, clothe, and protect you." [Sernett, African American Religious History]

A high profile African American historical figure named Jupiter Hammon (1720-1806?), the first African American to write and publish poetry, interestingly enough preached the same message in his "Address to the Negroes in the State of New York."

Now whether it is right, and unlawful, in the sight of God, for them to make of us slaves or not. I am certain that while we are slaves, it is our duty to obey our masters, in all their lawful commands...The apostle Paul says, "Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the  flesh, with fear and trembling in singleness in your heart as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart. [Sernett, 36]

No doubt, this has gone out of fashion, but what remains is the powerful symbolism of white power. Given that merely having darker skin connoted intellectual, physical, and aesthetic inferiority throughout most of our history, presenting Jesus as a man of color challenges the standard of what it means to have authority, legitimacy, and power in the United States. This takes the form of not just political leadership, but sophisticated cultural outputs like art, music, and literature as well as individual preferences and choices. White power is as fundamental to the American way of life as democratic ideals. In fact, in successfully challenging the status quo, minorities can only navigate these terrains based on the existing assumptions about  white power, which constitutes the suprastructure (rules, customs, norms, and obligations) of the American political and social order.  For example, the whole idea of the political majority having the last say essentially deprives minorities of their right to home rule or their right to utilize political tools to address problems and issues endemic to their community. Outside of political persuasion, the minority population is permanently handicapped and limited by the absence of any source of authority. Even constitutional principles are not given substance until the majority agrees that it should be so. Barrack Obama's campaign is interesting because claims about his inexperience are also claims about his lack of real authority, which I believe is accentuated by his Blackness, though that is not fairly defined in his case. Obama's fresh ideas will inevitably be outweighed by the opinion of most Americans that this is essentially a white country that will and should be white-led. What sustains his campaign at his point is discontent with Washington and disdain for Hillary, but  rest assure  the  legacy of white power has not abated this quickly.

The trouble with this discussion is that this reality about white power with its political limitations upon the improvement of minorities, particularly the minority group that has been the longstanding object of violent racism, and with its cultural and educational marginalization of Black power, resonates with most minorities, but is unbeknownst to the vast majority of white Americans who act as innocent bystanders, but are necessary agents and beneficiaries of this social order. It seems that there are two options for the minority at this point. Declare war or defeat. I prefer the former.

Jesus Throughout the Ages

Catacomb Mural from 4th century

6th Century mural


13th century Byzantine mosaic

14th century Macedonian painting

16th century Renaissance painting

Head of Christ, Warner Sallman, 1941

Date?
I received this picture in my inbox. Unfortunately, from an African American.

A Trip to the Home of Thomas Jefferson

Today, my boyfriend and I took a trip to Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson. I can't really say that I am a big fan of Jefferson. Besides it being my third trip, I went along because my boyfriend was insistent upon going because he hadn't taken advantage of it when he was a student at the University of Virginia. I too was a student, but have no real fondness for the founder of my alma mater. Let me say a thing or two about Jefferson. While Jefferson was a very intelligent man, he borrowed many of his ideas. For example, as I was told by a tour guide, his inspiration for Monticello resulted from a trip he took to France, presumably during his stay as Secretary of State. Only after his return did he add many of the most notable features of Monticello. In terms of his political theory, he heavily borrowed from John Locke, except that Jefferson never authored any book spelling out a particular democratic vision. Much of what we know about Jefferson's political theory comes to us through letters. Another misnomer is that Jefferson invented all sorts of gadgets like clocks, writing machines, and the like. The fact is that Jefferson didn't invent anything. All the strange things that you see in his house were ordered from a nineteenth century version of a JCPenney's catalog.

Of course, my biggest grip against Jefferson is that he was a man who folded under pressure when it came to the most pressing moral issue of his day, the issue of human rights for enslaved persons. While he did have some encouraging things to say about the issue...

"Nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition, not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; and certainly, nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that object." --Thomas Jefferson to Brissot de Warville, 1788. [1]

"Do not mistake me. I am not advocating slavery. I am not justifying the wrongs we have committed on a foreign people... On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

He was from cradle to grave beholden to his white supremacist ideology. And we should idolize him why? Even on his plantation, he didn't bother to educate him slaves, unless of course it meant teaching them how to make nails, cook food, or plow his crops. There is also the issue of Sally Hemmings. Like many white plantation owners, Jefferson thought of  the Black female body as not only a  machine that  replenished his labor force, but a sexual object of which he could claim ownership. I don't detest the man, it's just that we should not venerate him the way we do.

Pictures from My Visit to Monticello





Learn More about Blacks on Jefferson's Plantation
Peter Fossett
 Isaac Jefferson

Lucy

The Michael Vick Trial: "A High Tech Lynching"?!

A Black female supporter of Michael Vick was on my  local news tonight and described the whole debacle with Michael Vick as a "high-tech lynching". Is this what Black people have become? Have we become so accustomed to being victims in a white racist society that we must always defend any Black person accused of committing a crime despite the fact that we have no clue as to their culpability? It's not just Michael Vick of course. I recently heard or read that the majority of African Americans still publicly defend O.J. Simpson's innocence. Even with the incident involving the Duke lacrosse team, the Black female was portrayed as the object of white violence and exploitation. I am not saying that the victim was truthful or a big fat liar, only that African Americans too easily buy into our victimhood as a people rather than protecting the rule and objectivity of the law. Personally, this paranoia is not altogether unfounded. We need only look at the Black population in U.S. prisons and jails (37%) [1] in order to question the equal applicability of the law, but this reasoning, that general Black injustice demands individual Black public support, is terribly flawed. It seems that these public outcries all are a response to a Black person being painted as the victim of a crime perpetuated by a white person, but how convenient it is for us forget that we are our own victims! We are killing more of us that white people are killing us. Black-on-Black homicidal crime made up for 42.3 percent of all homicides in 2005  and white-on-white homicidal crime made up 46% in the same year. [2] This seems to suggest that Black people need to speak out against self-lynching, not "high-tech lynching"! Of course, the reason why we won't do that is because we have not fully retired our slavery/Jim Crow mentality, i.e. victims whose identity is strictly defined by the need to combat white racism and violence. This mentality excuses us from properly attending to problems within our very communities, like the HIV pandemic that is sweeping this country and taking more and more Black people, especially young people. Also like the achievement gap between Black students and other populations. I don't think that the SAT is necessarily a good marker to judge achievement, because of its limited cross-cultural and trans-economic value, but I think that Black students' falling behind in the technology and higher institutional arenas warrant much more attention that they are presently being given. 

Much of the Black problem is not about trying to abate the color line, rather to dream it.