White people need to stop beating up on themselves

America is a European nation. Its foundation is based on a “winner take all” philosophy, a philosophy honed during Europe’s “Dark Ages”; a philosophy that black Americans cannot come to terms with. Failure to come to terms with the legal, economic, and political paradigms that underlie the European outlook on the world has hampered the ability of black Americans to properly navigate the American political economy. In lieu of the conqueror philosophy exhibited by Europeans over the past 500 years, black Americans have chosen the path of assimilation and appeasement, deciding to make and rely on moral arguments in exchange for an easement granting access to limited civil rights and discounted economic opportunities. The result is a second-tier status of citizenship where black Americans are in constant reactive mode every time their limited civil rights and economic opportunities are threatened.

The perception that the current administration of President Donald J. Trump is working to destroy civil rights gains and set American society back 60 years has spawned black American reactive tactics over the past 18 months. Ironically, most black American responses to Mr. Trump have been done in conjunction with other groups that do not have black American interests as their priority.
One example is the alignment of Black Americans with the latest in white feminist initiatives, the “Me Too” movement, where a number of women have brought sexual harassment and assault claims against a number of prominent men in the entertainment, media, and business sectors. Not only is the vast majority of these women made up of whites, but these white women are nowhere to be found during black protests of police shootings, predatory mortgage financing, or closures of factories that employ a significant number of blacks.

The same can be said of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Queer Transgender community, a group that sees an outpouring of support by blacks especially on social media, but like their white female counterparts, are quick to find the closet when the issue is the economic and political attack on black existence in America.

Blacks, who have a ridiculous penchant for aligning with any group that has a touch of brown in their skin have found themselves on the immigration bandwagon, heading to the streets and the southern border to protest the latest “catch and release” policy of the Trump administration, specifically taking issue with Mr. Trump’s policy of separating young children from parents when they arrive at the Mexico-United States border. Black American political and civic leaders are good at pulling heart strings, a skill honed during the civil rights era and one that white liberals and progressives in the Democratic Party are happy to enlist and leverage. But again, where are their Central American “brothers and sisters” when blacks have their civil rights violated? I have yet to see or hear any heads of state from Central America go the floor of the United Nations and chastise the American government for their wrongs.

But while liberal white America may be happy to have black America chant the “kumbaya” when it benefits them, the rest of America may be weary of hearing moral, heart-tugging arguments. Many Americans can trace their family’s time in North America to the 17th and are not naïve as to why their ancestors came here and the worldview they applied in conquering America. In their eyes their ancestors did nothing wrong and may be tired of being forced to offer some apology for their ancestors’ behavior.

And I agree with them….

A people’s weakness is measured in part by their inability to chart and create their own expectations and not rely on another group’s willingness to exude goodwill. This is a flaw in black American philosophy, a flaw that blacks will have to address on their own without the help of white America. The early Europeans that traded for or in some instances kidnapped Africans as slaves were following their own worldview. Morality was not an issue for them, at least as it pertained to the treatment of Africans. Blacks are too busy asking the descendants of colonizing whites to deviate from a business model that has worked for them for the last 500 years. That is not happening. While I would never congratulate whites for their brutality towards non-Europeans, I would never hold them to my standards of morality or view of reality. I can merely acknowledge that they accomplished their mission.

Rather than seeking to keep white Americans on the perpetual guilt treadmill, black America should spend time rebooting their mission and white America can contribute to the black reboot by getting off of the guilt wagon. It does no one any good.

Can Blacks use the law of discovery to carve out new territory and capital?

One of the failures of black leadership is its unwillingness to pursue a truly self-interested agenda for the people they allegedly represent. The current narrative of assimilation does not work. It puts blacks in an unequal and weak position compared to whites and other non-white populations who have pursued a capital acquisition policy first versus a political empowerment/assimilation approach still preferred by most blacks. It never discusses in any significant way the acquisition of productive capital around which communities can be built. Rather, the assimilationist argument centers on fluffy subjects such as social justice, membership of degreed blacks on the boards of white-owned corporations, and affirmative action in the workplace and in colleges and universities.

To be fair, a number of grass roots advocates do bring up the topic of access to capital by black-owned firms, but the problem is that business capital, whether in the form of loanable funds or equity investment is small compared to the number of black businesses in need of funding. Also, there is the risk that terms and conditions underlying the funding of black enterprise firms may not representative of the black population primarily because the boards that direct these underwriters are probably not members of the community in the first place. Just take a look at the names and faces of the members of the typical executive committee or board of directors and you see my point.

Blacks, as a people, simply are not calling their own shots. If you listen to the rhetoric of current black political leaders, liberty and freedom as it pertains to capital, are not a part of the lexicon. Black political leadership is more concerned with keeping blacks available to vote for white Democratic Party candidates as opposed to self-reliance. Probably in the minds of black political leadership, self-reliance would be akin to self-determination or nationalism and these leaders are afraid that such an approach would sever their attachment to America. But the attachment to America is false one, as I have argued before, because blacks did not come here voluntarily and apply the law of discovery.

To summarize Chief Justice John Marshall, the European came to North America but while acknowledging its Native American occupants, the law of discovery, of showing up first, gave title to the country making the discovery. That Native Americans were there first was irrelevant. Once, say England, made its discovery of what would later become the United States, it created a title that excluded claims by any other European power. Establishing this “title” over the land meant of course establishing control over its natural resources; land, air, water, minerals, the stuff that supports production, transportation, communications, energy generation and distribution.

To the activities that land, water, air, minerals, paid, indentured, and enslaved labor supported, the European was able to attach “coin”; to monetize. He would later create a centralized banking system to underwrite his government’s issue of debt as well as serve as the lender of last resort to commercial banks. The European’s financial system would, in conjunction with public sector investment, underwrite technological innovations that would further spur the design and production of consumer goods and services.

Blacks have been left largely out of the ownership of productive capital in the American political economy and as I have discussed in previous posts, it is too late and probably impractical to attempt any action under the laws of discovery for the purpose of acquiring the natural resources that underpin an economy that would support 43 million people on a self-sustainable, self-reliant way. But I do not think this is impossible.

Cyberspace provides “territory” that blacks can conquer and extract capital from. From the time I immigrated to the mainland I have always believed that blacks had the intellectual resources to construct their own vibrant economy. It boils down to a willingness of the black population to use broadband technology to connect to and import resources from outside of the United States and mixing those resources with the access to land, air, minerals, and water that blacks have here in the United States. It means the black population using its engineering skills to build a renewable energy infrastructure that provides electricity to its population. It means building communications networks using unlicensed to spectrum to tie black households to basic services. It means using the black population’s legal talent to advocate for laws that protect the importation of items into the United States that can be processed by plants designed and built in the U.S. by black engineers. It means using financial talent to reinvest these proceeds back into the black population and further growing its resources and income.

The great thing about applying the “law of discovery” to cyberspace is that no one has to be kicked out or enslaved. There is still plenty of territory to carve up; to reverse colonize but this time with equitable results.

For Blacks, government is god

Every Monday and Wednesday night I allow myself a little political entertainment by tuning into YouTube and watching Yvette Carnell, founder and editor of Breaking Brown.com. Ms Carnell brings a passion and data driven analysis to political and social events impacting descendants of slaves brought to the United States from Africa. Ms Carnell “keeps it real” about the economic plight of black Americans and is especially scathing of those who fail to view politics as an avenue for obtaining resources, particularly capital, as reparations for the kidnapping and enslavement of Africans and the lingering effects that slavery has on the present members of the African Diaspora brought to America.

Where Ms Carnell loses me is when she proposes that government is the only option for righting wrongs perpetrated by the holders of capital on slaves imported from Africa. Government, as I interpret Ms Carnell, should bear the burden of providing the descendants of African slaves with treatment equal to those received by whites who have certain privileges available to them as a result of their lineage. Ms Carnell rejects talk of black American self-reliance arguing cogently that black American descendant of slaves brought from Africa are at a severe disadvantage because it was never the intent of government to extend sufficient capital in the direction of blacks so that they could thrive in America.

Ms Carnell’s 43,000 YouTube subscribers for the most part agree with her and I know plenty of people, some of them friends, who would sympathize with her position. Government has been the source of oppressive tactics and strategies against blacks in America for centuries. Some blacks also consider government the source of positive change in American society, from the banning of the separate but equal doctrine for schools, common carriers, and other public facilities, to extending universal suffrage to black voters in the South. So while blacks in America perceive the real world as one of pain and suffering, government, the entity that has and still does keep a boot on the throats of blacks, is also viewed as a very present help in trouble.

But rather than god, what if blacks treated government as a protection agency option? I came across this phrase when I read The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg.  The authors, proponents of a movement from onerous customs and tax districts like the United States, described various governance structures for occupied territories and how modern digital communications technology could enable individuals to either live outside of the barriers of traditional governments or carve out their own sovereign niches within them.

Admittedly the problem with the approach of The Sovereign Individual is the level of capital that one would need in order to exercise the type of autonomy described in the book. It takes a great degree of capital to negotiate the occupancy of a physical space where the individual doesn’t pay traditional taxes; where within carved out areas the individual provides for their own police services and can exercise the right to legally exclude anyone who does not fit their criteria of community.

The biggest problem I believe is mindset. There is a malaise within the black population; a narrative that any attempts at freedom would be met by actions similar to those that took place in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1921. Between 31 May and 1 June 1921, a white mob attacked the black American community of Greenwood, a thriving community within Tulsa known as “The Black Wall Street.” Where conversations arise about furthering black economic empowerment, naysayers raise their heads citing the egregious state actions that occurred in Tulsa that Memorial Day weekend.  Almost 100 years after the military and terrorist attack on Greenwood, the survivors of the attack have not been compensated. Petitions to the government have resulted in dedication of a park and some scholarships for descendants. Can anyone say that the State has dome right by its black American parishioners? Can blacks afford to use the memories of these behaviors to prohibit them from getting out of State-sponsored hell?

For blacks, government is god. This god is not benevolent and sooner or later, the church service has to end.

Blacks live in a population, not a community

Black Americans have built their collective around a history of pain and suffering, a misery that a significant portion of the black population have never directly experienced. A part of the reason for the collective mentality stems from being a libations people. Some blacks in America have continued some semblance of the practice of commemorating the ancestors. All groups have some degree of reverence for the elders but I find that blacks in particular take the reverence to another level. Take for example John Lewis, the representative to Congress from Georgia’s 5th district. Mr Lewis, who has served in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1987, rarely fails to remind us of his experiences marching with Dr Martin Luther King. For black Americans to turn Mr Lewis out of office would be sacrilege even though his effective over the years is highly questionable. As a messenger who reminds black Americans of pain and suffering, Mr Lewis is one of many architects of the narrative of a black community.

I have argued before that blacks do not have a community. At the risk of sounding like a fan of “trap music”, the poor and middle-income strata of blacks live in a mental, spiritual, political and economic ghetto where payday lenders, pawn shops, and tax preparers offering advances on internal revenue refunds make up the population’s financial district. Ride on MARTA in Atlanta and you observe that mobile broadband is the low cost digital source of entertainment for blacks in this income bracket. Over-indexed on both mobile broadband and social media, Facebook and Twitter are the databases and noise exchange platforms for the population.

Philosophically, Black Americans view the real world as a hostile place driven by ever present racism and a slave history that white Americans have not yet reconciled with their current privilege. Since this attack is directed at people with dark skin who can trace their lineage to Africa, most reactions from the black population comes from a collectivist albeit not entirely monolithic place.  Blacks feel trapped; they feel under siege.

Notice that I have been using “population” more than the typical word, “community.” Blacks do not have a community. Many view community as a social term. The social taint of the word is secondary. Community is an economic term with the accompanying social ordering of its members based on their contribution to the extraction, organization, and distribution of resources. At the base of a mining community is a mine and surrounding that mine is an ordering of human resources organized in such a way where you recognize leaders and followers; where you can identify where political and economic power is deployed and which classes are exercising what levels and amounts of that power.

It is the social orderings stemming from political and economic power that serve as platforms for a group’s culture, for the groups values as transmitted by the group’s leaders. I don’t see that in the black population.

Didn’t see it in Canarsie or Crown Heights. I haven’t seen it in West End Atlanta. I haven’t seen it in Baltimore. I haven’t seen it in Charlotte Amalie.  I saw populations of black people employed by non-blacks who actually owned the “vibranium.” I don’t see a community.

This lack of community along with the lack of values spawned from political and economic decision- making means, in my opinion, less of a barrier to pursuing individual self-interests.  Claims of community are empty for the black population where so-called community leaders and leading politicians have not been able to make heads or tails out of the centuries old relegation of blacks to the bottom of the political and economic totem pole. This major flaw in the community narrative is the cue for more blacks to “go their own way”, getting away from the false premise that skin color and pain throughout history should be enough to sustain monolithic thinking and poor political and economic gains.

It’s not about suppressing black votes, Mr Booker. It’s about cutting off the Democratic Party’s meal ticket

Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, today raised an issue concerning Steve Bannon’s attempts to target black voters during the November 2016 elections. In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Cambridge Analytica’s former director of research testified that Steve Bannon, former assistant to President Donald J Trump, sought to use data harvested by Cambridge Analytica as part of a campaign to discourage blacks from voting. Mr Booker wants us to ignore the possibility that more blacks are turning away from his party.

The reason for the butthurt over Mr Bannon’s alleged targeting of blacks has nothing to do with black voter suffrage per se. Mr Booker’s issue is that if Mr Bannon or others like him are successful in steering blacks either away from the polls or worse yet to other candidates, then the Democratic Party would be in serious trouble.

According to data compiled by BlackDemographics.com, a significant portion of the black population is affiliated with the Democratic Party. In 2012, 76% of the black population were affiliated with the Democratic Party, either calling themselves Democrats or aligning with Democratic principles or values. You would have to go back to 1968 to see the affiliation percentage exceed 90% (93%).

As for the percentage of blacks who vote for the Democratic candidate, between 1936 and 2012 that percentage was equal to or greater than 90% on four occasions; in the years 1964, 2000, 2008, and 2012. There are a couple data points that may be concerning Mr Booker and his colleagues. While a couple data points do not make a trend, they should be something to keep one’s eye on.

Back in 2000, seven percent of the black population affiliated themselves with the Republican Party. By 2004, that percentage more than doubled to 15%. A priori, that jump may have had to do with the U.S. involvement in a two-front war in the Middle East and George W. Bush’s ability to sell the U.S. on his ability to prosecute the war. Also, Mr Bush attempted to stimulate the economy during the 2001 to 2003 period via tax cuts and the one-time issue of checks to households.

By 2008, however, the portion of the black populace affiliated with the Republican Party fell to four percent, but the portion of blacks affiliated with “independent” climbed to 20%. Apparently, more blacks wanted to hedge against the probability of being on the losing side of history. Vote for the first black president without moving into the Democratic playpen. By 2012, black Republicans went back home with 16% of the black population affiliating with the Republicans.

What may be underlying these numbers is a change of heart and direction on the part of younger blacks when it comes to the Democratic Party. According to NPR, black voter turnout fell from 66.6% of blacks in 2012 to 59.6% of blacks in 2016. Over four million black voters stayed home and according to the NPR report part of the reason is that a growing number of blacks no longer believe they have a home in the Democratic Party. Blacks may no longer see voting as the best way to change their economic or social plight as the population still sees unemployment rates higher than whites and neighborhoods that are run down and facing abandonment.

No, Mr Booker. It appears that something more substantive is going on to turn away blacks from the poll other than a sponsored ad running on the right-hand side of a person’s Facebook page.

Donald Glover: Art needs a deliverable

Donald Glover’s “This is America” video has Americans analyzing every aspect of the four-minute presentation. Sometimes we think the picture or film is all the deliverable that we need. Believing this creates the risk that the conversation, the questions begin and end with the picture itself. It shouldn’t, but that is what I am gathering from all the commentary regarding Mr Glover’s production.

For example, members of the daily show “The View” focused on how the production challenged America’s views on black people and violence committed against young people in the community. The interpretations flowed with commenters recognizing references to the South Carolina church shooting to black on black crime, to the relationship blacks have with the police. These realities have been documented many times before in a number of mediums. Art has been able to convey the pain and horror of violent acts carried out on black people.  As a political statement or political thought, the video was lacking. Why? Because, like all other forms of art broaching the subject of the prism of violence through which America sees the Diaspora, the video will not result in a call for action, a moving of the needle.

Which authority should this appeal be made to? Most people would say white America and the government that it dominates. White America has higher household wealth, controls almost all private capital, and dominates the nation’s elected national, state, and local offices. Given its capacity of power, white America and the government it dominates has a duty to address and provide redress of the wrongs depicted in the presentation.

Is this a good enough reason to hold white America as the authority that can answer the call to action? Would we have gone far enough in identifying the ultimate authority for redress? In response to this question I can hear others arguing that the ultimate authority is the individual. As individuals are we taking the precautions to physically defend ourselves (assuming a legal framework that allows us to do so)? To go our way? To carve out a niche where we reduce contact with negative elements that threaten us?

The art provided no answers which left its meaning flat, one dimensional. In the end, useless.

In the political marketplace, Heath Ledger’s Joker meets the black voter

18 July 2008. That is the date most movie audiences got the chance to see, in my opinion, one of the finest performances in cinema. That day, “The Dark Knight” was released. It starred the late Heath Ledger as the iconic villain, “Joker.” The movie, released after Mr Ledger’s death, would garner him the Academy Award the following year. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen the movie over the past ten years. I always found the anarchy narrative intriguing. Joker’s appeal that we were supposed to live in a world without rules sits well with me. There is something else that I have noticed about the character. Joker lives in the past and is quick to let anyone within earshot, or his knife blade, know about his scars.

‘You wanna know how I got these scars?’ The interrogative served as a preamble to Joker taking a victim’s life. It also let the audience know they were going to take a trip down memory lane, into a past filled with pain and suffering. His physical scars, if one listens closely, were emblematic of the emotional scarring he suffered from childhood into his adult life. Authority had not only failed him but had also taken its anger out on him.  As a result, it appeared that Joker decided to go it alone, engaging only in temporary alliances, and discarding them when a job was done.

Joker’s preoccupation with the past reminds me of the preoccupation black American voters have with their historical and political past.  When you listen to a prominent black political leader, you are tempted to pull out your smartphone and check the calendar to verify whether the year is 2018 or 1968.  White Americans probably feel like the character, Michael Jai White’s character, “Gambol”, listening to black politicians and civil rights leaders wax on about past injustices before the knife blade stained with talk of reparations, income and wealth inequality, police brutality, and the never experienced (on both sides) trauma of slavery is slashed across their political necks.

White America in general and the conservative Republican Party in particular do not have political philosophies that require they labor in the pains of the past. In addition, the GOP still hold on to the narrative of less government intervention and more of the Ronald Reagan “up by your bootstraps” approach to solving household financial and economic issues.

Blacks would argue that the GOP would like to take America back to 1958 and the era of Jim Crow segregation, but again, given that the GOP has no past pains to ponder on, they and black American voters will fail to connect because their frequencies are different.

And I don’t see the GOP tuning in to black America past pain anytime soon. They don’t have to in order to get votes. Their lack of effective outreach over numerous past election cycles to black voters is evidence that I won’t be seeing any national or even state GOP candidates in Atlanta’s 30310 zip code.

Besides, if the GOP needs to leverage the pain narrative for votes, all they have to do is focus on the current dilemma facing white men. Although the economy has recovered, white working age men in rural areas are feeling the impact of long term unemployment and lower wages. They have turned to opioids as a coping mechanism. I don’t see the Democratic Party reaching out to this group meaning an opportunity for Republicans to dust off the plate and take a few swings for the bases this fall.

And what would Joker advise? He would probably say try a little aggressive expansion, dump the rules, and go your own way.