Kilmonger 1 T’Challa 0 #BlackPanther

“The black elite around the globe should be afraid. That is one of my takeaways from “The Black Panther”, a Marvel movie that when examined closely went beyond anything else so far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU, rebooted by the first installment of “Iron Man” has been expressing a political narrative that was heightened as recently as “Captain America: The Winter Soldier.” But “The Black Panther” has taken the politics to a global level as expressed by a final conflict between two men who, without their fathers, find themselves rudderless in a political torrent.

I will start with the anti-elite, anti-hero, Kilmonger. Kilmonger represents the 90% of the African Diaspora that is resource-less. He sees an elite that does not want to or maybe does not know how to distribute the gains from the precious little resources the Diaspora has.

While the educated continue to delude themselves that they are doing well in America, for example, they tend to ignore the poverty that they drive through every day to jobs that have more than a glass ceiling as a barrier to break. They see a disproportionate number of black entrepreneurs forced to go solo after the glass ceiling crashes on them only to face further discrimination from bankers who refuse to throw the lifeline of business credit their way.

In addition, they are increasingly disconnected from the continent that spawned their ancestors, a continent, while rich in resources, still faces challenges extracting and processing those resources and turning them into output.

And while Africa itself is emerging, its growth, like that of America and the West, is driven by credit and IMF/World Bank aid. The poor, who are bearing the undue suffering of this economic and social model have no effective leadership. Like Kilmonger, they are rudderless.

T’Challa, whose character has been getting, in my opinion, too much premature love from the celebrating daishiki wearers that attacked the box office last weekend, represents an elite that believe they have arrived because they live in gated communities and have generated income from monopolizing the little precious resources that the Diaspora has. They are increasingly out of touch, using technology to create, much like the Wakandans, a moat around themselves.

Kilmonger’s father died while Kilmonger was still in his youth. There was no father to help guide him toward being the leader that could effectively create a narrative of Diaspora-wide self sustainability. He had to teach himself by leaving the confines of Oakland and traveling the globe training himself to be a warrior. Unfortunately, his message came from an emotional place, from a place of anger toward a family that had betrayed him. His energy was poorly channeled, again, because there was no father to guide him. For this reason, Kilmonger was the wrong man for the right message.

T’Challa was weak. This weakness led to him crafting a half-assed policy of outreach based on an equally half-assed narrative of “diversity.” Telling the world that Wakanda would step out of its isolation and show the world how to live as “one human tribe” is basically the same policy that led to and keeps the African Diaspora in check. Africans who war with each other are too distracted to lead any globe toward one-world bliss. And history shows what happens when Africa lets it guard down. The colonizers find a way to institute their old playbook of domination.

Cinematically, this movie outdoes every other Marvel movie. The movie has its own unique texture driven by the infusion of various African cultures and the human element of the story. It is the only time I felt tears welling up during a Marvel film as the story not only reminded me of my challenges from losing my father at 26, but displayed the challenges each man had to endure as they reconciled the lack of a father’s guidance in a world that tears their immediate, tribal, and global families apart.

Overall, a great movie, but not for the reasons the daishiki wearers expected.

#BlackHistoryMonth: Shit Jesse Jackson, Roland Martin, or Tom Joyner won’t tell you for the next 28 days

In 1619, Africans were brought here as capital inputs for an agricultural industry in a British colony. Over the next 400 years the status of that human capital would be transformed through a civil war fought to transition a country into a nation-state; an economic reconstruction period where said agricultural society would become an industrial society; a civil rights period where the industrial society would begin its transition into an information society.

During this period, descendants of African slaves brought to America would inherit and practice the politics of appeasement and inclusiveness hoping that a narrative of diversity would serve as a preamble for full incorporation into a society that never valued them for anything more than physical labor and entertainment.

As we approach the 400th anniversary of their enslavement in what is now known as the United States, descendants of African slaves brought to America have to ask themselves how and why their narrative of appeasement, inclusiveness, diversity, and social justice was co-opted by every other ethnic or sub-culture group and how these groups have been able to leap ahead of blacks in terms of employment and capital ownership.
America and the globe is entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution. When will blacks, those descendants of African slaves brought to America, begin their first real revolution?

Black Americans should think like sovereigns

Since their emancipation from physical slavery in 1865, black descendants of slaves brought to what is now known as the United States have fought for full incorporation as citizens. For blacks, incorporation meant the right to own property, vote, move freely across provincial borders, and be free from racial violence whether perpetrated by individuals or the State.

The primary reason for the incomplete incorporation process was the view of the European that blacks, based on their race, did not have equal value as humans, a view that one group must have in order to justify enslavement. Another reason closely related to race is based on the process of becoming a nation-state, a process that caught blacks in the crossfire.

By the time blacks were physically emancipated from slavery, the United States was becoming a nation-state. Having abandoned the British monarchy 89 years earlier, by 1865 America was expanding westward riding the wave of white, Anglo-Saxon manifest destiny.  During the period after 1865, the United States continued its campaign of pacifying indigenous tribes while importing and regulating the movement of Chinese. And while there was internal conflict between other European ethnic groups and Anglo-Saxons, these groups were able to be incorporated much easier than indigenous tribes, the Chinese, or former slaves of African descent.

The Chinese and other Asian groups have managed to balance maintaining their culture while incorporating to some degree into the American political economy.  While state and federally recognized indigenous tribes have limited sovereignty and ownership or use of certain lands, these groups see internal and external threats to their culture including poverty, alcoholism, encroachment on tribal lands by certain corporations, and subjugation to blood quantum tests.

The common thread, in my opinion, between Asians and indigenous tribes is that they have some land to fall back on; some physical reference point that anchors their history and existence. Blacks in the United States do not have that advantage. Besides historical records of slavery and the use of DNA testing, blacks have little connection to the African continent. America is their “soil”, their roots and some would argue that their status as descendants of involuntary migrants and slaves means a perspective significantly different from people who came to the U.S. voluntarily.

The downside of the “involuntary migrants and slave status” argument is that it falls on the deaf ears of those for whom the United States was created. If such an argument was effective, incorporation of blacks into American society would have occurred a century ago. Moral or emotion-driven arguments do not result in acquiring and distributing sufficient resources necessary for individuals in a community to sustain themselves. The current approach asks that a white-dominated government distribute temporary, sub-par benefits that act as a replacement for capital.

Sub-par public educational services do not teach children critical thinking skills that go along with the life skills provided by their households. Sub-par medical services while subsidizing drug prices thus the revenues of the drug industry do not provide the wellness information that keeps individuals truly healthy. Sub-par public safety that subsidizes police terrorism not community security does not benefit blacks either. The American political system feigns a sub-par community approach when in reality it is a temporary bandage designed to keep the barbarians from knocking down the gate.

The American political economy has been telling black Americans to “go your own way” for some time now. Maybe it is time to listen.