Delete All Variations Of The Following Phrase From Your Vocabulary: “Fighting White Hegemony”
Ever since I woke up from “the Matrix,” I’ve been uneasy whenever I hear African-American women speak variations of the phrases “fighting White hegemony” and “fighting White supremacy.” I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I have had that reaction until I read Evia’s comments during this conversation in the comments section to her recent post at her blog, Black Female Interracial Marriage Ezine.
Well, she explained it all quite clearly during that conversation: That notion of “fighting White hegemony” is deadly, mental poison for African-American women! It’s definitely a Fantasy Island-based, SELF-defeating notion that African-American women need to purge from their minds.
I don’t want to repeat Evia’s comments, but I will highlight a few of the many, many key points that she makes:
White hegemony is currently feeding all African-Americans. To put it bluntly, White people feed all of us. Directly or indirectly. We need to stop “tripping” about that. Very few African-Americans have ever been serious about building the infrastructure needed in order to be a self-sufficient people. Only marginalized groups among us like the Nation of Islam went so far as to actually cultivate farm land, and create grocery stores and restaurants to feed African-Americans.
Nobody except African-American women is sacrificing anything in order to “fight” White hegemony. Including the Black men who flap their lips talking about White hegemony. Many of the Black men talking that stuff are busy dating, sexing and marrying the so-called “evil White man’s” daughters. These men are busy transferring whatever wealth they can accumulate back to the so-called “evil White man” through his daughter. If not the so-called “evil White man’s” daughters, then these Black men talking that stuff are looking to transfer whatever wealth they get to other types of non-Black women.
No other race or ethnic group of women are even worrying about “fighting White hegemony,” except African-American women. When you’re the only one doing something, that’s usually a clue that whatever you’re doing is a bad idea. Other women, including other types of Black women from around the world, are too busy making sure that they (directly or indirectly) get a slice from the current, status quo “White hegemony pie” by marrying whichever man will bring the most to their table. Including qualified White men.
I would suggest that anyone who’s conflicted or confused about the idea of dropping this phrase from their mind consider the following observations I made about activist Black women’s lifestyles during this post.
For Black men, political activism is a vehicle for getting their personal needs met—a source of getting paid and getting laid. Much like the ministry. All on their terms. For example, has Rev. Jesse Jackson ever worked at a job?
Think about the roster of married Black male activists who were promiscuous womanizers such as Dr. King, Elijah Muhammad, and so on. These men had the pleasures of a home life with a wife sitting at home waiting for them, and plentiful sex on the side with female groupies. Think about the single Black male activists who were promiscuous womanizers such the Panthers and others who had a steady, non-stop supply of female groupies they were having sex with. On top of this, Black male activists are typically treated as celebrities and showered with adulation. For Black men, activism is often a vehicle for fulfilling their (financial) safety and belongingness and love needs (intimacy of all sorts, including sexual intimacy).
In short, Black male activists routinely get their personal needs met. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. Meanwhile, activism does not provide the same perks for Black women who are working as hard and facing the same pressures and dangers.
ACTIVISM DOES NOT PROVIDE SIMILAR “ROCK STAR” PERKS FOR BLACK WOMEN ACTIVISTS—NOR DOES IT DO ANYTHING TO MEET THEIR BASIC PERSONAL NEEDS
Activism does not provide the same perks for Black women. While it may provide higher-level needs for women, it generally won’t do anything to provide the foundational second and third-level needs.
While keeping the hierarchy of needs in mind, I invite you to do what we rarely do: Consider some of the inner lives of the crusading, activist African-American women that we hold up as Black History Month heroines. If your thinking is similar to mine, you won’t be pleased by much of what you see. I’ll just name a couple of examples. Dorothy Height has never married. Mary McLeod Bethune separated from her husband (who died in 1918). She never remarried, and she passed away in 1955. These women came of age during an era when marriage was the norm for Black women and readily available within the African-American collective. Who, if anybody, did these women come home to for all those decades?
Consider the personal horrors of being married to a Black male activist like Dr. King. He was often away from home. Coretta Scott King was also in great physical danger—and living alone for long stretches of time with their children. She was responsible for holding down the fort, and child care while he was away. If she was faithful in her marriage, that meant she went through long stretches of not having sex while he was away. Meanwhile, Dr. King was having sex with his women on the side. I won’t even mention the female Black Power activists who apparently served as “booty calls” (and worse) for male Black Power activists.
For Black women, activism does not provide the perks it often provides for Black men. No free money. No husband to remain faithful to you while you sleep around with other men. No adoring harem of male groupies. The only woman I can think of that “had it like that” was a White author named Ayn Rand. Apparently for a number of Black women, crusading activism was a dead-end leading to an asexual, ascetic lifestyle. Who wants that, except a nun?
From what I can tell, one of the relatively few “Black History Month Heroines” that appears to have been involved in activism while also making sure to get her personal needs met (the way she wanted) was Lorraine Hansberry. She was a bisexual or lesbian who married (either out of genuine love for her White husband, or to use him as a voluntary or involuntary cover story), while still dating and sleeping with women.
Dorothy Height has passed away (at age 98) since I wrote that post. She never married.
A final note about justice. I can’t think of any group of women that are more justly deserving of abundant life than African-American women. Justice is for more African-American women to start reaping the benefits of all our centuries of hardship and struggle. Right now!
**Reader’s Note** I’m not going to publish comments that: (1) recount yet more damaged Black male horror stories, or (2) seek to analyze damaged Black males and the origins of their damage. I’m trying to wean some of you away from fixating and focusing on damaged Black men. I notice that some of you disrupt conversations at other blogs by dumping news story links to the latest damaged Black man horror story into the discussion. I’m not going to let that happen here.
If I mention something about damaged Black men, it’s explanatory and kept to a minimum. I don’t care about what’s going on in the minds of damaged Black men, or what they’re doing. I’m only interested in what’s going on in African-American women’s minds that blocks them from seeking abundant life. My main point in all the conversations here is on what strategies savvy, self-actualizing African-American women can use to maximize their enjoyment in life. In this post, I’m suggesting that we drop this particular phrase because it’s an obstacle to abundant life for African-American women.
Tagged as: low-negativity diet · you betta recognize
Popular Posts 
Once again, you hit it out of the PARK….whew…bring the noise, bring the pain. I am still digesting your previous post on Femininity. You said today…”Other women, including other types of Black women from around the world, are too busy making sure that they (directly or indirectly) get a slice from the current, status quo “White hegemony pie” by marrying whichever man will bring the most to their table. Including qualified White men.”
I have been processing the most recent Nightline, Dateline ridiculousness surrounding the issue of successful BW not finding eligible BM. The truth was hidden in plain sight in that the conversation needed to be organized around the idea that BW need to “marry WHICHEVER man will bring the most to their table.!!!!!” It is crazy-making for BW to continue to fight White hegemony. That is not our fight! We need to focus our efforts on making choices that directly benefit us and our families.
I get sooo frustrated and angry when I hear my co-workers who are BW complain about the quality of the men in their dating pool. When I have suggested to them that they expand their options to include WM or others who are not “black” their immediate response is “Ewwww…I could never be attracted to/kiss a white man.” I think to myself “you would rather date the unemployed, underemployed “man” who drops you off at work in your car so that he can hang with his boys all day than consider the cute white guy in IT?” Major side eye on that!!!
I support your decision to omit all comments about damaged black men, even though you rejected one of my comments a while back for that reason! *sniff* I understand that not everyone can stay focused on the “onward and upward” if we are looking over our shoulders at the insane vortex of dysfunction we are fleeing.
On to the topic at hand. I noticed in undergrad that my white feminist professors were always quite eager to get me to be the marching, rallying, up-in-arms Sista Soldier against white hegemony. Meanwhile they themselves were married to wealthy white men and led lives of leisure in the suburbs.
I find it quite useful to contrast what someone is urging me to do with my time and energy with what they personally do. It can be very illuminating. While these white women were benefiting from white hegemony, I was supposed to beat my head against the wall night and day to dismantle it, because THEY said so? I think not.
i’m sorry…did you just backhandedly insult a woman – now revered ancestor – who helped make it possible for you to sit and write all this from the comfort of your home in a (presumably) non segregated neighborhood?
this woman’s work will live in the hearts and minds of our people for generations – and i’m saying that without even understanding the full reach of what she helped bring forth.
but…she didn’t marry, so her life is automatically unfulfilled/incomplete?
i’m stunned. so much so that i cannot even go into the rest of what’s wrong with this – from my perspective, anyway.
but if it works for you…*shrug*
peace.
Part 1 of my response to Omi
Omi,
I’m starting with your comment because there are certain misconceptions that I would prefer to dispose of first.
You said, “i’m sorry…did you just backhandedly insult a woman – now revered ancestor – who helped make it possible for you to sit and write all this from the comfort of your home in a (presumably) non segregated neighborhood?”
Omi, I don’t know if you’re a foreign-origin Black person who is claiming offense on behalf of MY African-American ancestor, Dorothy Height. I couldn’t quite tell much about you from a quick visit to your site. But I’ll try to cover all the possible bases in my response to you. I’ll try to give a comprehensive response to your comment.
So here’s my reply to that part of your comment if you are an non-AA Black person who is trying to give me (and other AAs) a cross-cultural lecture about what you feel AAs should do:
I’ve noticed that there is a significant subsection of non-AA Black folks who love to come among AAs and presume to lecture us—and tell us that we should “do as they say we should do, and NOT do as they did/are doing for themselves. And I had to check one individual from this category at the previous blog. Beware of Advice From Outsiders Who Want You to Do As They Say, and NOT As They Did For Themselves.
I don’t have any problems with non-AAs who are speaking and acting in good faith—and want for AAs what they want for themselves. That sort of good faith, WELCOME behavior is NOT what I’m talking about right now.
I’m talking about a behavior pattern that I’ve heard described as “entitlement and intrusion.” What happens is that bad-intentioned, often-hypocritical non-AA Blacks folks feel entitled to intrude upon AA conversations about AA circumstances. They feel entitled to butt in and redefine AA circumstances to suit THEIR emotional needs. And many AAs unwittingly put up with this.
Just imagine what would happen if an AA came onto an African or West Indian discussion board to lecture them what they need to do about their issues? All hell would break loose—as it should when somebody arrogantly presumes to give cross-cultural lectures to another people.
And this isn’t a new problem. It’s been a historical, systemic problem with far too many AA organizations. We traditionally allow all sorts of outsiders (Whites, like the White men—such as Kivie Kaplan—who ran the NAACP, and non-AA Blacks) to give us orders. AAs have the unfortunate habit of giving other people access to our “nuclear codes”—we allow others to have COMMAND and CONTROL over our organizations. We allowed a handful of West Indians like Stokely Carmichael and others to run and set policy for many of OUR organizations during the 1960s. While we took orders from them, and served as footsoldiers.
Incidentally, 1960s AA organizations were NOT global (so-called “bigger picture”) organizations. Their purpose was to alleviate the suffering of AAs right here in the US.
The VAST majority of the “footsoldiers” for the 1960s organizations were AAs born of this soil in the US; and descended from those held in slavery right here in the US. WE did this for ourselves. Other people did not come in and rescue us. Not the Jews (some of whom want to claim that they were the backbone of the civil rights movement). Not foreign Black folks. Us. Ourselves. For ourselves.
It almost reminds me of how I’ve read that so many French people wanted to claim that they were part of the French Resistance AFTER WWII was over. When actually only a very small fraction of the population participated in the resistance. Now that the dying is over, lots of other types of Black people want to claim that their people were somehow an integral part of AAs’ civil rights movement, instead of a very small fraction of the actual participants.
To paraphrase the saying: Success has many people who claim to be its parents. Failure is an orphan.
And there’s never any reciprocity. Outsiders don’t allow AAs to control or set policy for their organizations—and they shouldn’t. No sane or responsble government gives its nuclear codes to another country. No matter how close an alliance they’ve had, or for how long.
However, I’m NOT the one for this sort of thing. Those days of letting outsiders—who have no real comprehension of AA history or circumstances—tell us what to do are OVER.
For the record, I also don’t appreciate the manner in which the bad faith, cross-cultural-lecturing type of non-AA Black folks MIS-use references to MY AA ancestors. Let me give an example of what I mean. For example, one Caribbean-origin anti-divestment BM talked about Harriet Tubman in his blog post against divestment. http://www.rippdemup.com/2009/04/divesting-in-black-community-run-black.html
In MIS-citing Harriet Tubman, this Caribbean-origin individual does not understand what Ms. Tubman actually did. She led slaves in missions to RUN AWAY from slave plantations! She did not lead slaves into “stay and fight” gun battles with slaveholders. She did not lead her fellow AAs into “stay and fight” gun battles to take over the plantations!
I was annoyed by this Caribbean-origin individual presuming to lecture AAs while MIS-citing the example of Harriet Tubman. Ms. Tubman is MY ancestor as an AA, NOT his! That’s as crazy as me presuming to lecture a Nigerian Muslim about what they need to do while MIS-citing the historical example of THEIR ancestor Shehu Usman Dan Fodio!
So, back to your original comment which claimed offense on behalf of MY AA sister, Dorothy Height: If you’re not an AA, then you DON’T have any standing to claim offense with me on her behalf. And I’m not going to entertain that from you if you’re not AA. It’s just that simple.
**Response to Omi to be continued in Part 2**
Well hello!
Caribbean-origin male here…
yeah, nice to meet you.
First question: Do you have a problem with comprehension? Clearly if you didn’t, you would not have taken the sarcasm and obvious hyperbolic quality of my statement in the manner you did.
Really, is that all you had in response to complain about? Hmm, and I thought you were deeper than that.
Secondly, what makes Harriet Tubman YOURS or YOUR ancestor as opposed to mine? You see, that’s the problem: people like you have been duped by the very white man into believing the ideal of American exclusivity.
Lemme guess, Marcus Garvey who was born in the Caribbean like me is YOURS as well, right? You see sister, you don’t even realize just how twisted up in the “game” you are right now. But hey, while we’re at it, lemme ask:
Was Stokeley Carmichael YOURS too?
Oh, and since you have a problem with comprehension or dare I say selective memory. Allow me to provide you with the entire paragraph wherein the Harriet Tubman line is used:
“Maybe because I’m a Black man who works to serve a higher purpose other than me when it comes to my people, I feel the way I do. Yeah, maybe that’s it. The hell if I know. However, I do know Harriet Tubman must be rolling over in her grave when she hears Black woman with this type of talk. If she ever was a ghost, I think some of these sisters would think twice if she appeared and pulled her famous pistol in an attempt to get them to realize that the fight and struggle is not theirs alone. I don’t care what they say, but divest as you may, but sadly, at the end of the day, you’ll still be Black just like the rest of us you’ve left behind.”
LINK: http://www.rippdemup.com/2009/04/divesting-in-black-community-run-black.html
Now, while you’re running around the internet pushing your agenda and claiming exclusivity to African Americans. Do yourself a favor and take time to figure out just why relative to white women, black women between the ages of 30-49, have a NET worth of $5, whereas white women are worth $48,000. Yeah, g’head and divest in the black community instead of coming together and realizing that we are not each other’s enemy. But lemme guess, that’s all the black man’s fault, right?
I’m sure Khadija will give you a thorough redress but from my and other black women’s experiences with you, you use “sarcasm” as a means of being disrespectful. You are also an unrepentant misogynist. Of course since you don’t actually LISTEN and try to TELL us how we should feel you’ll never learn nor will those of us who erect boundaries for such coarse behavior silently allow that disrespect to stand unchallenged. Carmichael has been discussed more than once and is NOT claimed as an African-American by those who are aware he’s West Indian. You’re not really interested in accountability though so this is all a moot point.
Mr. Caribbean-Origin Male:
Sir,
You said, “Now, while you’re running around the internet pushing your agenda and claiming exclusivity to African Americans.”
I’m not “running around” anywhere. I’m in my own blog home in my own country. I’m free enough to be able to talk and say whatever I want to say in my own home. You came here to MY house. Literally, in terms of this blog. On a larger level, in terms of this country.
Right now, you’re standing in the middle of my living room—uninvited. While you’re here for the moment (because you’re on your way out the door, never to be allowed back in here like this), let me stress something to you that you and other uninvited, rude guests from non-European countries have forgotten:
The AA Civil Rights Movement led to, and influenced, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Prior to OUR AA Civil Rights Movement, White Americans were quite clear about keeping non-Europeans like you OUT of this country. And as far as I’m concerned, White folks can/should go back to keeping YOU out!
You said, “First question: Do you have a problem with comprehension? Clearly if you didn’t, you would not have taken the sarcasm and obvious hyperbolic quality of my statement in the manner you did.”
I don’t care what you called yourself doing with my sister, Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman is not YOURS to play with. You are the same as the White “hipster” racists who feel entitled to play with AA history and historical persons. I say “NO” to all of that.
Sarcasm and hyperbole or not, I would greatly prefer that you—along with the White hipster racists that your actions imitate—leave my sister(s) out of your mouth. Play with your own historical figures from your own country. Especially when you want to engage in sarcasm and hyperbole.
You said, “Secondly, what makes Harriet Tubman YOURS or YOUR ancestor as opposed to mine? You see, that’s the problem: people like you have been duped by the very white man into believing the ideal of American exclusivity.”
I claim the right to exercise my ethnic self-determination as an AA. Like all other peoples of the world, AAs have the right to claim our OWN ancestors and heritage.
You said, “Lemme guess, Marcus Garvey who was born in the Caribbean like me is YOURS as well, right? You see sister, you don’t even realize just how twisted up in the “game” you are right now. But hey, while we’re at it, lemme ask:
Was Stokeley Carmichael YOURS too?
NO, I’m not a thief like you (and some other confused foreign-origin Black folks who want to STEAL from AAs’ heritage). Unlike you, I have no interest in trying to steal other people’s heritage and legacy.
I NEVER claimed Marcus Garvey or Stokely Carmichael. I’ve always been perfectly happy to describe them both as West Indians, which they were. And frankly, I’ve never heard other AAs try to lay claim to these 2 West Indians as if they weren’t West Indian. These were 2 West Indians leading AAs (which I feel was problematic, nobody except AAs is willing to follow foreign leadership like that).
In short, since I’m not a cultural thief (like you and some others), West Indians can have AND keep Marcus Garvey and Stokely Carmichael. Y’all can especially keep Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Toure after he said that Black women’s proper position in the movement was “the prone position”!
You said, “Oh, and since you have a problem with comprehension or dare I say selective memory. Allow me to provide you with the entire paragraph wherein the Harriet Tubman line is used:”
Oh, I saw that. In addition to you playing games with my ancestor, your MIS-citing of her historical example was also offensive. When I say that AA women should “divest,” I’m telling them to flee the site of their heaviest oppression—which right now is the violent, physically dangerous, dead AA community and residential areas. Harriet Tubman ALSO led AAs to FLEE the site of their heaviest oppression—the slave plantations.
You mischaracterized Ms. Tubman’s works. And tried to use her as an example of why you believe AA women should continue to remain on the modern-day, physcially dangerous plantations within AA residential areas.
You said, “Do yourself a favor and take time to figure out just why relative to white women, black women between the ages of 30-49, have a NET worth of $5, whereas white women are worth $48,000. Yeah, g’head and divest in the black community instead of coming together and realizing that we are not each other’s enemy. But lemme guess, that’s all the black man’s fault, right?”
Since you can’t comprehend what Harriet Tubman actually did, you probably won’t understand this, but I’ll say it anyway:
1-There is structural inequality in terms of wages in the US. [Like everywhere else to varying degrees. Surprise, surprise.]
2-In the US, women in general earn less than men.
3-In terms of net worth, WW aren’t as affected by the inequality of their wages relative to men’s salaries.
4-WW aren’t as affected because they aren’t as likely to be single parents and single heads of households.
5-WW aren’t as likely to be single heads of households because WM are more likely to marry the mothers of their children.
6-BW have such a meager net worth, because to a degree that is unlike every other race of women, BW are propping up entire families of children, churches, and assorted deadbeat, no-working relatives by themselves—WITHOUT the benefit of lawful, legal husbands contributing to the upkeep of all of this!
Sir, since I don’t value your opinion, I don’t care how you choose to allocate the responsibility for this sequence of events that creates the $5.00 net worth.
Good Day.
“For the record, I also don’t appreciate the manner in which the bad faith, cross-cultural-lecturing type of non-AA Black folks MIS-use references to MY AA ancestors. Let me give an example of what I mean. For example, one Caribbean-origin anti-divestment BM talked about Harriet Tubman in his blog post against divestment. http://www.rippdemup.com/2009/04/divesting-in-black-community-run-black.html
In MIS-citing Harriet Tubman, this Caribbean-origin individual does not understand what Ms. Tubman actually did. She led slaves in missions to RUN AWAY from slave plantations! She did not lead slaves into “stay and fight” gun battles with slaveholders. She did not lead her fellow AAs into “stay and fight” gun battles to take over the plantations!”
I am rolling over above ground after reading that mess. Lordy erybody and they grandma wants to profit from the AA BW. And think they are entitled to do so.
I had to laugh hysterically when he said BW need to fight alongside BM (as if they are here doing any fighting or that women should be) and that divestment is not positive.
It is positive for BW.
**Part 2 of my response to Omi**
My reply to any AA who feels offended on Dr. Height’s behalf:
NO, I was not insulting Dr. Height by referring to the fact that she never married. I don’t value or devalue women based on marital status or whether they have children. During the Finding New Dreams post I said:
“So, ignore those people whose underlying message is that you’re “DOA” and your life has no value because:
You’re single.
You don’t (or can’t) have children.
You’re an unwed single parent.”
What I’m referring to right now, as well as in the Get What You Need First, Then Do X,Y,Z” post I linked to in the essay is the fact that that activism generally contributes NOTHING toward meeting AA women activists’ personal needs. Unlike the material, sexual, companionship rewards that activism provides for BM. Dorothy Height’s and so many other BW activists’ lifestyles were NOT enhanced by their activism. This is the complete opposite of the rock star type of perks (money, groupies and sex) that activism usually creates for BM.
What I’m saying here is that this empty rhetoric of “fighting White hegemony” is doing NOTHING for AA women except blocking them from enjoying the fruits of their centuries of struggle, deprivation and hardship. And that’s all this talk is—empty rhetoric. Which brings me to my next point.
Omi, I don’t know what, if anything, you have done/are doing to uplift Black folks. Or what, if any, personal sacrifices you have made to uplift Black folsk. So, I’ll simply talk about myself and what I’ve observed to be the general pattern with this type of talk. As I said in Who Else Wants an Optimal Lifestyle?:
“The people who demand that you narrow your life options generally have no personal history of service or sacrifice. They have not sacrificed anything for any cause, including the one that they insist you make sacrifices for. Their educational, employment, free time, and personal life choices do not reflect any commitment whatsoever to the uplift of Black people.
They are generally talk-only, with no concrete actions that they can point to. Besides offering you as a human sacrifice, the only support they give to their pet causes is rhetorical.
Unlike most of the “Black women as martyrs” recruiters, I have a long-term, consistent personal history of various kinds of service to Black people (including political activism, such as my participation in the anti-apartheid struggle when I was in college).
These experiences have convinced me that, at this point, the best thing individual Black women can do for the rest of the collective is not be part of the substandard lifestyles that have become the norm for African-American women. The best thing we can do is serve as living examples of African-American women having optimal lives. Because, frankly, most African-American women are convinced that this is impossible, which is why they settle for scraps. Scraps such as by-design single parenting (a majority African-American out of wedlock birthrate), and a life filled with nothing but sacrifice.
The “Black women as martyrs” recruiters have no positive vision or practical answers. They especially have no answers for the problems that face African-American women in particular. Their entire offering (such as it is) consists of criticizing others who offer suggestions and solutions that are not to their liking. Their “save the community” and “Black love” rhetoric is a scam. They only start talking this rhetoric when it looks like Black women might follow Black men’s example of doing whatever works best for them.”
Unlike so many of the computer-keyboard revolutionaries, I’m someone who has actually made personal and career sacrifices in order to help uplift AAs. I have actually served the Black underclass during large chunks of my professional life. And I took a HUGE pay cut to do it. Because that’s what I wanted to do—I didn’t have to do any of that.
Meanwhile, I see and hear so many loud-talking individuals who have NOTHING they can point to in their: (1) educational, (2) employment, (3) free time, and (4) personal life choices that demonstrate any of the sacrifice that they demand from African-American women ONLY. Which is another point I mentioned in that post when I said:
“IGNORE PEOPLE WHO DEMAND THAT BLACK WOMEN SERVE AS CANNON FODDER
They only expect African-American women to make sacrifices for the already-dead Black community. There are several traits you should note about the people who insist that you must sacrifice having a good life purportedly to save the already-dead African-American community. The first thing you need to note is that they only demand this sacrifice from Black women. These same people don’t demand any lifestyle sacrifice from Black men.
. . . Every (false) solution proposed by “race men” and “race women” requires work and sacrifice from Black women exclusively. This is why even when they use slogans like “man up,” all of their solutions lead back to heaping more chores onto Black women’s backs. For one of countless examples, see the discussions surrounding the dreadful Raising Him Alone program.
Also see the conversation about Roland Martin’s “call” for pastors to refuse to christen illegitimate babies unless “somebody” holds the father accountable (by somehow getting him to attend the christening). Note that Mr. Martin didn’t suggest that men such as the pastor, deacon, and other male church members seek out these baby daddies and counsel them.
People know better than to expect African-American men to take any active role in Black communities.”
Omi, you said, “i’m stunned. so much so that i cannot even go into the rest of what’s wrong with this – from my perspective, anyway. but if it works for you…*shrug*”
Omi, I hope that after all of the above, you now understand the context of why I believe that this “fighting White hegemony” rhetoric is nothing but a TRICK and a TRAP for African-American women. AA women can’t afford to continue trying to “fight” White hegemony ALONE. Which is the current status quo.
Omi, I welcome and invite you to return to explain what is “wrong” from your perspective.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
1. you make a LOT of assumptions.
2. i am an african american woman, although i don’t like the term, generally speaking. i prefer “black” or “of african descent”.
3. i think the way we see our people/culture/situation is so diametrically opposed, it’d be a waste to break this down further. again, if it works for you, more power. i’ll keep down my path. maybe one day we’ll meet in the center.
4. obviously my interpretation of your comment re: dr. height was incorrect, so, my apologies.
5. if you think we’re fighting this “alone” (altho i get your points about “cannon fodder”, etc), you know a lot of the wrong brothas.
peace.
Omi,
First, I’m not assuming anything, because I don’t know who you are—since this is the first time you’ve participated in a conversation here. And I don’t recall you ever participating in any of the coversations at the previous blog. I gave you a thorough response to cover all the potential bases, since I don’t know you.
Second, it’s not about the “brothas” that I know…it’s about the FACT that the condition of the now-dead AA community gives silent but unassailable testimony about the absolute ABSENCE of the so-called “right brothas”!
Now, if you actually believe that there’s a cadre of “right brothas” that are struggling with you to uplift the now-dead AA community, then you’ve probably also experienced some UFO and unicorn sightings. Because they’re equally rare, according to the observed, long-term conditions in the now-dead AA community. If this belief works for you, then more power to you.
Peace be unto you,
Khadija
Karen R.,
Thank you for your kind words about the post; I truly appreciate it.
You said, “The truth was hidden in plain sight in that the conversation needed to be organized around the idea that BW need to “marry WHICHEVER man will bring the most to their table.!!!!!” It is crazy-making for BW to continue to fight White hegemony. That is not our fight! We need to focus our efforts on making choices that directly benefit us and our families.”
Yes, this indoctrination-induced, “martyrdom-mission while dating” behavior pattern from AA women IS crazy. And it’s totally out of step with what every other type of woman on this planet is doing! It’s totally out of step with HUMAN norms. I mention this in the FAQ page to this blog. I’ve talked about it at the previous blog. Any AA woman who wants abundant LIFE needs to purge this particular life-damaging slogan/phrase from her mind. ASAP.
____________________________________
JoyousNerd,
You said, “I understand that not everyone can stay focused on the “onward and upward” if we are looking over our shoulders at the insane vortex of dysfunction we are fleeing.”
That’s exactly my point. *Smile*
You said, “On to the topic at hand. I noticed in undergrad that my white feminist professors were always quite eager to get me to be the marching, rallying, up-in-arms Sista Soldier against white hegemony. Meanwhile they themselves were married to wealthy white men and led lives of leisure in the suburbs.
I find it quite useful to contrast what someone is urging me to do with my time and energy with what they personally do. It can be very illuminating. While these white women were benefiting from white hegemony, I was supposed to beat my head against the wall night and day to dismantle it, because THEY said so? I think not.
Indeed. Large numbers of WW don’t want to see AA women wake up, smell the coffee, DROP these dead-end slogans such as “fighting White hegemony” and start doing what so many Asian women do—become their rivals for snagging powerful, affluent, Alpha-male WM!
This angle came up during this earlier conversation. As I said then:
MANY PROBLEMS WILL SOLVE THEMSELVES WHEN MORE BLACK WOMEN MARRY THE MOST POWERFUL MEN ON THE PLANET. THIS IS HOW ASIAN WOMEN GREATLY IMPROVED THEIR COLLECTIVE IMAGE.
Finally, the long-term, permanent solution to the twin problems of: (1) African-American women’s negative public image and (2) the harmful public slander of Black women by Black men will only come about as more African-American women marry more of the most powerful, dominant men. For a very long time leading up to right now, White men have been the most powerful, dominant, Alpha men on this planet. It’s reasonable to expect them to remain the planet’s most powerful, Alpha men for the foreseeable future.
This is the strategy that Asian women quietly and successfully carried out. These women did this to better their own individual circumstances, but it had the positive side effect of bettering their collective image. As increasing numbers of quality, prominent, powerful White men started marrying Asian women, suddenly Asian women started being perceived as increasingly desirable and attractive by other types of men.
Asian women weren’t always considered desirable by large numbers of non-Asian men. That shift in mass perception came about because of more Asian women marrying prominent, powerful, Alpha-male, White men.
I would add that the common assumption was that such women were among the Asian prostitutes that hang around US Army bases in Japan, Korea, South Vietnam, Thailand, the Phillipines, and so on. And many of them were! Asian women indirectly turned that mass negative perception totally around. One Asian bride—married to a prominent, powerful, Alpha male, White husband—at a time. African-American women can do the same thing.
THIS IS BECAUSE MOST MEN OF COLOR TAKE THEIR CUES ABOUT MANY ISSUES, INCLUDING WOMEN’S DESIRABILITY, FROM DOMINANT WHITE MEN
This is because most men of color on this planet take their cues in assessing women’s desirability from White men. In terms of raw power, White men are the dominant men on this planet. Whatever White men feel is desirable, other men will follow their lead and buy into that belief.
African-American males are generally followers on this planet. They are not the dominant, Alpha males on this planet who get to decide which groups of women are considered attractive. Black men take their lead from the dominant White men. Whoever the dominant White men feel is attractive (White women and Asian women in general, and individual Black women), many Black men will follow their lead and parrot whatever these dominant White men say about these women. For example, I didn’t start hearing many African-American men saying that the dark-skinned Mrs. Obama is attractive until after the White media and White men were publicly talking about how she’s glamorous and reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy.
When more dominant, powerful, Alpha-male White men marry Black women, then Black men will stop slandering Black women. Either out of their habit of taking their cues from White men, or out of fear of offending this emerging critical mass of White men who view Black women attractive and desirable.”
The bottom line: More and more individual African-American women living well by being married to quality men is the long-term solution to MOST of African-American women’s collective problems.
Getting with the most successful man she can get is what every other type of woman on this planet has enough sense to do! The problem is that most AA women have been brainwashed away from this sensible, natural strategy.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Greetings, Khadija!
I am glad to see you are developing the theme from Evia’s site; I enjoyed participating in it. I’ll share some of my insights here.
One of my students, I might have mentioned before is a Sista Soldier type. In the context of our course materials, when relevant, she would focus on fighting with the other students over their white privilege.
And yet, for all her fighting with them, she never got them to admit they had it, and even if she did, they were not going to relinquish any bit of privilege they had. They were too busy enjoying their lives.
So for the Sister Soldiers, knowing this is the reality, what are they going to do? Wander around, fighting in bitterness, wailing, etc., etc.?
And yet, for all her fighting with them, she never got them to admit they had it, and even if she did, they were not going to relinquish any bit of privilege they had. They were too busy enjoying their lives.
Great point Pioneer Valley Woman.
No amount of browbeating will make any sane privileded person relinquish their position. I remember these arguments during my college days, when Black students, especially the women would go on and on about how great Others have it. Some agreed, some nodded with sympathy, but all kept right on with their lives; upto and including graduating on time.
What is striking is that so many Sister Soldiers will wail but not think about what steps they can take to get where they want to go. They know others are living better lives. They either front and act as though it doesn’t matter or remain bitter or try to remain superior because their suffering for the cause makes them “noble”. They can’t imagine how they can get there or they tell themselves they can’t do it, thus they wallow into helplessness or despair or become bitter.
PioneerValleyWoman,
Greetings! Until I read Evia’s comments to her most recent post, I didn’t realize that this “fighting White hegemony/privilege/supremacy” is one of the “trigger” words and phrases that Halima talked about in an earlier post. That phrase triggers a Pavlov’s dogs-type of response. So many African-American women’s brains STOP functioning properly when they hear/utter that phrase. That’s why it needs to be purged from our vocabularies.
While the Sista Soldiers are busy seething about “fighting White [fill in the blank]“, life goes on for everybody else: BM, non-AA Black women, Asian women, Latina women, Arab women, South Asian women, and so on…NOBODY ELSE is even pretending to “fight the power.” {to the tune of the Public Enemy song}
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
“NOBODY ELSE is even pretending to “fight the power.” {to the tune of the Public Enemy song}”
Not even Public Enemy is fighting the power anymore. As a Black woman all I ever wanted is the same rights as any other woman. The right to be treated with respect. Unfortunately we as AA/Black women lost any smidgen of respect because we allowed black men to hide behind our skirts for HIS protection. Now these same ‘men’ have the audacity to still expect us to take it for the team while they marry and run off into the suburban sunset with Becky on his arm.
Personally I’ve always preferred the Alpha male so I never fell for the Beta.
Dorothy Height’s funeral is tomorrow and for all of her sacrifices I do think about the fact she never married or had children. Perhaps that’s what she had to do at the time but the trends were for more women to at least marry. Now that the OOW and never-married rates are a majority for BW it’s something to think about. Much of her hard work has already gone to pot because black women as a collective haven’t properly positioned themselves to take advantage of her efforts.
Faith,
AA women should contrast the damage that activism did to many AA women activists’ quality of life versus the rock star perks that activism provides for BM activists. I would suggest that folks take the time to read the entire Get What You Need First, Then Do X, Y, Z post. But here are some of the examples I gave:
“For Black men, political activism is a vehicle for getting their personal needs met—a source of getting paid and getting laid. Much like the ministry. All on their terms. For example, has Rev. Jesse Jackson ever worked at a job?
Think about the roster of married Black male activists who were promiscuous womanizers such as Dr. King, Elijah Muhammad, and so on. These men had the pleasures of a home life with a wife sitting at home waiting for them, and plentiful sex on the side with female groupies. Think about the single Black male activists who were promiscuous womanizers such the Panthers and others who had a steady, non-stop supply of female groupies they were having sex with. On top of this, Black male activists are typically treated as celebrities and showered with adulation. For Black men, activism is often a vehicle for fulfilling their (financial) safety and belongingness and love needs (intimacy of all sorts, including sexual intimacy).
In short, Black male activists routinely get their personal needs met. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. Meanwhile, activism does not provide the same perks for Black women who are working as hard and facing the same pressures and dangers.
…Activism does not provide the same perks for Black women. While it may provide higher-level needs for women, it generally won’t do anything to provide the foundational second and third-level needs.
Dorothy Height has never married. Mary McLeod Bethune separated from her husband (who died in 1918). She never remarried, and she passed away in 1955. These women came of age during an era when marriage was the norm for Black women and readily available within the African-American collective. Who, if anybody, did these women come home to for all those decades?
Consider the personal horrors of being married to a Black male activist like Dr. King. He was often away from home. Coretta Scott King was also in great physical danger—and living alone for long stretches of time with their children. She was responsible for holding down the fort, and child care while he was away. If she was faithful in her marriage, that meant she went through long stretches of not having sex while he was away. Meanwhile, Dr. King was having sex with his women on the side. I won’t even mention the female Black Power activists who apparently served as “booty calls” (and worse) for male Black Power activists.”
For Black women, activism does not provide the perks it often provides for Black men. No free money. No husband to remain faithful to you while you sleep around with other men. No adoring harem of male groupies. The only woman I can think of that “had it like that” was a White author named Ayn Rand. Apparently for a number of Black women, crusading activism was a dead-end leading to an asexual, ascetic lifestyle. Who wants that, except a nun?
From what I can tell, one of the relatively few “Black History Month Heroines” that appears to have been involved in activism while also making sure to get her personal needs met (the way she wanted) was Lorraine Hansberry. She was a bisexual or lesbian who married (either out of genuine love for her White husband, or to use him as a voluntary or involuntary cover story), while still dating and sleeping with women.
Again, I ask—Who, if anybody, did Dorothy Height come home to for almost a CENTURY? Who, if anybody, did she share her burdens with for almost a century?
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Being a major Star Trek fan, I have moved forward in life based on Star Trek’s Mission Statement:
Space… the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
I modified it for my life as follows:
Life, the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of my life. This ongoing mission: to explore different cultures and countries; to seek out new opportunities and new alliances; to boldly go where no AA woman has gone before.
Under this context, I have been open and allowed myself to be exposed to all sorts of experiences and cultures. I realized luckily very early who had the power and who called the shots.
Based on that reality and the “I ain’t mad, I will just focus on getting some of that pie”. I have never fought the “system” but let it work for me.
You can lump me in the category of “life goes on for everybody else”.
Ladies (the reading audience) – you only have one life, it is not a dress-rehearsal, so start living it and taking full advantage of what it has to offer.
Karen, I absolute love your Mission Statement!! I agree 100%!!
Again, I ask—Who, if anybody, did Dorothy Height come home to for almost a CENTURY? Who, if anybody, did she share her burdens with for almost a century?
Most likely she carried that burden ALONE, which is the “trap” that too many AA BW are currently in. It is all about choices.
Sacrificing our lives for others have left us mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically sick.
We are DYING a slow death, but the power is ours to change the course, IF WE WANT TO DO SO.
Great Post as usual. You stated,”Again, I ask—Who, if anybody, did Dorothy Height come home to for almost a CENTURY? Who, if anybody, did she share her burdens with for almost a century?”
Exactly. Notice how noboby is comparing the perks of BM activists to the BW activists. Of cousres if we follow the BC rules it is expected that she and other countless women sacrifice in hopes that one day the BM will get around to repaying BW for there servitude. Have we all not noticed that our ancestors were never repaid for there servitude duing slavery so what makes us think BM will get around to it. BTW isn’t Dorothy the type of BW that a BM activists would want. She clearly was intelligent, attractive, involved in the movement and independent. I thought if a BW had these traits BM would automatically want that kind of BW. Or is that BM in the movement were never about the upliftment of BP as a whole just BM and there ability to have access to the evil WM, his privileges and women. The point is this ladies we as BW have a right to wonderful life. We have a right to put our needs first and access power as we see fit. If that leaves behind some BW and BM so be it.
I really think AA women need to stop concerning themselves with what AA men say and do. If you really think about it, these men can have no effect on the quality of life of a truly divested woman. Therefore, why bother trying to analyse them and their issues. The focus should be on what individual AA women can do for themselves. In general, there are certain things that BW can do or change, but things affect us differently or we experience things differently, hence, what a BW in UK may require to better her life may be somewhat different from what a BW in America may require.
When it comes to AA men, please, let them solve their own problems. If any AA woman doesn’t want to focus on issues pertaining to AA women specifically, at least let other AA women do it. For a long time, Black Caribbean women in the UK used to rail against their African counterparts, saying that these women weren’t willing to ‘fight the cause. Most times, this just involved getting all torn up over yet another fatherless criminal or protesting against the racism in European football. Yet these BM who are the ones experiencing it NEVER turn up. Eventually, the Black Caribbean women got a clue (well, most of them), and are now living their lives. AA women need to do the same. I’m not saying that you should just drop it all. What I’m saying is that if there is any ‘fight’ to be fought, the fact is, it is the job of the MALES. If they aren’t doing it, does that not tell you something?!
Faith said: “Dorothy Height’s funeral is tomorrow and for all of her sacrifices I do think about the fact she never married or had children. Perhaps that’s what she had to do at the time but the trends were for more women to at least marry. Now that the OOW and never-married rates are a majority for BW it’s something to think about. Much of her hard work has already gone to pot because black women as a collective haven’t properly positioned themselves to take advantage of her efforts.”
That’s the thing though, she DIDN’T have to do that. Most of the men who were active in the movement were married. It is just that they didn’t marry ‘movement’ women. They wanted them as foot soldiers but not as wives. If there was any criticism aimed at the women who didn’t ‘take up arms’, they were rewarded by the movement men by creating lives for them. No one did that for the sister soldier types!
On a side note, Khadija, I laughed when you said “computer-keyboard revolutionaries”.
These mindless and duped sister solider zombies need to realize that “alla our people” don’t need saving. DBRBM (and non) are ALREADY being saved and having their needs taken care of. Either by often misguided other women/men of a variety of different “races” they’re already in “relationships” with, the Prison-Industrial complex, their mommies/aunt’s/sisters/Grandmothers, homeless shelters, etc…
The only ones NOT having their needs met are the sister solider types. This community they wish to come together and save DOES NOST EXIST on any grand scale what so ever.
The woman and LADIES card is the best and most powerful one hands down and will never fail to deliver.
Those who relinquish it make life unnecessarily hard on themselves and their children.
Men (and I’m ONLY talking about normal undamaged NON DBR black males who make up the majority on this planet) WANT to be gentleman and come to a woman’s aid when necessary. They simply want to make life more comfortable to ladies. Even strangers they’re not in intimate relationships with.
I have plenty of personal experiences that attest to this fact.
For instance, once when my eldest son was a baby I was pushing him in the stroller and was in the process of passing a small construction site. Out of the blue one of the construction workers jumped into action and said may I help you. He lifted my son in the stroller over his head while he walked down the sidewalk around the rubble. So I didn’t have to put him or myself in danger while we avoided what was on the ground. That’s a MAN.
Other times I’ve arrived at functions alone with my children and everything was so crowded you wouldn’t think there was any place left. A nice gentleman – a stranger to me – will call me over and make space for us. Usually one of the better spots.
And there are other incidents. Again, with complete strangers.
Now some black folks would probably think “oh their just being nice to you because they’re white men and it’s obvious your kids have a white father, they think of you as an exception and one of the good ones because you’re married to on of them “. But I get nice treatment (obviously when I’m with my husband) but ALSO when I’m alone and without the kids. And NO I’m not the kind of sista who can “pass as white” either. I’m a light-skinned BW with visible African ancestry.
So it’s not just benefiting from WM privilege through my association with my husband.
It’s because at all times (regardless of what I may be thinking at the time which may not be exactly ladylike LOL) I carry myself like the lady that I am. My appearance, communication, body language, you name it is “on point” as they say. Graceful. Being women of color in this country we are the minority therefor we WILL stand out regardless of what we do. We’re noticed. Therefor, why not be noticed for something POSITIVE? Refinement, elegance, intelligence and beauty?
These are the qualities that get you AHEAD in this world. And SMART women the world over regardless of “race” know it and use their FEMININITY card to the HILT to get the right results.
You are so right. Men of all races treat me like a lady with or without my husband. You just have to act like one and be polite and friendly.
Exactly and this plays out in all areas of life- not just in interactions with men. People like to be around positive, happy, well put together people.I have a suspicion that the other women in my program think I am a kiss up because I am generally happy and smiling at work and always speak enthusiastically about the organization. If that’s how they feel, too bad, my excitement about our shared opportunity is genuine and the fact that they choose to remain uninterested, lackluster, dour and sour participants who refuse to make the most of things only helps me shine brighter. Someone’s going to be the favorite, it might as well be me.
I had several AAs go out of their way to tell me how prejudiced the top brass was where I work and how difficult it was for black people there. I haven’t experienced any of this and it makes me think that some of these AA ran into barriers as a result of bad attitudes they displayed rather than any entrenched institutional racism. Most people find it difficult to be unpleasant to someone who is pleasant.
I don’t want to project anything onto to Dr. Height so I’d prefer to leave some room for an individual’s personal choice. Who knows if she wanted to marry after noticing the behavior of those men around her or even if she was hetero. My point is that it certainly appears she was self-sacrificing to the diminishment of all possibilities for her life and THAT is what we need the collective of AA black women to AVOID. Especially NOW. Many women don’t even have her excuse of serious activism with tangible results and are either spouting rhetoric or worse living lives of increasing desperation. I honestly thought I’d had a handle on all the levels of indoctrination black women have to deal with but it’s like Alice in Wonderland and the rabbit hole here! I’m thinking a shift in focus to the tween and teens is what’s necessary because older women are likely too invested in the Matrix.
I made the decision a long time ago that I was not going to be a culture warrior, LOL.
While BW are busy fighting The Man, BM, WM, WW and others are focused on “getting theirs.” Period.
As has already been mentioned, be very wary of white “liberals” who try to sucker you into being their “fight racism/sexism/patriarchy!!!” attack dog. While you are out carrying water and fighting the good fight, they are focused on living their lives.
Let me be clear, I see nothing wrong with BW getting involved in politics,social justice, volunteering or activism but lets make sure we are not sacrificing ourselves in the process. Be involved in a leadership or decision making capacity instead of being another footsoldier or worker bee. Vet people before getting involved with their causes or considering them allies. Give the immediate “side-eye” to anyone who suggests that you put your needs aside.
I read in a book many years ago a line that always stuck with me…it said “pay the rent first, save the world later”. We must take care of ourselves before we can truly be in a position to give to others.
Karen,
You said, “Life, the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of my life. This ongoing mission: to explore different cultures and countries; to seek out new opportunities and new alliances; to boldly go where no AA woman has gone before.’
{chuckling while giving a standing ovation}
In reply to my question about Dr. Dorothy Height, you said, “Most likely she carried that burden ALONE, which is the “trap” that too many AA BW are currently in. It is all about choices.”
Guurl…if somebody’s going to suffer from an attack of “the vapors” and clutch their pearls in horror, THIS is the angle to be upset and horrified about! Not get uptight about me raising the question and pointing this out.
You said, “Ladies (the reading audience) – you only have one life, it is not a dress-rehearsal, so start living it and taking full advantage of what it has to offer.”
YES!!!!
_________________________________________
Nathifa,
Thank you for your kind words about the post; I truly appreciate it.
You said, “Notice how noboby is comparing the perks of BM activists to the BW activists.”
Yes, I see that this angle is never brought up during any of AAs’ conversations about activism. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because most AAs (of both genders) are emotionally invested in the status quo of BW as uncompensated cannon fodder? As more AA women learn to ask the questions, “What’s in it for me—what will Activity X do to get MY needs met?” then there will be fewer of us left to be exploited and then discarded or left alone after a lifetime of mule service.
_____________________________________________
JaliliMaster,
You said, “I really think AA women need to stop concerning themselves with what AA men say and do. If you really think about it, these men can have no effect on the quality of life of a truly divested woman. Therefore, why bother trying to analyse them and their issues. The focus should be on what individual AA women can do for themselves.”
Exactly!
You said, “Eventually, the Black Caribbean women got a clue (well, most of them), and are now living their lives. AA women need to do the same.”
Good for them—I hope more AA women get the same clue.
Regarding Dorothy Height and other movement AA women, you said, “That’s the thing though, she DIDN’T have to do that. Most of the men who were active in the movement were married. It is just that they didn’t marry ‘movement’ women. They wanted them as foot soldiers but not as wives. If there was any criticism aimed at the women who didn’t ‘take up arms’, they were rewarded by the movement men by creating lives for them. No one did that for the sister soldier types!”
BINGO!
You said, “On a side note, Khadija, I laughed when you said “computer-keyboard revolutionaries”.”
Guuurl…{chuckling} In real life, most Black folks know better than to try to play “Blacker than thou” with me. Because my first question will be, “Why do you still carry your former slavemaster’s names?”
Now, I’m NOT saying that this is what Omi was doing. However, it did seem to me that there was a whole layer of semi-veiled assumptions underlying Omi’s comment. One semi-veiled assumption seemed to be that I’m one of the legions of passive “Bupppies” who have made no real contributions and no real sacrifice to assist the uplift of AAs. Well, that’s totally inaccurate.
Many of the loud-talking “computer-keyboard revolutionaries” assume that I’ve done nothing for AAs’ uplift because that’s what they’ve always done—a big, fat NOTHING! For the VAST majority of these folks, the only contribution they’ve made to AA uplift is rhetorical.
And when I encounter such people in real life, I have NO problem with comparing the details of the things that I’ve consistently done since college—”chapter and verse”—with what they’ve done—which is usually nothing but empty talk. And then they get real quiet, and scurry away to talk that mess to somebody else who does not have my personal background of service to AAs.
_____________________________________________
Felicia,
You said, “These mindless and duped sister solider zombies need to realize that “alla our people” don’t need saving. DBRBM (and non) are ALREADY being saved and having their needs taken care of. Either by often misguided other women/men of a variety of different “races” they’re already in “relationships” with, the Prison-Industrial complex, their mommies/aunt’s/sisters/Grandmothers, homeless shelters, etc…”
The only ones NOT having their needs met are the sister solider types. This community they wish to come together and save DOES NOST EXIST on any grand scale what so ever.
Indeed!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Faith,
You said, “I don’t want to project anything onto to Dr. Height so I’d prefer to leave some room for an individual’s personal choice. Who knows if she wanted to marry after noticing the behavior of those men around her or even if she was hetero. My point is that it certainly appears she was self-sacrificing to the diminishment of all possibilities for her life and THAT is what we need the collective of AA black women to AVOID. Especially NOW.”
I agree. We have no way of knowing exactly what Dr. Height’s needs were, or what she wanted out of life. I’m simply saying that if she was like most straight women—who tend to want marriage and children—then her life story is not a good story.
The bigger point that I’m trying to emphasize here is the “perks vs. NO perks” different outcomes with activism between BM and AA women activists. There’s a readily observable pattern of activism NOT contributing anything to BW activists’ personal quality of life. In fact, it seems to be a detriment for the most part. When you look at the pattern of what happened with AA women activists, it becomes totally clear that activism serves to take AA women OUT of the “desirable woman” category and into the “she-male/mule” category.
More AA women need to reflect on that before they get themselves heavily involved in any kind of activism.
You said, “I’m thinking a shift in focus to the tween and teens is what’s necessary because older women are likely too invested in the Matrix.”
ITA.
____________________________________________
Magenta,
You said, “I read in a book many years ago a line that always stuck with me…it said “pay the rent first, save the world later”. We must take care of ourselves before we can truly be in a position to give to others.”
Indeed!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
**Because the reply function can cause comments to get buried, here’s a repeat of my final reply to Omi above, who was gracious enough to return for one more exchange of thoughts.**
Omi,
First, I’m not assuming anything, because I don’t know who you are—since this is the first time you’ve participated in a conversation here. And I don’t recall you ever participating in any of the coversations at the previous blog. I gave you a thorough response to cover all the potential bases, since I don’t know you.
Second, it’s not about the “brothas” that I know…it’s about the FACT that the condition of the now-dead AA community gives silent but unassailable testimony about the absolute ABSENCE of the so-called “right brothas”!
Now, if you actually believe that there’s a cadre of “right brothas” that are struggling with you to uplift the now-dead AA community, then you’ve probably also experienced some UFO and unicorn sightings. Because they’re equally rare, according to the observed, long-term conditions in the now-dead AA community. If this belief works for you, then more power to you.
Peace be unto you,
Khadija
Great post! I live in the Bay Area, and I remember after a girl was gang raped during a school dance, there was a panel on a listener-sponsored radio program to discuss it. Of course, the panel was all black men (one latino, I think), and one guy seemed to suggest that before we could offer protection to girls or prevent sexual assault, “we” had to eliminate all manner of ills: racism, white supremacy, capitalism, on and on. My thought was “how long that gon’ take?” And additionally, who is supposed to do that work? Obviously, BM and others would have us add that to our To Do list. I agree that the best thing is for us to be sure that we are in the best possible position, and then make sure any work that we do benefits us, and does not drain us.
Your post and some of the responses also reminded me of Gloria Steinem; how she railed against marriage and men being useless bicycles to women’s goldfish, until she went out and got one for herself. I think we can honor Dr. Height’s work, while pointing out that there may be ways her work did not totally feed her and her needs.
Yeah, It seems that were the ONLY ONES fighting white hegemony because other groups never do. Many of them in this country are going out ‘African women’ and gettin’ the American dream. The’re either marrying good black men or men of any color. Only black women raised in the ‘black culture’ are in this mess. African women are even doing well in business and other stuff
I cannot, in good conscience, fail to feel offended by some of the comments made here… not necessarily the assertions of the article. I actually see, take and agree with several of your points in the piece itself.
No, I’m seriously feeling offended by all this ‘non-AA’ talk here in the comments.
I wrote this long verbose response and then deleted it, because you know, I not getting into a war of words… especially after Omi’s succinct but brushed aside valid points, but, just wanted to say: This WHOLE part of the world is called THE AMERICAS, and you’re no more American than I am.
For such an intelligent woman, it’s a pity to see such… (I don’t know what else to call it) but US rather than AMERICAN arrogance in your commentary… and more importantly rather disappointing.
It’s fine to disagree, but was there a substantive comment to be made about the post or the responses? Because otherwise, I’m not understanding why complaints about why a person in the US calls herself an American is even a point of discussion here.
“American” is the demonym of the citizens in the United States of America. We have a right to name ourselves in the manner of our choosing, and this is the name we use. We could have called ourselves the “Uniteds” or anything, but we didn’t.
Our choice wasn’t by international consenus: we didn’t ask any other nation what we should call ourselves, and so there is no reason for us to apologize for doing so. The Navajo call themselves “The People”, but that’s not an indication that there are no other people in the world.
(back to the topic)
I guess I never understood why women are asked to fight the power out of our own bedrooms. My love life is not a War Headquarters.
I’m not advocating for strict gender roles, but I am subject to a lot of them. So it doesn’t make sense to encourage a woman to fight against a man who chooses to align himself to her: to invest her with his name, his assets, and his family, and in essence to name her as part of himself.
I could understand fighting against the man who want to take from you (your time, your money, your energy, your youth). One should fight against the draining and the incapable. But it seems backwards to fight against a man who wants to give and share with you, and who is willing to formalize that arrangement with the protection of a marital contract.
I understand advocacy, and the need to fight against injustice. But I believe the home and the family should be a place of refuge and renewal from the world at large. So a man who shares those values will want the core unit of our family to be a place of peace, and he’ll use his background and resources to do so, regardless of his affiliation in the world outside.
There will always be injustice, and there will always be a continuum of winners and losers in that struggle. So I see no reason to deliberately make my life difficult by rejecting someone because he’s not sufficiently oppressed enough to please the crowd. When he’s left his wet towels on the bathroom floor, or eaten the last Mallomar, or when I’ve been tardy for our dates for the 3rd time this month, are race and privilege really going to be the issues that keep us bonded? I think not.
You do have to be careful, because people withint he Americas consider themselves Americans.
Amanda,
You said, “You do have to be careful, because people withint he Americas consider themselves Americans.”
***********************************************
Amanda, let’s do this experiment:
Tell me the name of your (if I guess correctly, Nigerian) specific ethnic group, and then the rest of us—who are OUTSIDE your particular ethnic group—will take a vote to see whether or not we approve the name your people have chosen for themselves. And if we outsiders decide we don’t like the name your people have chosen for themselves, will you stop using that name for yourselves? Because we outsiders don’t approve?
NOW—when it’s applied to YOU—do you see how CRAZY and insulting that whole notion sounds?
People want to take liberties with AAs that they would never tolerate being taken with themselves.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
? I am baffled by this comment. What has this got to do with the current topic? Or is this an attempt to de-rail the conversation? I detect no anti African-American sentiments expressed in this conversation. On the contrary. The women here seem to be fighting to save African-American women from the lie that they should and ought to fight any war alone – if at all. I think they should be commended for highlighting these issues.
Since I’ve:
1. lost weight (as of today, 88 pounds)
2. embraced my feminine side
3. actively started looking for healthy, positive female friends
4. stopped believing in the “contract”
5. concentrating on my goals – like Beverly, I have a 20-year plan
6. taken control of my time (deactivated my account on facebook, limited my time on forums and other time guzzlers)
7. Joined Toastmasters
8. Purchased Rosetta Stone English (helping me with proper enunciation, pronunciation and getting rid of my East Coast drawl)
9. Cut ALL ties with toxic, negative people
10. Dedicated a large majority of my time (free or otherwise) to my writing
I’ve done unimaginable things with my life. In just a year, I’ve formed fast friendships with six different individuals (planning a late September, Grand Canyon rim to rim hike with one of them, and a weekend trip to Sedona with another) Purchased my family a series of tickets to the Phoenix Symphony. Just recently I’ve started a vegetable/herb garden in my backyard with a friend from Russia, and already we are noticing little seedlings. I look forward to volunteering at the Phoenix Food Council Policy -with this information I plan on using it to overcome this war with processed foods once and for all. In August, I begin taking piano classes -me. I could go on and on.
Because I despise gossip, back-biting and superficial individuals, it took me some time to form relationships with others, but it has been well worth the wait. Everyone of the people in my life at the moment has beautiful imaginations. Each of them are in control of their own lives -diet, education, health, families, career- and this helps tremendously when you are trying to figure something out.
To be honest, I’ve completely forgotten about my relatives, and their problems. I’m just so busy with my own life -and it feels wonderful.
I had no idea how beautiful life could be.
Good for you. Inspirational.
Congratulations DeStouet!
This is awesome news! Glad to hear you have made so many positive changes!
Wow you go girl!!!
congratulations!
Woo Hoo!! Happy Dance!! Dontcha love your new self and your new freedom?
Live well girl – this is just the beginning!
CONGRATULATIONS!
Congrats!!
Sungoddess,
You said, “No, I’m seriously feeling offended by all this ‘non-AA’ talk here in the comments.
If you’re not an African-American, then I DON’T CARE at all if you’re offended by me drawing a circle of concern for my OWN particular ethnic group. You know, just like how everybody else draws a circle of concern around their specific ethnic group. Drawing the circle does NOT necessarily mean hostility toward others outside the circle. It’s simply means that I prioritize my OWN people first—like everybody else does.
There are some other nuances to this, but that’s getting too far off topic for this conversation. Anyone who’s curious about the nuances can read this post entitled Pay Attention to Nuances When Black People Say They Don’t Understand What Black Means.
It’s almost amusing. Other types of Black folks (West Indians, Africans, Black Latinos) are perfectly free to draw ethnic circles that exclude AAs. Which is their right, incidentally. But some of these same folk get uptight when an AA draws an ethnic circle that excludes them.
You said, “I wrote this long verbose response and then deleted it, because you know, I not getting into a war of words… especially after Omi’s succinct but brushed aside valid points, but, just wanted to say: This WHOLE part of the world is called THE AMERICAS, and you’re no more American than I am.
For such an intelligent woman, it’s a pity to see such… (I don’t know what else to call it) but US rather than AMERICAN arrogance in your commentary… and more importantly rather disappointing.”
You’ve missed my point. I’m not going to tussle with anybody over the label “American.” My issue is about SELF-determination for my people. Part of SELF-determination—you know one of the Kwanzaa principles—is to be able to speak for, and define, ourselves.
Since there’s more or less a consensus among AA leadership that this is what we—“we” meaning the Black people who are descended from the Africans held in slavery in the United States of America—want to call ourselves, then this is the term I use for MY ethnic group.
If you’re not a member of MY ethnic group—meaning a Black person descended from the Africans held in slavery in the United States of America—then you DON’T get a “vote” about what we choose to call ourselves. You don’t get to define us for us.
You don’t get a veto over AAs’ exercise of ethnic SELF-determination. You don’t rule over us. AAs didn’t flee one (White Anglo) slave master only to acquire new (foreign Black, Latino, whoever) ones. You don’t set policy for us.
Sungoddess, when there’s reciprocity that means the door swings both ways. I don’t get to insert myself into West Indian, African, Dominican, or whoever else’s affairs and try to dictate policy to them.
So, Sungoddess: {slipping into Ebonics—chuckling} Baby girl, why you up in here like this?
I would have a different—and more trusting—reaction to you if you had established a track record of participating in these conversations in good faith. Even though it might embarass her, let me give a specific example of what I mean. I don’t have any problem with JaliliMaster’s comments that are sometimes highly critical of AA women’s behavior. Whether I agree with her comments or not. Incidentally, she’s an African woman writing from the UK.
The reason I don’t have any problem with her comments—and those of other non-AA regular commenters—including when those comments are harshly critical of AAs—is because they’ve taken the time to make themselves known to me and the rest of the audience by their consistent, good faith participation in the conversations here and at the previous blog.
I say “good faith” participation because they’ve been open enough to also share some harshly negative information and opinions about some of the dysfunctional things their OWN ethnic groups are doing. The door is swinging both ways.
Sungoddess, neither you nor Omi have built up any trust. This conversation is the first time that either of you have shown your faces here. That means that I don’t assume that you’re commenting in good faith. There are many, many trolls out there. I don’t know you, and that lack of a known track record colors my reactions to you. It means that you don’t get any benefits of any doubts.
And while I’m talking about all of this, let me repeat (yet again) my policy about dissent:
There’s nothing wrong with disagreement or dissent here. I’m not looking for an “amen corner.” I’m looking to explore and brainstorm ideas for lifestyle optimization for AA women and girls.
I have NO problem with disagreement about the means used for lifestyle optimization for AA women and girls. My line in the sand is with people who are opposed to the very goal of lifestyle optimization for AA women and girls. Now, very few people besides Ikettes, and Internet Ike Turners will come out and directly say that they support diminished lives for BW and girls. But if they’re defending the beliefs and behaviors that uphold the status quo of diminished life, it’s the same posture as far as I’m concerned.
I can happily agree to disagree about the means. However, I won’t invest time in debating the goal of abundant life for BW with people who are opposed to abundant life for AA women and girls. I also don’t have time to debate with dishonest people who want to re-define degradation as liberation for BW—like the individuals who characterize so-called “sex work” and modern AA stripper culture as somehow liberating for AA women.
In summary, there’s NO problem with disagreement here. And it’s just fine with me if this conversation topic remains a PERMANENT point of disagreement between me and others. I happily agree to disagree.
However, dissent has nothing to do with the issue of AA SELF-determination. Which is what you’re encroaching upon when you try to dictate what MY ethnic group chooses to call ourselves.
This is part of the reason why I try to be precise in my terminology. Even though I’m careful to identify myself racially as “Black,” the use of that term in an ethnic context only serves to obscure what’s going on. The things I’m talking about here are specifically AA concerns. Now, there are often parallel concerns playing themselves out with other types of Black women. But my primary focus is on AA women.
When we refer to culturally specific AA problems as generalized “Black” problems, that opens the door to Black-skinned outsiders to: (1) rule over us and try to dictate to us how we should go about solving our problems, and (2) contribute perspectives that sometimes have no real application to our specific circumstances.
I feel almost as if I’ve repeated this endlessly, but I’ll say it again: Non-AA readers are perfectly welcome to participate in these conversations AND to disagree with the opinions expressed here. But do so with: (1) some manners, and (2) the sensitivity to understand that you’re having a CROSS-cultural discussion about extremely sensitive matters.
Let me give some examples of why this realization is important. I would NEVER presume to try to DICTATE to West Indians, Africans or Black Latinos, or anybody else about how they should solve their problems. I wouldn’t presume to know about their circumstances and history well enough to prescribe “medicine” for them.
It’s good to have some humility when discussing CROSS-cultural matters. Every culture/ethnic group has internal things going on—with important nuances that are difficult to understand if your family didn’t live through these experiences.
Meanwhile, so many outsiders (arrogantly) believe that they know everything there is to know about AAs. Like the way that Caribbean-origin Negro male blogger I mentioned earlier PRESUMED to casually toss out a reference to Harriet Tubman even though he doesn’t even understand what she actually did.
How can a person prescribe medicine when they don’t really understand (nor are familiar with) the patient’s history? Some “medicines” will work right with everybody. Some “medicines” are deadly poison for certain patients. One has to be sensitive to that.
Another (mostly unrecognized) complication about CROSS-cultural work and discussions:
There are certain aspects to AA cultural shifts that outsiders generally don’t know. They don’t have the personal, historical memory to assess certain things because they only recently landed among AAs. They don’t have GENERATIONS of familiarity with AAs’ circumstances. They don’t have any personal, historical, FAMILY memory of how certain things came to be.
Let me give an example of what I mean by this. Non-AAs are often mystified (as they should be, because it’s dysfunctional) by AAs’ current knee-jerk response of supporting Black criminals.
What non-AAs often don’t understand (because they did NOT live through it) are the historical experiences that created these responses. Things like the Scottsboro boys, Emmett Till, other lynchings and Rosa Parks.
These things are stories in history books for non-AAs. By contrast, these events are part of the LIVING MEMORY of my older relatives. One of my relatives escaped a lynching because he looked White. That’s why he ran away from the South. My friend’s grandfather founded the Chicago church where Emmett Till’s funeral was held. Emmett Till’s funeral was a BIG deal, and a common, shared point of reference.
In terms of MY living memory, the parents of most AAs in my age group (40s) made a POINT of showing us old pictures of what Emmett Till looked like in his open casket when we were around 11-12 years old. And, so did our teachers, for those of us who went to Black grammar schools/junior high schools. They did this so that we could truly understand what lynching meant. Almost every AA I know in my age group saw that horrible picture as a pre-teen or young teenager.
Anyway, in one sense, this inter-ethnic, CROSS-cultural stuff really isn’t that deep. A person who shows some common-sense manners and demonstrates reciprocity will be welcome almost anywhere.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
That’s something that I just keep bumping my head up against and it baffles me. Why aren’t AA’s allowed to have group boundaries? Every.body.else even other blacks gets to have boundaries. It’s not just non-AA’s crossing our boundaries, I have argued with other AA-BW who seem to want escort any and everybody into our “inner sanctum” as it were. Perhaps I’ve been reading too much Kola Boof lately but our lack of boundaries consistently gets my goat and confuses me to no end. Every other ethnic/racial group sets clear boundaries that AA’s, with very rare exception, can’t cross. Yet for some reason we think that if we keep inviting any and everybody into our inner sanctum that they’ll appreciate/respect us for it and reciprocate. The reciprocity never materializes yet the door, the gate and the windows are wide open for everyone to see and make commentary on. I think it bothers me so much because I haven’t figured out exactly where this impulse comes from so it puzzles me.
It’s so much more than an impulse. It’s a lack of respect and pride of self along with this child-like lack of strategizing where AAs think if they join a “rainbow” tribe of other-than blacks they’ll finally be accepted and treated well. I’m looking at the response of some who are blindly jumping into this immigration-related argument in Arizona which is really a planned series of actions to elevate an ethnic group to dominance. There are no demands placed on this mad scamble of inclusion and no reciprocity given. I personally find it very disturbing for those blacks who compare people who’ve recently jumped borders illegally to those citizens who are descendants of those forced here who struggled to overcome white oppression and receive acknowledge for their contributions in building this country. Let me try to live in the UK or Europe illegally and see how much sympathy I’d get.
I hope this doesn’t take the conversation too far afield, but I agree with you. I was secretly happy when Arizona passed that bill. I couldn’t believe someone finally had the guts to do that. When I saw the commercial that a certain southern gubernatorial candidate released and was raked over the coals for – I agreed with him – this is the US.
Al Sharpton spoke out about the AZ bill saying Mexicans take the jobs that Blacks don’t want. That is a lie. Mexicans are also taking so called “decent blue collar” jobs as well.
It used to be, I would pass a construction site and see white faces and a handful of blacks. Now I see a few whites and a bunch of Mexicans. In some areas in the South, Black workers are up in arms and rightfully so bc they have been replaced in poultry, egg, fish processing plants – by illegals.
Those are jobs where a person with a hs diploma could earn a somewhat decent living, afford a home, plan for retirement, (in the south where the cost of living is low), but that is being taken away.
I am even noticing Mexicans moving into social services and some gov’t positions. I don’t want to see a Mexican mayor, city council person, senator, or governor.
I feel torn about feeling this way bc people cry racist, but its what I feel.
Yeah, I think it’s a racist law absolutely but IMO there’s not enough (sure there’s always some to point) solidarity and reciprocity from the community under attack for me to feel moved to action. At thehigher levels of leadership/advocacy that Sharpton moves in there may be a more official solidarity but that doesn’t seem to trickle down to my everyday interactions. I give greater credence to those experiences than I do to the mission statement of any organization.
To be quite frank, it honestly does not concern me whether this AZ law is racist or not. I refuse to join in the hullaballo over what some people claim will result in “all brown-skinned people being pulled over by the police, etc”. I have brown skin. I doubt the police in AZ would be stopping me. I also doubt that the masses of illegal trespassers from South of the Border care a whit about the masses of black blue collar workers and residents they are displacing or any other issue primarily affecting African Americans.
The people who are so fired up about “fighting white hegemony” should pay attention to what happens when other minorities rise to political or economic dominance in an area. Witness Miami and Asian-owned businesses in majority black urban areas all over. Under “white hegemony”, African Americans have always been able to get a slice of the pie. We won’t even get a crumb under other non-white races.
RE: my 5:03 PM comment- Looking over my comments, my words seem strikingly familiar. I don’t know if I am repeating myself or someone else whose comments I read in an earlier post, so I apologize for any unintentional plagiarism!
Sharifa,
You said, “Of course, the panel was all black men (one latino, I think), and one guy seemed to suggest that before we could offer protection to girls or prevent sexual assault, “we” had to eliminate all manner of ills: racism, white supremacy, capitalism, on and on. My thought was “how long that gon’ take?” And additionally, who is supposed to do that work? Obviously, BM and others would have us add that to our To Do list.”
Yep. As Evia (and PioneerValleyWoman I believe) pointed out during the conversation over at Evia’s blog, this “fix racism (= address racism against BM) FIRST, and then we’ll get to you women’s concerns” is an old scam. This scam was first used on AA women activists during the 1960s. This BM strategy of telling BW to take care of BM’s political needs first has been going on for at least the past 45 years!
The other part of the scam (as has been explained by PioneerValleyWoman and other BF bloggers, I’m just repeating other folks’ analysis here) is that BM’s concerns are characterized as the entire so-callled AA community’s concerns. Meanwhile, AA women’s and girl’s concerns are marginalized as side issues.
As we can see, AA women’s concerns have never been taken off the backburner and dealt with.
You said, “I think we can honor Dr. Height’s work, while pointing out that there may be ways her work did not totally feed her and her needs.”
I honor Dr. Height’s work. I’m also disturbed that she appears to have had major unmet needs during her life. She deserved so much more than that.
__________________________________________
Jubilee,
We are the only ones “fighting” White hegemony. And then other people rush in to claim whatever “goodies” our struggles have created. [Which I don't blame them because that's what sensible people do---take advantage of all opportunities, including those created by other people.]
____________________________________________
DeStouet,
{wild cheering and standing ovation}
I’m so happy for you!
I’m always delighted to hear this sort of news. Carry on the great things you’re doing! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
___________________________________________
ZooPath,
As far as I’m concerned, this is mostly AAs’ fault—most of us don’t enforce boundaries. So, people are shocked, appalled and outraged on those rare occassions when they encounter AAs who set boundaries.
You said, “Every other ethnic/racial group sets clear boundaries that AA’s, with very rare exception, can’t cross. Yet for some reason we think that if we keep inviting any and everybody into our inner sanctum that they’ll appreciate/respect us for it and reciprocate.”
This is the “if I’m nice to others, they’ll AUTOMATICALLY be nice to me” magical thinking that many AAs are fond of. Magical thinking is a large part of why AAs will soon be totally entrenched in permanent underclass status in the US.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Khadija,
THANK YOU for pointing out the unacknowledged sacrifices and lack of perks that BW receive for their activism. I didn’t think of that angle. The fact that some BM want BW as foot soldiers, but not wives, is disheartening.
I am one who regularly points out white privilege and speaks “truth to power.” I do not like when I clearly see dynamics in the workplace that favor those from the dominant culture over more qualified individuals.
I dislike the fact that BM “chase” behind NB women, but you are helping me to accept this long-held, unnatural reality. I do not like the fact that brown and dark-skinned women are viewed differently than others based on the alpha male’s standard of beauty. But, it is what it is.
I offer this insight to say that, despite my inclination to point out racial injustice and discrimination, I have not let my inclination interfere with my personal advancement. I ackowledge injustice and discrimination, but I live my life to the fullest, despite these obstacles. (For example, I am married, I have an advanced degree and a nice income, I own several properties, my child is in a great school, I have a consulting firm, etc.).
I’m not sure I can ever stop speaking against unearned privilege (e.g., Sara Palin), but through your site, I am learning that this is not my fight. Thank you.
“It’s because at all times …I carry myself like the lady that I am. My appearance, communication, body language, you name it is “on point” as they say.”
I’m not sure what Felicia’s point was with her statement. Is she implying that she carries herself as a lady in contrast to other BW who do not? I have had occasions where I have been treated like a lady, and THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN, I’ve had occasions where men have not offered assistance on my behalf.
First of all, you are kidding yourself if you believe that having “visible African ancestry” excludes you from the subtle benefits of colorism (from WM and BM). Remember, those with lighter skin tones are generally seen as more desirable, more feminine, and less threatening, than darker skinned AAs. Therefore, don’t delude yourself into believing that you are such a lady to the EXCLUSION of others.
Second, when I’ve had an experience where a man has NOT come to my assistance, I view it as his ill-manners, not my lack of femininity. For example, if I am carrying groceries and no man offers to assist me, it is NOT because I failed to be on point in my dress or demeanor. Either the men near me are ill-mannered or I recognize that my dark brown skin (through no fault of my own) has the effect of causing some men to not view me as “in need of assistance.” This is an IMAGE problem, not a result of my personal shortcomings in the “lady” department.
It’s helpful to understand that men’s perceived notion of femininity also influences who they choose to offer assistance to in many instances.
Crecilla, in parts of the US such as NYC and most definitely in parts of the UK I see white men married to and having children with dark skinned, West African-featured, straight-from-AFRICA women. One runs away from who or what threatens, scares them and makes them uncomfortable they don’t marry them.
And colorism from somebody else isn’t Felicia’s fault and this does not mean that she’s buying into their way of thinking or favoritism either.
And why can’t people open up their mouths to say the truth?? Some, SOME black women are acting in uncouth ways including some of the educated black women. SOME act like they’re amongst the MOST ghetto people of all time and the other just need a bit of refinement on their poise, diction, networking skills, and comportment. What’s wrong with saying that? Nobody’s saying ALL of anybody.
I myself am looking up prices of finishing school classes in London (God, it’s pricey!), where I live for the moment, because I think I have some VERY un-ladylike ways that may have been holding me back from meeting the right kind of people possibly. I NEED refining, I’ll just say it. I want to attract the right kind of men, not the wrong ones.
That colorism you speak of is coming from black men, not white men. Aside from the long-enacted “one drop” rule which was created to benefit slave holders in the United States related to property division the only ones enforcing the whiter skin rule has been black males. From the initial creation of the “elite” blacks or “talented tenth” where a typical darker-skinned male alligned with bi-racial or white women and enacted their paper bag tests all of that mess has to do with black male pathology and not wanting to see themselves reflected in the mirror. If white men want to be with a white-skinned woman they already have plenty available.
my mother is offered assistance all the time and she is a dark skinned black woman. The thing is and even she noted her mistake is that she would go ahead and do whatever it was and the guy would walk off like okay. Who knows maybe you are giving off signals of I can do it on my own or don’t mess with me and don’t even realize it. My mom later realized many were trying to strike conversations with her.
After going over my previous comment, I’d like to clarify one thing. It’s not because I despise people who gossip, and backbite one another that it had taken some time for me to form relationships with others -it’s because I don’t take part in those things.
When I wrote that comment, I had just returned from a play date. Our children play well together but sometimes the idle chit-chat that some of the mothers engage in, and continual gossiping can become annoying.
After re-reading what I previously wrote, I felt the need to explain that.
“It’s because at all times …I carry myself like the lady that I am. My appearance, communication, body language, you name it is “on point” as they say.”
I’m not sure what Felicia’s point was with her statement. Is she implying that she carries herself as a lady in contrast to other BW who do not?
Some women regardless of race do and some women do not. This is obvious. I wasn’t singling out BW specifically.
I have had occasions where I have been treated like a lady, and THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN, I’ve had occasions where men have not offered assistance on my behalf.
Understood. I was only speaking of my personal experiences.
First of all, you are kidding yourself if you believe that having “visible African ancestry” excludes you from the subtle benefits of colorism (from WM and BM).
I never said that it does or doesn’t. Please don’t attempt to put words in mouth that I never stated.
Remember, those with lighter skin tones are generally seen as more desirable, more feminine, and less threatening, than darker skinned AAs. Therefore, don’t delude yourself into believing that you are such a lady to the EXCLUSION of others.
Again, I NEVER stated any such thing. I simply stated a few of my PERSONAL experiences. Which obviously have nothing what so ever to do with the lived experience of anyone else.
Second, when I’ve had an experience where a man has NOT come to my assistance, I view it as his ill-manners, not my lack of femininity.
Exactly..
For example, if I am carrying groceries and no man offers to assist me, it is NOT because I failed to be on point in my dress or demeanor. Either the men near me are ill-mannered or I recognize that my dark brown skin (through no fault of my own) has the effect of causing some men to not view me as “in need of assistance.” This is an IMAGE problem, not a result of my personal shortcomings in the “lady” department.
Totally agree.
It’s helpful to understand that men’s perceived notion of femininity also influences who they choose to offer assistance to in many instances.
Also true. And these notions are shaped by their personal interactions with women. If more BW dropped this sister solider posturing amongst other disorders and appeared more vulnerable in their behavior (which I realize is a safety issue. It can be life threatening to display feminine traits in majority black environments) I think BW’s experiences overall would improve.
But like you said, there are some men regardless of race who are just plain RUDE and uncouth. And it has nothing what so ever to do with the woman.
That’s obvious.
Unfortunately many BW ARE de-feminizing themselves in societies eyes in various ways with their behavior and their mindsets. And this of course helps paint ALL BW to a certain degree with a negative brush.
Just today I was out shopping and the BW at the cash register who rung up my purchase had a full dark mustache. Her hair was done nicely, and she was well groomed in every other way. She had a harsh tone to her voice and her facial expression was that of someone with the world on her shoulders.
I was wondering why doesn’t she remove it? It’s easy enough to do. Don’t BW have enough negative stereotypes to counteract? How out of touch with reality must she be? Does she really expect to be treated the SAME way as a woman who does not have a mustache?
This is an EXTREME example I realize. But the point is, yes, some BW DO need to get their acts together physically, mentally, and behaviorally.
I did not intend to come across as “holier than thou”. However, If I did to anyone in the listening audience that’s out of my control.
We’re all going to perceive statements differently.
That can be expected.
@Felicia: No….not a full mustache when working in a position where everyone will see her. I agree with you, BW unfortunately have a PR problem and when people make choices like that it unfairly reflects on the rest of us.
Crecilla,
You’re welcome! And thank you for your participation in the conversations! I learn a LOT from the readers—including the ones I disagree with. LOL! [Talking with someone I vehemently disagree with often helps me refine my own thoughts about a particular topic.]
You said, “The fact that some BM want BW as foot soldiers, but not wives, is disheartening.”
It is what it is.
You said, “I am one who regularly points out white privilege and speaks “truth to power.” I do not like when I clearly see dynamics in the workplace that favor those from the dominant culture over more qualified individuals.
. . . I offer this insight to say that, despite my inclination to point out racial injustice and discrimination, I have not let my inclination interfere with my personal advancement. I ackowledge injustice and discrimination, but I live my life to the fullest, despite these obstacles. (For example, I am married, I have an advanced degree and a nice income, I own several properties, my child is in a great school, I have a consulting firm, etc.).”
Since your major needs are already being met, then you can “afford” to point out injustice and speak truth to power. My concern is that most of the AA women who are doing these things are NOT having their major needs met. Many of the AA women who are so intent on doing something about injustice…
are living somewhere UNsafe;
are NOT financially secure; and
are NOT having their belonging and intimacy needs being met.
…Meanwhile, most of the persons that they’re struggling against are already having ALL their major personal needs being met! There’s something extremely wrong with this picture.
I’m also concerned about how so many AA women use activism as a way of being secular “church ladies.” It can be a diversion from facing the fact that one’s personal needs aren’t being met.
Back to Sis. Dr. Height for a moment: It’s fair to guess that the majority of the people in her presence during her decades of service—whether they were friend or foe—were having their belonging and intimacy needs being met.
For me to say that I don’t like this scenario is not to disrespect the sister or her work. It’s to say that I believe that Dr. Height deserved to have—at minimum—the same personal pleasures that the people around her enjoyed throughout their lives! I feel like Dr. Height and so many other AA women activists were probably ripped off in terms of their personal lives. And that probability leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
You said, “I dislike the fact that BM “chase” behind NB women, but you are helping me to accept this long-held, unnatural reality. I do not like the fact that brown and dark-skinned women are viewed differently than others based on the alpha male’s standard of beauty. But, it is what it is.”
Well, as you said, it is what it is. Waking up from my prior Black Nationalist trance has been an upsetting and traumatic experience. But I’m better off for it. It’s better to be in touch with reality. Ignorance and illusion is NOT bliss—it usually bites you in the rear end at the worst possible moment.
You know, it’s interesting. Everybody has their own milestones along the path to clarity about AA women’s true circumstances (and opportunities—this is the worst of times in some ways for AA women, and paradoxically it’s also the best of times for AA women in some ways).
What truly upset me to my core was discovering that so many Sunni (“orthodox”) Muslim AAs have voluntarily gone to “the back of the camel.” I had no idea about this transition because I was complacent in my Islamic community center. My now-retired imam had been a member of the Nation of Islam before he accepted orthodox Islam, and he’s a firm supporter of racial and ethnic self-love and self-respect for AAs. All without being anti-anybody else. One can be pro-self without being anti-others.
Many AA Muslim pioneers accepted Islam in order to escape some of the slavery-induced, slave-making, self-hating, and distorted versions of Christianity that were prevalent among AAs before the civil rights era. AA Muslim pioneers came to the Nation of Islam and then to “orthodox” Islam to find a faith tradition in which they could practice racial and ethnic dignity, self-respect and self-love.
It brought tears to my eyes, and made me sick to my stomach, to realize that AA Muslims have gone backwards. Back into the racial self-hatred and feelings of inferiority that the AA Muslim pioneers went through so much to escape from. Back into mental slavery. Only now, instead of being subservient to Whites, these AA slave-Muslims are subservient to Arabs and Pakistanis!
For a current example of this voluntary stampede to the “back of the camel,” folks can read this bit of slave-mentality madness from a BM Muslim blogger (who is curiously held in respect within AA Sunni Muslim blog circles—which shows you just how SICK and slave-minded AA Sunni Muslims have become).
Most Christian AAs have NO idea about how slave-minded so many (most?) modern Sunni (“orthodox,” non-Nation of Islam) AA Muslims have become over the past 15-20 years. But, it is what it is.
But those of us who have self-respect and are determined to LIVE WELL will go on. Despite what deranged, destructive, AND deluded AAs choose to do with themselves.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
DeStouet,
I applaud you. I’m glad you’ve done all this and I truly hope that others reading will be inspired by you. When you said ’88 pounds’, I actually thought you meant that you now weighed that much. I had to read it again to realise that you meant that was how much weight you lost.
___________________________
Crecilla and Felicia,
I don’t think there is any disagreement in your statements. You are both just speaking based on your personal experiences, which no one expects to be the same.
______________________
Sungoddess,
From what you wrote, I’m assuming that you are not from the U.S, but are from other parts of ‘the Americas’. So you may be from a Caribbean country or further down south. I’m sure you/your family have an ethnicity or country (e.g Jamaican, Bajan, Dominican etc). I am also sure you would not tolerate anyone telling you that you are not allowed to identify yourself as part of that ethnicity. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with AA’s (as Khadija says, Black folks descended from the Africans that were enslaved in the U.S) also identifying as part of their own ethnicity. I never used to think anything of it, till I noticed that those who do this never try telling other non-AA Blacks that they should not have their own boundaries. If I was AA and someone tried that mess with me, I’d tell them to stick it! That said, this is a conversation that we’ve had a while ago, so I suggest you visit the previous blog to get the whole gist of it.
¬__________________
Last night, I was watching news footage of Dorothy Height’s memorial service. They showed a clip of her in which she said something along the lines of…..”some people live for themselves, and some people also live for others”. I remembered the discussions we’d had on this blog (concerning Dorothy Height, and thought to myself…”Hmm….’also’ live for others”. From what I can see, Ms. Height wasn’t ‘also’ living for others as well as herself. Rather, she seemed to have TOTALLY lived for others, neglecting herself. I’ve heard AA women make comments along the lines of…….’BW are the mules of the earth’. Let us get real here. BW living in western countries have so many opportunities to live life abundantly. Not everyone will, but the opportunities do exist.
When these negative statements are made, not only is it being accepted as personal truth, but other young AA girls will hear it and take it to be law. The first time I heard the phrase……”BW at the bottom of the totem pole” was by an AA woman. It was in the comments section to an article about IR marriage. I should mention that the majority of the people on the site were White and Asian men. Basically, this women were now INFORMING these men that BW were at the very end of the ‘totem pole’. Ever since, every time it has been said, it was by an AA woman. Every single time. Now this is information I didn’t have. So had I been a man, of any race, who had never encountered a BW before, and I come online and start seeing BW describing themselves as ‘being at the bottom of the totem pole’ (whatever that means), when I enter, say, a room full of eligible women from various backgrounds, I’m probably going to stay away from those ‘undesirable’ BW.
This is the same when it comes to other statements such as BW are naturally bigger, we have a temper, White/Asian men cannot handle a BW, BW are used to being the sole provider etc., what sort of message is being given out? These men will rather go after the women that they believe wouldn’t give them too much stress. Similarly, if BW are supposed to be used to (and continue to accept a situation) being everyone’s mule, these men wouldn’t view BW as really belonging to the ‘woman’ category!
“BW at the bottom of the totem pole” was by an AA woman. ”
Everytime I hear that I cringe. I have no idea how or why it started. I have only heard this from AA women as well and only started hearing it about a year or so ago.
“BW are naturally bigger, we have a temper, White/Asian men cannot handle a BW, BW are used to being the sole provider etc., what sort of message is being given out?”
I don’t understand these comments, but I can see how damaging they are. I don’t know why a woman would say this mess in public and in front of mixed company at that. Its deranged.
I was raised that there are certain things you don’t say/do in front of men and certain things you don’t say/do in front of nonblacks.
I don’t understand. This is TMI, too scary, too insane.
I was raised that there are certain things you don’t say/do in front of men and certain things you don’t say/do in front of nonblacks.
I don’t understand. This is TMI, too scary, too insane.
I made a similar comment today in Halima’s blog. Different groups use to know and (some still do), not to act out in ways that would reflect negatively when amongst others not of their group.
“I don’t know why a woman would say this mess in public and in front of mixed company at that. Its deranged.”
I think it’s a good idea to start treating those people like they’re trolls. What I’ve seen is BW defend themselves against those statements, but I think that elevates it, like there was actually something in those words to be worried about. Instead, I think BW just need to call out those people as liars and trolls: treat them how they are, as a threat to empowerment minded BW. You don’t reason with people when you know they’re totally out of line, you expose them. I’m not saying you did this, but I’ve seen that dynamic in other areas.
Good Morning and FYI ladies (and gents) in the listening audience.
Halima’s latest post is truly a good read. She breaks down points that have been made on this site and other BWE sites.
A small excerpt…
http://dateawhiteguy.blogspot.com/
“Ok so black women have the added responsibility of evading the traps of society and even the burden of being ‘ambassador for race’ etc etc but I would rather bear the burden of a ‘thwarter’ of societies evil plans for black women, (it would give me secret pleasure) than the burden of being a victim of the system just to prove a point.
Our freedoms are impinged upon everyday, it is nothing new. Take for instance you have a lovely rolex watch. It is your right to wear it it anywhere you want, but how many of you would insist on that ‘right’ to the point you feel you must wear it in an area where there have been daily muggings! Most of us would be happy to be reasonable about this scenario but curiously want to insist on our right to behave in ways that stigmatize us in broader society.
Each day you dress up and walk out of your door, you, to a good extent, are in a new role and not your ‘real’ self if we can put it that way. We all adjust and perform in public, it is not limited to black people. Yes there are a few more dimensions to how black people perform their public role if not anything, to accrue the resources they need to make more of their real selves.
Again life is not fair, the actions of other black women should not be used against us even as the actions of certain types of white women are not used against the rest, however this is how the formula is applied in the case of black women. How will you deal with this reality to give yourself the breaks you need?”
By individual BW (we only have control over ourselves in the end) thwarting the anti-BW system by presenting themselves at their BEST at all times it increases the likelihood of a positive outcome. Nothing is guaranteed of course. We’re just talking about increasing the odds.
When BW insist on letting it all hang out – and we all know there IS a certain percentage of BW who continue to do this – it decreases their chances of a positive outcome in any number of situations. Especially when it comes to attracting and securing a positive and quality mate.
Have a great weekend everyone and God bless.
Is the reply feature working?
**Since the reply function can cause comments to get buried, here’s a repeat of my reply above to the Caribbean-origin BM blogger who wrote in.**
Mr. Caribbean-Origin Male:
Sir,
You said, “Now, while you’re running around the internet pushing your agenda and claiming exclusivity to African Americans.”
I’m not “running around” anywhere. I’m in my own blog home in my own country. I’m free enough to be able to talk and say whatever I want to say in my own home. You came here to MY house. Literally, in terms of this blog. On a larger level, in terms of this country.
Right now, you’re standing in the middle of my living room—uninvited. While you’re here for the moment (because you’re on your way out the door, never to be allowed back in here like this), let me stress something to you that you and other uninvited, rude guests from non-European countries have forgotten:
The AA Civil Rights Movement led to, and influenced, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Prior to OUR AA Civil Rights Movement, White Americans were quite clear about keeping non-Europeans like you OUT of this country. And as far as I’m concerned, White folks can/should go back to keeping YOU out!
You said, “First question: Do you have a problem with comprehension? Clearly if you didn’t, you would not have taken the sarcasm and obvious hyperbolic quality of my statement in the manner you did.”
I don’t care what you called yourself doing with my sister, Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman is not YOURS to play with. You are the same as the White “hipster” racists who feel entitled to play with AA history and historical persons. I say “NO” to all of that.
Sarcasm and hyperbole or not, I would greatly prefer that you—along with the White hipster racists that your actions imitate—leave my sister(s) out of your mouth. Play with your own historical figures from your own country. Especially when you want to engage in sarcasm and hyperbole.
You said, “Secondly, what makes Harriet Tubman YOURS or YOUR ancestor as opposed to mine? You see, that’s the problem: people like you have been duped by the very white man into believing the ideal of American exclusivity.”
I claim the right to exercise my ethnic self-determination as an AA. Like all other peoples of the world, AAs have the right to claim our OWN ancestors and heritage.
You said, “Lemme guess, Marcus Garvey who was born in the Caribbean like me is YOURS as well, right? You see sister, you don’t even realize just how twisted up in the “game” you are right now. But hey, while we’re at it, lemme ask:
Was Stokeley Carmichael YOURS too?
NO, I’m not a thief like you (and some other confused foreign-origin Black folks who want to STEAL from AAs’ heritage). Unlike you, I have no interest in trying to steal other people’s heritage and legacy.
I NEVER claimed Marcus Garvey or Stokely Carmichael. I’ve always been perfectly happy to describe them both as West Indians, which they were. And frankly, I’ve never heard other AAs try to lay claim to these 2 West Indians as if they weren’t West Indian. These were 2 West Indians leading AAs (which I feel was problematic, nobody except AAs is willing to follow foreign leadership like that).
In short, since I’m not a cultural thief (like you and some others), West Indians can have AND keep Marcus Garvey and Stokely Carmichael. Y’all can especially keep Stokely Carmichael/Kwame Toure after he said that Black women’s proper position in the movement was “the prone position”!
You said, “Oh, and since you have a problem with comprehension or dare I say selective memory. Allow me to provide you with the entire paragraph wherein the Harriet Tubman line is used:”
Oh, I saw that. In addition to you playing games with my ancestor, your MIS-citing of her historical example was also offensive. When I say that AA women should “divest,” I’m telling them to flee the site of their heaviest oppression—which right now is the violent, physically dangerous, dead AA community and residential areas. Harriet Tubman ALSO led AAs to FLEE the site of their heaviest oppression—the slave plantations.
You mischaracterized Ms. Tubman’s works. And tried to use her as an example of why you believe AA women should continue to remain on the modern-day, physcially dangerous plantations within AA residential areas.
You said, “Do yourself a favor and take time to figure out just why relative to white women, black women between the ages of 30-49, have a NET worth of $5, whereas white women are worth $48,000. Yeah, g’head and divest in the black community instead of coming together and realizing that we are not each other’s enemy. But lemme guess, that’s all the black man’s fault, right?”
Since you can’t comprehend what Harriet Tubman actually did, you probably won’t understand this, but I’ll say it anyway:
1-There is structural inequality in terms of wages in the US. [Like everywhere else to varying degrees. Surprise, surprise.]
2-In the US, women in general earn less than men.
3-In terms of net worth, WW aren’t as affected by the inequality of their wages relative to men’s salaries.
4-WW aren’t as affected because they aren’t as likely to be single parents and single heads of households.
5-WW aren’t as likely to be single heads of households because WM are more likely to marry the mothers of their children.
6-BW have such a meager net worth, because to a degree that is unlike every other race of women, BW are propping up entire families of children, churches, and assorted deadbeat, no-working relatives by themselves—WITHOUT the benefit of lawful, legal husbands contributing to the upkeep of all of this!
Sir, since I don’t value your opinion, I don’t care how you choose to allocate the responsibility for this sequence of events that creates the $5.00 net worth.
Good Day.
Faith,
As I see it from my computer, the reply function is currently working. However, please note that I have the blog discussion settings on a maximum of 5 comments in a reply-”bundle.”
Which means—I think—LOL!–that 4-5 replies are enabled as responses to a particular comment. After that limit has been met, the “reply” button won’t continue to work regarding that specific comment.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
***Part 1 of my reply to Oshun/Aphrodite***
Oshun/Aphrodite,
You said, “I hope this doesn’t take the conversation too far afield, but I agree with you. I was secretly happy when Arizona passed that bill. I couldn’t believe someone finally had the guts to do that. When I saw the commercial that a certain southern gubernatorial candidate released and was raked over the coals for – I agreed with him – this is the US.
Al Sharpton spoke out about the AZ bill saying Mexicans take the jobs that Blacks don’t want. That is a lie. Mexicans are also taking so called “decent blue collar” jobs as well.
It used to be, I would pass a construction site and see white faces and a handful of blacks. Now I see a few whites and a bunch of Mexicans. In some areas in the South, Black workers are up in arms and rightfully so bc they have been replaced in poultry, egg, fish processing plants – by illegals.
Those are jobs where a person with a hs diploma could earn a somewhat decent living, afford a home, plan for retirement, (in the south where the cost of living is low), but that is being taken away.
I am even noticing Mexicans moving into social services and some gov’t positions. I don’t want to see a Mexican mayor, city council person, senator, or governor.
I feel torn about feeling this way bc people cry racist, but its what I feel.
*********************************************
Oshun/Aphrodite,
There’s NOTHING “racist” about looking after your OWN interests—that’s what every group except AAs does!
And it’s not off topic because this AA behavior pattern of “let’s weep for illegal immigrants” is part of the same overall behavior pattern under discussion in this post—AA women NOT looking out for their own best interests.
And about our Latino “friends”—we’ve discussed what these “friends” of ours are doing (to us) at the previous blog, where I noted:
“It’s good to learn a foreign language, including Spanish. However, I don’t believe that learning Spanish will protect AAs from the hiring discrimination that is often practiced against us by Latinos when they get the opportunity.
It’s been my observation that in many instances Latino “gatekeepers” are using bilingual requirements as a way of reserving certain jobs for themselves, ALONE. It’s a scam, and a game to have a plausible-sounding reason for excluding everybody EXCEPT their fellow Latinos.
For example, let’s say the Latino “gatekeeper” has a choice between hiring:
1-another Latino who speaks a “minority” Spanish dialect relative to the local area [for example, a native speaker with a Mexican accent in a majority Cuban area in Florida]; OR
2-an AA who is fluent in the local “majority” Spanish dialect [Cuban-accented Spanish],
the Latino gatekeeper will most likely hire the Mexican. “Mismatched” accent be damned.
There are sometimes wide variations in regional accents with any language. Especially when it comes to casual, non-formal conversation and slang. For example, I find that even though I understand the news from the BBC (because this is formal speech), I find some of the dialougue (especially slang) in British movies VERY difficult to understand. And I can’t understand Scottish accents at all.
The sort of hypothetical situation I described above is is what I’ve heard goes on in Miami. Latino anti-Black racism is AS BAD or WORSE than White anti-Black hiring discrimination.
And our (mis)leaders have had us crying over, and supporting, these people coming here.
A reader submitted a comment describing what our Latino “friends” have done in Florida after they came into power:
“This was my experience living in Miami. I always felt the bilingual requirements were simply a way to discriminate against non-Hispanics, especially for white-collar positions, where more than likely everyone speaks English anyway.
For example, there are many fluent Spanish speakers (oral and written) in Miami who are not Hispanic. Some even have degrees or minors in Spanish. However, it was very common to see job ads reading “NATIVE SPEAKERS ONLY” (emphasis mine). The bilingual wasn’t enough, they had to take it one step further to ensure the applicant was Hispanic. The funny thing is that I’ve met many native Spanish speakers who can’t read or write it to save their life.
The anti-Black discrimination by Hispanics (read: CUBANS) is out of control! This is a very big reason why I left Miami. I experienced the worst racism of my life there. I do not support Miami Cubans and their issues due to their treatment of Blacks.”
The same reader went on to say:
Just to add onto what I wrote earlier: Khadija, you are very correct when you state that Blacks have to worry about discrimination from other minority groups even more than from whites.
Prior to moving to Miami, I had the kumbaya, we are all brothers and sisters attitude towards other races as well, especially Hispanics. I thought the Hispanics in Miami would be like the ones in NYC. WRONG! I was truly shocked by the venom they displayed towards Blacks, their false sense of superiority, and their strong need to identify with whites. I think the last part is the main reason for their disgusting behavior-they think treating Blacks poorly will ingratiate them to Whites. I don’t see this behavior in NYC Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, etc. There is just something about those Miami Cubans… They are the ones who hate Castro.
Another important point you made is that these other races have no White-guilt issues-they don’t feel they owe Blacks anything. When I really stop and think about it, this is truly terrifying.
I think the only thing individual Blacks can do is make sure their education and personal achievements are top of the line, so they won’t be competing for jobs that a non-English speaker can do. This is partly why I haven’t been as upset as I should be about illegal immigration, because I am not competing in the same job category as them. However, there are other reasons to be alarmed, which I am learning about here. I’m starting to see that while they aren’t necessarily my enemy, I shouldn’t be so quick to defend any and all immigrants of color.
All of this was during this conversation at the previous blog.
***Part 2 of my reply to Oshun/Aphrodite***
I said the following in Sept. 2008, during the “Charity Should Begin at Home, Part 2: Black Folks’ Mass Suicide by Coalition” post:
“Our lack of political common sense has already cost us. Dearly. In terms of political empowerment, we’ve already slit our own wrists. Our (mis)leaders encouraged us to support Latino and other non-White immigration, and to cry copious tears over the ‘plight’ of various categories of illegal immigrants. We were encouraged to assume that non-White immigrants were somehow our natural, and automatic allies in the quest for justice.
Umm . . . No. People generally come to the United States to get paid. Period. There’s nothing wrong with that. Like I said in Part 1 of this series, it is normal, natural, and fair for people to look out for their own interests. I would like to see more African-Americans acquire this mental habit.
Somehow, we got it in our heads that other people of color are naturally inclined to help us in our struggle. NO. Helping us is not part of most immigrants’ mission profile. People come here to find a better life for themselves. Not to join our struggle. We are now reaping the consequences of foolishly supporting non-White (legal and illegal) immigration to this country.
We are being displaced. We are being physically displaced in many areas of the country. This physical displacement leads to political displacement. Many currently Black congressional districts have large and growing Latino populations. NO Latino districts have growing Black populations. I’ve read reports estimating that this demographic shift will cause Blacks to lose 6-7 congressional seats after the 2010 census redistricting.”
http://muslimbushido.blogspot.com/2008/09/charity-should-begin-at-home-part-2.html
*******************************************
As I (and others) predicted years ago, the results of the 2010 Census will be an absolute political disaster for AAs. It will be the last nail in our collective political coffin. And it’s our own fault for supporting Latino immigration.
***Part 3 of my reply to Oshun/Aphrodite***
In terms of higher education, AAs are also being displaced by foreign-origin Blacks. This was discussed during Charity Should Begin at Home, Part 1: “Study: Universities prefer foreign Black students”. Before anybody follows the link to read that post, let me repeat something that I stressed at the beginning of that essay:
“Common sense and a healthy instinct for self-preservation dictate that charity begins at home. And it does. For everybody except African-Americans. We’re too busy sharing what we don’t even have, and putting other people’s interests before our own.
Before I get too far into this topic, let me make it clear that I am not advocating resentment against any other group of people. It is perfectly natural (and fair) for people to look out for their own interests. I’m simply pointing out a trend that is not in our long-term interests; and the fact that we need to do a better job of self-preservation.”
As I’ve been saying all along, this is about AAs’ mass refusal to engage in SELF-preservation. It’s really not about any of these other people—they’re only doing what normal people do by looking out for their own best interests. It’s not their fault that AAs refuse to establish boundaries or look out for ourselves!
Despite the fact that AAs are obsolete and functionally dead as a collective, there ARE strategies that sensible individuals among our group can do in order to thrive. We talked about specific strategies during this conversation.
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
JaliliMaster,
You said, “Let us get real here. BW living in western countries have so many opportunities to live life abundantly. Not everyone will, but the opportunities do exist.”
Indeed. That’s what’s so crazy about all of this. We’re talking this madness while surrounded by opportunities that are literally unimaginable in other parts of the world. As I challenge other AAs who want to endlessly whine about the US, “If AAs can’t make it here in the US, exactly where on this planet can we survive?” So far, nobody has been able to answer that question.
You said, “When these negative statements are made, not only is it being accepted as personal truth, but other young AA girls will hear it and take it to be law. The first time I heard the phrase……”BW at the bottom of the totem pole” was by an AA woman. It was in the comments section to an article about IR marriage. I should mention that the majority of the people on the site were White and Asian men. Basically, this women were now INFORMING these men that BW were at the very end of the ‘totem pole’. Ever since, every time it has been said, it was by an AA woman. Every single time.”
As so many other BF bloggers have remarked, life and death is in the words we use about ourselves.
You said, “Now this is information I didn’t have.”
No, because you weren’t raised to be indoctrinated into this madness that so many AA women have bought into. Praise God!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
***Note to Readers***
In making this new site the kind of project that’s sustainable for me over the long-run, I’ve had to streamline how I handle certain things. The comments section is one of them. What this means is that I’ll give substantive responses to those folks who enter the conversations early (as I did across the board at the previous blog).
After each post is a couple of days old, I’ll generally continue to publish new comments from readers. (That meet the commenting guidelines as set forth at the previous blog—those who are unfamiliar can read the comment “box” at the previous blog.)
But, after a each post is a couple of days old, I generally WON’T continue responding to new comments.
In other words, I’ll continue to publish comments to this post, but I’m not going to reply to any more comments in this thread. FYI. Please feel free to talk among yourselves!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
Thanks Ladies! I really appreciate it.
Oshun/Aphrodite/Jalilimaster:
You ladies are not seeing/hearing things, that mentality is out there and it is no joke.
I spoke earlier about the Sister Soldier in my class. I mentioned this elsewhere, perhaps, but it bears repeating, the insanity of what some of us are saying about ourselves and how we present ourselves in front of others, ie. non-blacks and men.
The semester is ending, and I taught a class of 16 grad students in their 20s to 30s: 7 white men, 4 white women, 2 black women, 1 black man, 2 Asian women.
The Sister Soldier is single, and the other black woman is a struggling single mom.
At one point in time during the course of the semester in the context of our in-class conversation, the Sister Soldier said something that shook me to my core: “Motherhood and marriage is not important to black women.”
I called her on it, gracefully of course, but inside I was saying to myself, what in the world are you talking about???? Do you realize what message you are telling the world? That black women are so dysfunctional that they are not like other groups of women who (in general) tend to value marriage and motherhood?
What if I were not a bf, but someone who might have been tempted to take her word as gospel, ie., what else explains a 70% out of wedlock rate? Once again, the stereotypes would be reinforced, because of her “racialism” (race consciousness) that might reinforce others’ “racism”.
If the single mom had joined her chorus and said something like that, I would have been close to just losing it altogether, but this young woman doesn’t advertise her status and she is definitely not a Sister Soldier!
Image preservation is everything!
I remember those posts Khadija, thank you for the refresher.
And thank you for the reminder concerning self preservation.
@ Zoopath and YMB
I agree with both your points. I don’t understand why so many black leaders are so gung ho in support of illegals.
@ PVW
That is beyond sad. I think therapy is the only thing that can improve a mindset like that. It is one thing to have someone beat you down, but why flog yourself (in public at that) or throw sand in your own eyes? I am just baffled.
At the same time I really don’t like the “all BW angle” though. As if these types of women can speak for all BW. I am just thinking some nonblack person(s) may take these nuts at face value.
Whoooweee! So many topics… I’m an AA woman who is comfortable claiming “ancestors” all over the place. Solid ideas and inspiration are too important to restrict to the people who look like me. I just wanted to add that Harriet Tubman was married twice, with her second marriage to a man 10+ yrs. her junior. (sorry if someone else already mentioned this) My point is that I think it is possible to fight against injustice and be married, to a man of any color/background. If someone is confused about me being anti-racist and dating/marrying a non-black man, good luck for them. Yes, I think that BW have to be better at believing in themselves (their beauty, their worth) and making *their* love lives a priority. However, if white hegemony or any other injustice gets in your way, sometimes you have to figure out the best strategy to smash it. For some of us, it may involve smashing injustice WITH our non-black friends/lovers/husbands.
Felicia and Khadija,
Thank you both for your responses!
Felicia, I’m glad to see that we agree on most points. Thanks for the clarification. Also, I can’t stop laughing at your comment, “the BW at the cash register who rung up my purchase had a full dark mustache.”
AK,
I was not saying that it is Felicia’s “fault” — obviously, she has nothing to do with men’s preference for fair skin. The point I attempted to make with regard to colorism is this:
This PREFERENCE can influence a man’s decision to help. A woman struggling is a woman struggling, and unless she is cursing and yelling while struggling to carry groceries or attempting to complete a similar everyday task, there’s no reason to simply “not help” any woman who looks like she could use a hand.
But men who have color-issues will likely view a browner-skinned woman as “not in need of assistance” — which has nothing to do with her level of femininity and everything to do with their biases and preferences.
Thanks for the dialogue. It’s been enlightening.
I read with curiosity the interchange over Harriet Tubman. I then looked around on the Harriet Tubman Home website to figure out the story about the gun she was alleged to have used.
(The home is owned and operated by the AME Zion church in Auburn, New York.)
As you said, this was not about fighting slaveholders. Instead, it was about minimizing the influence of those who said they were ready to flee, but who then changed their minds and wanted to return to the plantations. She wasn’t having it. Once they made the commitment, they had to go along until the bitter end. She protected everyone from the the weak links or the traitors in their midst.
So I agree, she might have said today “it isn’t all about you!” But the message would have been different, “you don’t jeopardize everyone’s right to leave,” not that black women have to stay enslaved in the name of solidarity, since she was a firm advocate of women’s rights. As you said, Khadija, this was about playing fast and loose with black women’s history. Pretty offensive to me too, because this is what I teach!
Re: White supremacy. There is this interesting book (the Zohar) which has a section that discusses people. It talks of the bad on everyone but also lists people’s good points. At any rate, it doesn’t list people by skin type but by hair type.
In this book, it listed blondes as “men of truth”! i.e. they -the God fearing ones among them- search out truth no matter what the cost and no matter what the outcome. They simply like truth for truth’s sake.
I can’t vouch if this is true or not, I’m just parroting what it said. But its interesting to note two things. (1) The people that I notice who are most willing to marry BW, others, etc. are blondes. This is from eye observation, again I could be wrong.
and (2)Those who are not exactly what you’d call the God fearing type. Play with the truth and come up with this Aryan /white supremacy business (IQ test for their proof. planned parenting, etc).
I’ve often wondered why, in such a society, would blondes be called “ditzy” “bimbos” etc. Why would other white people poke fun at blondes? Isn’t that the most ideal to them? My suspicion is that those who are so stuck on truth for truth’s sake and probably had compassion or an unhateful take on the world, were perhaps in need of some ‘peer pressure’(and maybe some white privileges/bribe) to get with the ‘white supremist program’. In fact, in German the word “bimbo” according to wiki used to mean “black person”.
All this to say, its very hard to make a blanket statement and say fight white supremacy. Not all whites are to be lumped as one hateful bunch.
***I’m temporarily dipping back into this conversation for a moment***
PioneerValleyWoman,
You said, “I read with curiosity the interchange over Harriet Tubman. I then looked around on the Harriet Tubman Home website to figure out the story about the gun she was alleged to have used.”
My point is that Harriet Tubman led other AAs in RUNNING AWAY from the slave plantations. Not to “stay and fight” on the plantations. Anti-divestment Negroes like the Caribbean-origin BM blogger want AA women to “stay and fight” in the now dead bc, instead of RUNNING AWAY like Harriet Tubman led others to RUN AWAY to find freedom.
You said, “As you said, this was not about fighting slaveholders. Instead, it was about minimizing the influence of those who said they were ready to flee, but who then changed their minds and wanted to return to the plantations. She wasn’t having it. Once they made the commitment, they had to go along until the bitter end. She protected everyone from the the weak links or the traitors in their midst.”
Indeed. This is another lesson we can draw from Harriet Tubman. There comes a point where lines in the sand have to be drawn. Even internally. Not everybody who says they want freedom actually wants it. Some of them are just along for the ride—until the ride gets bumpy. And others talk freedom talk just so they can create mischief from INSIDE the escaping group. Like you said, Ms. Tubman was not having any of that. And wouldn’t let people play games with her escape plans!
And Ms. Tubman was much more merciful and forgiving than I suspect I would have been in such circumstances. [I probably would have simply shot "weak link" slaves and been through with it.] Everybody: Remember—Ms. Tubman was leading life and death escapes from the equivalent of open air Nazi concentration camps! She couldn’t afford to let cowardly slaves play games with her plans.
You said, “As you said, Khadija, this was about playing fast and loose with black women’s history. Pretty offensive to me too, because this is what I teach!”
Yes, it IS offensive. On so many levels. Mr. Caribbean-origin tossed out some other AA names such as Dr. King, and Angela Davis. Well, Dr. King got HIS pleasures along the way by having sex with his various groupies (while Coretta was sitting at home—in danger like he was—with their children). And Angela Davis is still alive, and can speak for herself. Although, I will note that Angela Davis stopped that exclusively “Black” stuff early in the game—decades ago—and came out as a lesbian in recent years.
Sister Harriet is long dead and can’t protect her own historical legacy. And any people’s cultural legacy IS precious! Cultural legacies are world-organization-recognized treasures. They shouldn’t be played with, distorted, or STOLEN by another people. Which is what that Caribbean-origin Negro was doing. I noticed in that post that he didn’t play with any of his OWN West Indian historical figures like Marcus Garvey, etc.
I’m angry and disgusted whenever anybody plays games with, or steals from, anybody else’s cultural legacy. The first step to erasing people’s history is distorting it. That’s part of the oppressor’s game—to distort and then erase their victim’s history.
I was angry and disgusted years back when ignorant AA Negro male rappers casually tossed in references to Timbuktu in their curse-word-laden rants. Well, Timbuktu does NOT belong to AAs, it’s not ours to use as a plaything. I don’t like cultural thieves. Whether they’re stealing from my people, or stealing from another people—like the people of Mali. Meanwhile, the people of Mali are working to preserve their cultural treasures. I pray that they’re able to save all of the books they currently have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts_Project
And this is why I specifically use the descriptive term “African-American” in these sorts of contexts. As far as I’m concerned, this is not “Black women’s” history—which would be free to be latched onto and parceled out among Black women other than those descended from the Africans held in slavery in the United States. It’s specifically African-American history.
What I notice with non-AA Black cultural thieves is that they get all specific when it’s something or somebody from their ethnic heritage. They’re quick to label that person or thing as specifically South African, Jamaican, and so on. But these same people want to get generic “Black” when it’s an AA historical figure they want to lay claim to. The AA person or thing they want to latch onto is then robbed of their specific ethnic identification—suddenly, that AA person or artifact is “Black”-only.
The same way the people of Mali welcome people’s study and appreciation of their cultural legacy, I also welcome others to study, teach and appreciate AAs’ cultural legacy. Just don’t try to claim it for yourself if you’re not AA. The same way I would never try to say that those books in Mali are part of my cultural heritage as an AA. Those ancient books belong to the people of Mali. Those books are part of THEIR cultural legacy. I can admire and respect the books. I can cite the books as an example proving that Africans had more than only an oral history and heritage. But I don’t get to lay claim to those books for myself. Those books and the history behind them belong to the people of Mali.
I also don’t get to claim people like Toussaint L’Ouverture or Stephen Biko for myself as an AA—these men are key figures from SOMEBODY ELSE’S history and legacy. And it would never occur to me to do something like that. Like I said in reply to that other blogger, I’m not a thief.
Yes, ALL of these historical figures are part of an overall GLOBAL “Black” history. But these figures and other cultural artifacts belong to SPECIFIC peoples within the Black world. I can appreciate the contributions that all of these various folks made. But I only claim the ones that belong to me and mine as AAs. I appreciate other Black folks’ historical figures and legacy from a respectful distance. I don’t try to steal other people’s cultural heritage.
I’m simply telling those non-AA Black folks who are engaged in the following negative behaviors (not all of them are) to:
1-STOP stealing from AAs’ cultural legacy.
2-STOP playing games with AA historical figures. Play games with your OWN historical figures.
3-STOP trying to step on AAs’ right to ethnic self-determination. I don’t care what your gripe is with the term “American.” That’s your problem.
You don’t get to step on AAs’ right to exercise Kujichagulia (Self-Determination): To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
It almost tickles me that those of you who are so busy trying to STEAL the name “African-American” from the African-American people NEVER take your gripes about the word “American” to WHITE Americans.
I notice that y’all NEVER grow a spine strong enough to talk that mess about your gripe with the word “American” to White Americans. You’re too weak and cowardly to do that. So, instead, you want to vent to AAs about your gripe over the word “American.”
DON’T come here to this blog with that mess. I’m NOT your slave or your servant (or anybody else’s for that matter).
You don’t get to choose a name for me—OR my people.
You don’t get to veto our choice of name for ourselves.
You don’t get to “bite” off of our name and steal it for yourself if you’re not part of our bloodlines (descended from the Africans who were held in slavery in the United States of America).
Take your gripe about the term “American” to the White AMERICAN man—if you can ever find the courage to do so!
Peace, blessings and solidarity.
As an AA woman with jamaican ancestry I agree with your response to the non aa blacks that have visited the forum.This agreement is despite the fact that some of my jamaican family also were involved in the civil rights movement.As you said and i’m paraphrasing here AA’s fought and died primarily on their own behalf during slavery and civil right.So many like to lay claim to being martyrs of AA fights for equal treatment when we ALL know that many of these other folks were nothing more than exceptions to the rule.Let’s not forget the fact that sooo many new immigrants come to this country and they have done nothing but reap the benefits of the struggles and accomplishments of AA’s all the while being just as disrespectful and sometime flatout prejudice towards aa’s as a white racist would be.
I personally was offended by those individuals comments because I happen to know for a fact that they would NOT allow a person, who is not apart of their group, who does NOT know their history, come in and try to tell them anything about how they should live and what they should be fighting for.You handled them much more respectfully than you would have been handled had you have gone to one of their sites and disrespectfully intruded by telling them how to identify themselves or what’s right for them.
Somebody should let the gentleman know that when it comes to personal matters, such as what an indivdual will choose to do to save their own life, All opinions were not created equal and all opinions are not valued!
What bothered me is something I have spoken about before throughout our conversations, and when I said “this is what I teach,” I had something specific in mind.
It is not uncommon for those who don’t have in-depth historical knowledge, to either make up stuff, or read what they want to read into the historical record, when their readings are not historically accurate. They pass on mythology as gospel.
It is worse when they get their “gospel” from certain types of African American Studies classes in college–I can always tell when I hear that type of ideology from my students. Some of the folks who teach in those departments pass on the same old tired 1960s era ideologies that you have been critiquing.
And in the instances where detractors are aiming to prevent black women from becoming sojourners, it happens time and time again, the misrepresentation of African American history (and African American women’s history) that results in gaslighting.