Black Panther: The Revolution will never be televised(Spoiler review)

Black Panther Film...

Black Panther, the most recent entry into the Marvel cinematic universe, has been greeted with the breathless anticipation that its arrival will Change Things. The movie features the leader of a fictional African country who has enough wealth to make Warren Buffet feel like a financial piker and enough technological capacity to rival advanced alien races. The change that the movie supposedly heralds is black empowerment to effectively challenge racist narratives. This is a tall order, especially in the time of Trump, who insists that blacks live in hell and wishes that (black) sons of bitches would get fired for protesting police violence. Which makes it a real shame that Black Panther, a movie unique for its black star power and its many thoughtful portrayals of strong black women, depends on a shocking devaluation of black American men.

To explain my complaint, I need to reveal some key plot turns: spoiler alert.

Wakanda is a fictional nation in Africa, a marvel beyond all marvels. Its stupendous wealth and technological advancement reaches beyond anything the folks in MIT’s labs could dream of. The source of all this wonder is vibranium, a substance miraculous in ways that the movie does not bother to explain. But so far as we understand, it is a potent energy source as well as an unmatched raw material. A meteor rich in vibranium, which crashed ages ago into the land that would become Wakanda, made Wakanda so powerful that the terrors of colonialism and imperialism passed it by. Using technology to hide its good fortune, the country plays the part of a poor, third-world African nation. In reality, it thrives, and its isolationist policies protect it from anti-black racism. The Wakandans understand events in the outside world and know that they are spared. This triumphant lore—the vibranium and the Wakandans’ secret history and superiority—are more than imaginative window-dressing. They go to the heart of the mistaken perception that Black Panther is a movie about black liberation.

Killmonger..

In Black Panther, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) has risen to the throne of Wakanda. We know that his father, T’Chaka, the previous king, died in a bomb attack. T’Challa worships his father for being wise and good and wants to walk in his footsteps. But a heartbreaking revelation will sorely challenge T’Challa’s idealized image of his father.
The movie’s initial action sequences focus on a criminal partnership between arms dealer Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis) and Eric Killmonger (Michael P. Jordan). They both seek vibranium but for different reasons: Klaue is trying to profit from Wakanda’s wonder-material; Killmonger is trying to make his way to Wakanda to make a bid for the throne. He believes he is the rightful king.
Killmonger, it turns out, is T’Challa’s cousin, orphaned by T’Chaka’s murder of Killmonger’s father and T’Chaka’s younger brother, N’Jobu (Sterling Brown). Why did T’Chaka kill his brother? N’Jobu was found with stolen vibranium. The motive for the theft is where the tale begins—and where the story of black wonderment starts to degrade.
We learn that N’Jobu was sent to the United States as one of Wakanda’s War Dogs, a division of spies that the reclusive nation dispatches to keep tabs on a world it refuses to engage. This is precisely N’Jobu’s problem. In the United States, he learns of the racism black Americans face, including mass incarceration and police brutality. He soon understands that his people have the power to help all black people, and he plots to develop weapons using vibranium to even the odds for black Americans. This is radical stuff; the Black Panthers (the political party, that is) taken to a level of potentially revolutionary efficacy. T’Chaka, however, insists N’Jobu has betrayed the people of Wakanda. He has no intention of helping any black people anywhere; for him and most Wakandans, it is Wakanda First. N’Jobu threatens an aide to T’Chaka, who then kills N’Jobu. The murder leaves Killmonger orphaned. However, Killmonger has learned of Wakanda  from his father, N’Jobu. Living in poverty in Los Angeles, he grows to become a deadly soldier to make good on his father’s radical aim to use Wakanda’s power to liberate black people everywhere, by force if necessary.
By now viewers have two radical imaginings in front of them: an immensely rich and flourishing advanced African nation that is sealed off from white colonialism and supremacy; and a few black Wakandans with a vision of global black solidarity who are determined to use Wakanda’s privilege to emancipate all black people.
These imaginings could be made to reconcile, but the movie’s director and writer (with Joe Cole), Ryan Coogler, makes viewers choose. Killmonger makes his way to Wakanda and challenges T’Challa’s claim to the throne through traditional rites of combat. Killmonger decisively defeats T’Challa and moves to ship weapons globally to start the revolution. In the course of Killmonger’s swift rise to power, however, Coogler muddies his motivation. Killmonger is the revolutionary willing to take what he wants by any means necessary, but he lacks any coherent political philosophy. Rather than the enlightened radical, he comes across as the black thug from Los Angeles hell bent on killing for killing’s sake—indeed, his body is marked with a scar for every kill he has made. The abundant evidence of his efficacy does not establish Killmonger as a hero or villain so much as a receptacle for tropes of inner-city gangsterism.
In the end, all comes down to a contest between T’Challa and Killmonger that can only be read one way: in a world marked by racism, a man of African nobility must fight his own blood relative whose goal is the global liberation of blacks. In a fight that takes a shocking turn, T’Challa lands a fatal blow to Killmonger, lodging a spear in his chest. As the movie uplifts the African noble at the expense of the black American man, every crass principle of modern black respectability politics is upheld.
In 2018, a world home to both the Movement for Black Lives and a president who identifies white supremacists as fine people, we are given a movie about black empowerment where the only redeemed blacks are African nobles. They safeguard virtue and goodness against the threat not of white Americans or Europeans, but a black American man, the most dangerous person in the world.
Even in a comic-book movie, black American men are relegated to the lowest rung of political regard. So low that the sole white leading character in the movie, the CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman), gets to be a hero who helps save Wakanda. A white man who trades in secrets and deception is given a better turn than a black man whose father was murdered by his own family and who is left by family and nation to languish in poverty. That’s racist.

Panther2...

Who could hope that this age of black heroes represents thoughtful commentary on U.S. racism rather than the continuation of it? Black Panther is not the first prominent attempt to diversify the cinematic white superheroics and thus not the first to disappoint. After Netflix’s Daredevil affirmed the strong television market for heroes, the media company moved to develop shows for other characters that populate the comic. Jessica Jones, about a white heroine, was a critical success. It handled its tough female protagonist intelligently. That show introduced the character of Luke Cage (Michael Colter), an indestructible black man. When Netflix announced that Cage would have his own show, the anticipation was intense: a bulletproof black man in the age of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? And he would wear a hoodie and fight police? Instead we got a tepid depiction Harlem poverty, partly the consequence of institutional racism but more closely tied to the greed expressed by two of its big bad black baddies, Black Mariah (Alfre Woodard) and Cottonmouth (Mahershala Ali). But that was not the worst of it. The ultimate evil in the show’s first and only season is Willis Stryker (Eric Laray Harvey), another black man whom Luke Cage must defeat. Stryker is not only a black villain, but Cage’s adopted brother. Cage must beat his brother to a pulp, just as Panther must kill his cousin.

The offenses don’t end, though. If one surveys the Marvel cinematic universe, one finds that the main villains—even those far more destructive than Killmonger—die infrequently. They are formidable enemies who live to challenge the hero again and again. A particularly poignant example is Loki, brother to Thor, the God of Thunder. Across the Thor and Avengers movies that feature him, Loki is single-handedly responsible for incalculable misery and damage; his power play leads to an alien invasion that nearly levels all of Manhattan. Yet Thor cannot seem to manage any more violence against Loki than slapping him around a bit and allowing other heroes to do the same—even as Loki tries to kill Thor. Loki even gets his turn to be a good guy in the recent Thor: Ragnarok. Loki gets multiple, unearned chances to redeem himself no matter what damage he has done. Killmonger, however, will not appear in another movie. He does not get a second chance. His black life did not matter even in a world of flying cars and miracle medicine. Why? Perhaps Killmonger’s main dream to free black people everywhere decisively earns him the fate of death. We know from previous Marvel movies that Killmonger’s desire for revenge is not the necessary condition to eliminate him; Loki’s seeming permanence is proof.

Panther4...

My claim that Killmonger’s black life does not matter is not hyperbole. In a macabre scene meant to be touching, Black Panther carries Killmonger to a plateau so that he might see the sun set on Wakanda before dying. With a spear stuck in his chest, he fulfills his wish to appreciate the splendor his father described, when Wakanda seemed a fairy tale. T’Challa offers Wakanda’s technology to save Killmonger’s life—it has saved the white CIA agent earlier in the film. But Killmonger recalls his slave heritage and tells Panther he’d rather die than live in bondage. He knows the score. He knows that Panther will incarcerate him (as is disproportionately common for black American men). The silence that follows seems to last an eternity. Here is the chance for the movie to undo its racist sins: T’Challa can be the good person he desires to be. He can understand that Killmonger is in part the product of American racism and T’Chaka’s cruelty. T’Challa can realize that Wakanda has been hoarding resources and come to an understanding with Killmonger that justice may require violence, if as a last resort. After all, what else do comic-book heroes do but dispense justice with their armored fists and laser rifles? Black Panther does not flinch. There is no reconciliation. Killmonger yanks the spear out of his chest and dies. The sun sets on his body as it did on Michael Brown’s.

It is fair to wonder whether the movie merely reflects the racial politics of the comic books that serve as its inspiration. Yes and no. In the movie, Killmonger’s relationship to T’Challa is as the comic-book canon portrays it. Killmonger is a deadly killer in the comics as in the movie, but he is also extremely intelligent, studying at MIT to understand the technology he goes on to deploy. In the movie, Killmonger’s only skill is killing; if Coogler intended to make Killmonger a hood-born genius, he has failed badly.
In the comics, Killmonger also dies at Black Panther’s hands. But KIllmonger dies long after he has come to live in Wakanda, albeit under a veil of deceit, before attempting a coup. The comic thus opens (but ultimately rejects) an opportunity to save Killmonger to fight for another day, just as Loki is repeatedly saved. The movie completely forecloses this possibility, which is odd since we can all be fairly certain that there will be a sequel.

What alternative story-lines might have satisfied?
I couldn’t help think of Ulysses Klaue, a mainline villain in the comics who lives a long, infamous life. He would have been a perfectly good villain to motivate the movie’s attempt at wokeness. In the comics, there is bad blood between the Klaue clan and Wakanda’s royal lineage (Klaue’s Nazi grandfather died by the hands of Chanda, an earlier Wakandan king and Panther). In Klaue, we had a white villain whose bloodline is imbued with the sins of racism. Ramonda, played by the ever-regal Angela Bassett, is temporally misplaced in the movie. In the comics canon, T’Challa takes the mantle of the Panther while Ramonda, T’Challa’s stepmother, is being held captive by a white magistrate in apartheid South Africa. If Coogler had at all been interested in making Panther a symbol of racial reparation he could have easily placed Klaue in South Africa, even post-apartheid, and the rescue of Ramonda—with Klaue in the way—could have driven the narrative. Ramonda is prominent in the movie, but she does not animate the movie’s central drama.  Instead, Black Panther is set on a course to kill off his cousin in his first outing, suggesting yet another racist trope, the fractured black family as a microcosm of the black community’s inability to get it together.

Hero for Who...

You will have noticed I have not said much about the movie’s women. They are the film’s brightest spot: the black women of Wakandan descent are uniformly independent, strong, courageous, brilliant, inventive, resourceful, and ethically determined. I take it that a good deal of this is owed to Ta-Nehisi Coates’s success at elevating the series’ women to central characters with influence and power that turns more on their minds and integrity than their bodies. T’Challa’s sister, Shuri (Letitia Wright), is sufficiently brilliant to make the Q character from James Bond films seem a clever child with some interesting ideas, while Nakia (Lupita N’yongo) is the ethical center of the film, thoughtful and lacking any stereotypical hysterics or emotional cloudiness that so many movies use to savage the intellect of leading women. Thus the movie deserves praise for its gender politics—save in relation to the only black American woman. The character, Tilda Johnson, a.k.a. the villain Nightshade, has, by my count, less than fifteen words to say in the movie, and is unceremoniously murdered by Killmonger because Klaue is using her as a shield and Killmonger just ain’t got time for that. The lone American black woman is disposed of by black-on-black violence. She is also invisible and nearly silent. In the comic books her character is both a genius and alive and well.

Black Panther presents itself as the most radical black experience of the year. We are meant to feel emboldened by the images of T’Challa, a black man clad in a powerful combat suit tearing up the bad guys that threaten good people. But the lessons I learned were these: the bad guy is the black American who has rightly identified white supremacy as the reigning threat to black well-being; the bad guy is the one who thinks Wakanda is being selfish in its secret liberation; the bad guy is the one who will no longer stand for patience and moderation—he thinks liberation is many, many decades overdue. And the black hero snuffs him out.

When T’Challa makes his way to Los Angeles at the movie’s end, he gestures at all the buildings he has bought and promises to bring to the distressed youths the preferred solution of mega-rich neoliberals: educational programming. Don’t get me wrong, education is a powerful and liberatory tool, as Paulo Freire taught us, but is that the best we can do? Why not take the case to the United Nations and charge the United States with crimes against humanity, as some nations tried to do in the early moments of the Movement for Black Lives?

Black Panther is not the movie we deserve. My president already despises me. Why should I accept the idea of black American disposability from a man in a suit, whose name is synonymous with radical uplift but whose actions question the very notion that black lives matter?

Article by Christopher Lebron

Nat Turner, Solar Eclipse on August 21:Pay homage to the Great Ancestor

Turner3....

This coming Monday will be a solar eclipse.  They don’t happen too often in the western part of the world.  But this is a special one in particular.  It will be on August 21 which is the day of the slave revolt by the great prophet Nat Turner.  This would be the 186 year anniversary of the revolt. With all the racial tension created by the mainstream media I can feel the tension around me. And our racist President is not helping the matter.  There are a lot of racial films out right now as well.  As well as the boxing match between Mayweather and McGregor which will fan more racial flames.  Watching the news can get you angry and upset.  Especially  when watching protests and marches by white supremacists.  But this is how the media controls you through your emotions.  Many black people are being manipulated emotionally.   It’s time to calm down,relax for a moment and think clearly. I think during this eclipse we should do some type of ritual in honor of the Black God Nat Turner.  Maybe pour libation or whatever you feel like doing.  But we need to harvest our energy and use the power given to us by our African ancestors.  We must always give the utmost respect to those that fought and gave the ultimate sacrifice against this wicked,racist and corrupt system.  Ashe’

Turner2...

Turner1.....jpg

Muhammad Ali,Kobe,Jordan,Mayweather:What makes an athlete great?

MJ1...

Kobe1..

Since the passing of boxing icon Muhammad Ali, I’ve been thinking about black athletes a lot.  Since blacks have been playing sports we have dominated pretty much sport every sport we enter.  I had a recent discussion with a friend of mine.  I asked him why we liked Ali so much.  He said that Ali spoke up for black people at a very unpopular time in America.  He also said that Ali stuck to his convictions even if others disagreed with him.  This is something I hear over and over again.  Of course has Ali got older the white media has whitewashed his image.  They just say he was fighting for civil rights and refused to fight in the Vietnam war due to his religious beliefs.  Ali got a lot of hate from white and black Christians because he was a Muslim.  But there were those that did respect that he did have the right to practice whatever religion he chooses.  But since his death the media doesn’t bring up his controversial views on black power,injustice,interracial marriage and inequality.  They tend to gloss over all that. They do this because many whites feel detached from his era.  They feel that Ali could complain about racism and inequality because of segregation.   That’s why many whites say they admire Ali.  But if you were to repeat some of the things Ali said…they would hate you.  It’s because they believe racism is not a big problem anymore.  Overt racism maybe gone to a degree.  But racism is alive and well.

Great athletes..

Back in the day black athletes at least had the guts to speak out when black people were mistreated.  The photo(above) is from a press conference in 1967.  NFL great Jim Brown held a conference in support of Ali refusing to fight in the Vietnam War. NBA stars  like Bill Russell and Kareem Abdul Jabbar came out to support.  This is why many black people respect these men for speaking out in a show of solidarity with Ali.

What makes an athlete great?  An athlete must have speed,agility,and strength.  Ali seemed to posses all of these qualities.  After years of practice he had perfected the craft of boxing.  Many times he could anticipate the move of his opponent.

Michael Jordan is considered the greatest basketball player of all time.  Jordan had amazing hang time on the court.  He was very quick and could get an easy dunk on pretty much anyone. He was a six time NBA Champion,rookie of the year and 14 time NBA All Star.

Floyd1...

Then there is undefeated boxing champ Floyd Mayweather.  He is a great technical fighter and great defender in the ring.  The brother is a great fighter,you can’t take that away from him. He does come off brash and cocky and that’s one of the reasons people don’t like him. But he really love to show off his money and all the expensive cars he has. He seems to really love showing his opulence at any given moment.  I know that Ali did a picture posing on a stacks of money as well.  And I realize that many whites hate seeing rich and successful black people.  I’m not ignorant of the fact.  But at least Ali did balance his cocky attitude with speaking out on racial and political. Much like Ali,Mayweather   knows many people don’t like it when he does this.  He does  alot of it on purpose to get under people’s skin. I’m all for black people being successful and making money.  Lord knows it’s a struggle to make it in this racist society. But is Mayweather about anything deeper?  I just wish the brother had a little more substance. Does he care about the plight of his people?

Kobe2..

Then you have athletes like Kobe Byant who rarely speak out on race issues. A few years ago NFL great Jim Brown called him out on the Arsenio Hall show. Brown stated:

“He’s somewhat confused about our culture. Because he was brought up in another country…If I had to invite people to that [black athlete] summit all over,” Brown said, referring to a summit held in the early 70s regarding Muhammed Ali’s refusal to fight in the Vietnam War, “there’d be some athletes I wouldn’t call. He’d be one of them.”

I agree with Jim Brown.  Of course Kobe didn’t like that too much so he made a statement

Kobe’s statement:

“It surprised me in the sense that it came out of left field. I’ve never even met him. It came out of left field. But I do think it’s a great opportunity to have this conversation, to have this discussion. No matter where you come from, whether you come from Italy, whether you come from Inglewood (a Los Angeles neighborhood), whether you come from London, it doesn’t matter. Ultimately the conversation is that it doesn’t matter what color skin you are to begin with. But I think it’s a good place to start and have a good conversation.”

“There’s nothing to talk about. We have different perceptions and different views on that, clearly. The thing I’ve tried to do is I’ve tried to educate our youth going forward, no matter what color skin you are, African-American or white or whatever the case may be. Just try to talk about having a bright future going forward and how to help the kids and progress as a society as a whole. He and I, there’s no reason for us to try to have a conversation. We’re on opposite sides of the spectrum. I’m an old dog, but he’s a much older dog and a lot more set in his ways than I am.”

Can you believe this guy? Kobe is living in a fantasy world.  This guy thinks the world is colorblind and racism is not a big issue anymore.  Maybe he thinks this way because he makes millions of dollars,has a Mexican wife and mixed race children. But he needs to come back to reality.  Have you ever heard Kobe speak about the killing of Trayvon Martin? Has Mayweather spoke about the death of Sandra Bland?  Have you heard Michael Jordan speak about the killing of Tamir Rice or Ayiana Jones??  Nope!  Nothing bit silence.  After Ali’s death Jordan released a statement:

“Muhammad Ali was bigger than sports and larger than life. He said he was ‘The Greatest’ and he was right. He was the greatest of his era in the ring and a global icon in sports. I was a kid during his prime, but I remember some of his epic fights and his incredible style. My sincerest condolences go out to his wife, Lonnie, his kids and family.”

You noticed he didn’t say Ali was an inspiration or an example to follow.  It’s because they don’t want to follow his example.  They don’t have the guts and self respect to speak out on behalf of their people. Most of them are just happy to get a paycheck and be athletic coons.

Rose...

Although I will give some props to Chicago Bulls player Derrick Rose.  After the racist NYPD choked Eric Garner to death he wore a ” I Can’t Breathe” T-shirt. After he did it many other NBA players did it.

Lakers...png

Heat....jpg

And after the Trayvon Martin not  guilty verdict NBA star Lebron James got the Miami heat team to wear hoodies in protest.  At least Lebron tried to speak out in some fashion.  What did Kobe Bryant say? This fool actually challenged Lebrons stance.  This is what he said:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African American,” he said. “That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, we’ve progressed as a society, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Kobe is a bootlicking sellout for that comment!   Could you imagine Ali making a statement like that?  Never!  This is why Ali is greater than Kobe,Jordan and Mayweather.  You have to do more than just put on a hoodie or t-shirt.  You have to be willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater cause.  Most athletes today have no backbone and are scared of making their white masters angry.  If you want to be an inspiration to your people you must do more than just be a gifted athlete.

Ali2...

Check out the video above.  Listen to what Ali tells the two white women.  He tells them the truth and they don’t like it!  Could you imagine a black athlete saying those things today?  I can’t think of too many that would.  Some say Ali was just a product of the time.  Maybe so,but we needed someone on his level that had the courage to speak TRUTH to power.  And we still need people like that today.  Our people are still catching HELL in 2016.  Don’t let the media fool you by their whitewashing of Ali’s image.  Ali loved his people and that’s what he will be remembered for the most.  I wish more black singers,athletes,actors and rappers would speak out on our oppression.  That’s what makes someone great in the eyes of their people. What’s greatness?

Ali Birthday Boxing

Be the greatest at standing for righteousness.

Be the greatest at giving hope to the helpless.

Be the greatest at having courage and dignity.

Be the greatest at having self respect.

Be the greatest at loving your African heritage.

Be the greatest at speaking for those that can’t speak for themselves.

Be the greatest inspiration for your people.

Be the greatest at having compassion but a warrior when the time is needed.

Be great at protecting your family and community.

Be great at protecting the innocent.

Be great at having self confidence.

Be great at having self discipline.

Be a great champion for justice and liberation.

Be great at speaking truth to power.

Ali4....jpg

Being a great athlete means you have certain God-given abilities. Along with hard work and dedication you can become great at your craft.  Being able to throw a punch,dunk a basketball,run very fast and jump very high….is very impressive. But to be truly great takes a little more than that in my opinion.  And this is why black people will always love and respect Ali.

Rest in Power Ali.

Patrice Lumumba- Congolese Warrior

Patrice1...

During his exile in the 1980s, Mr Holden Roberto – president of the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) – and one of his collaborators, visited me in my office at Howard University in Washington. In order to counter accusations (incidentally well-founded) levelled at his party, of colluding with American imperialism and selling out on their commitment to Pan-Africanism, my two visitors began by reciting in its entirety Patrice Emery Lumumba’s famous speech at the Congolese independence ceremony on 30th June 1960. This gesture – which strongly affected me – shows the attachment you still find across the whole African continent, even among its lost sheep, for this martyr for African nationalism and the struggles of oppressed peoples all over the world.

Rare are the African countries where one does not find streets, even main roads, named after Lumumba. Many African children born after his assassination have ‘Lumumba’ as their forename. The former executive secretary of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (2002-5) and president of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission (2010-11) is called Patrick Lumumba, and his passion for change and eloquence recalls those qualities in his namesake.

These two references to the political heritage of Lumumba show how the assassination of this great African leader resonated – and continues to resonate – with Africans. In his excellent book, The Assassination of Lumumba, Belgian sociologist Ludo de Witte shows the significance of this particular assassination in the history of Western tactics against the anti-imperialist revolutions of the 20th Century – from Mossadegh’s Iran to Nasserist Egypt, Castro’s Cuba, Lumumba’s Congo and Sankara’s Burkina Faso.

It is in this context – the struggle between the interests of the international bourgeoisie and those of the popular masses – that we must understand the factors contributing to Lumumba’s assassination, its political consequences for Congo, and the place of this Congolese hero in the pantheon of universal defenders of the emancipation of peoples.

The assassination of Lumumba was the outcome of two conspiracies closely bound together with the American and Belgian governments, which relied on the complicity of certain Congolese leaders and a Belgian firing squad composed of soldiers and policemen under the Katanga puppet regime.

Patrice3...

Patrice Lumumba – the man and his political project

Who is Patrice Lumumba, and why was he so violently assassinated by the forces of counter-revolution? Born on 2nd July 1925 in Onalua, a small village in the region of Katako-Kombe, Lumumba received his education at primary school as well as among Belgian Catholic missionaries at Tshumbe Sainte-Marie and the famous Methodist mission in Wembo Nyama. He was not appreciated there, neither among the representatives of the colonial trinity (the State, big business, the Catholic Church) nor by the American missionaries – themselves fervent believers in the ideology of white supremacy prevalent in the Southern states of the USA, and too weak to contest colonial repression. An intellectually precocious pupil who rebelled against the thundering paternalism of the missionaries, the young Lumumba decided to leave Sankuru in 1944 without obtaining his certificate of study in order to spread his wings elsewhere. After several months in the region of Kindu, he would go on to pursue a career as a bureaucrat in Kisangani (then Stanleyville). It was during this long stay at Kisangani (1944-57) that Lumumba developed his characteristic traits; moral and intellectual integrity, immovability on points of principle, and exceptional bravery even in the face of death. As one of the members of the firing squad which killed him recalled, Lumumba maintained a glacial calm in front of the executioners.

At Kisangani, Lumumba distinguished himself as president, vice president, or secretary, of at least seven organisations of Congolese évolués – literally meaning ‘evolved people’, this term was used by the Belgian colonial establishment to distinguish a class of ‘Westernised’ blacks. An autodidact, with the exception of a year of professional training at the École Postale in Kinshasa (then Leopoldville), he succeeded in acquiring immense knowledge about the contemporary world through extensive, self-guided reading on politics and history. According to Thomas Kanza, his collaborator and biographer, Lumumba ‘read all that fell into his hands’. As leader, he was a convincing and effective representative for the Kisangani evolués, liaising with the governor of the province, the Belgian minister of the colonies, Auguste Buisseret, and the young king, Baudouin I, during his first visit to Congo in 1955. Still a believer in the idea of the Belgo-Congolese community, promulgated by amicales belgo-congolais, clubs comprising evolués and those Belgians open to a gradual process of integration, Lumumba was invited to Belgium for the first time in 1956.

Fearing his perspicacity and well-founded criticisms of colonial racism, the colonial authorities welcomed his return from Brussels with a charge of tax avoidance, followed by a sentence of two years in prison by a trial court in Kisangani. The public prosecutor, judging this punishment insufficient, made an appeal, but the court of appeal in Kinshasa confirmed the sentence of two years. This punishment was reduced to four months, which he had already served in preventative detention, followed by a royal order granting grace, signed on 27th August 1957.

If Kisangani had given him the political apprenticeship he needed to master the mysteries of organisation and political practice, these two experiences of Kinshasa, of the École Postale and his incarceration, contributed in a decisive way to the awakening of his political consciousness. During his training in postal service administration in 1948, Lumumba made a short visit to Brazzaville, on the right bank of the River Congo opposite Kinshasa. Thirsty from walking, he stopped outside a café with the hope of finding a waiter who would give him a glass of water. To his surprise, it was the European café patron who noticed him, and invited him to sit where the whites were seated and brought him, not tap water, but mineral water. For the sociologist Pierre Clément – for whom he would work as a research assistant four years later –here was the first time that Lumumba realised that another world was possible, habituated as he was to the system of apartheid practised in Belgian Congo. Reinvigorated by the model of assimilation among the French in Congo-Brazzaville – though the ‘card of civic merit’ in 1948 and formal registration in 1952 did not succeed in guaranteeing equality of access to jobs, medical treatment, housing, social services and recreation – an évolué Lumumba felt his long-cowed spirit emboldened enough to dream of a more beautiful country than Belgian Congo.

This dream of radical change would reinforce itself further during his months of incarceration, during which Lumumba had the occasion to lead a serious reflection on the future of Congo and to read the famous ‘Plan de trente ans pour l’émancipation politique de l’Afrique belge’ by A.A.J Van Bilsen, a little known professor at the Colonial University of Anvers, together with the two Congolese reactions to this document: first, ‘Manifeste de la Conscience Africaine’, the work of a group of catholic intellectuals represented by Joseph Ileo, Joseph Malula (future cardinal) and Joseph Ngalula; second, the counter-manifesto by l’Alliance des Bakongo (ABAKO), an ethnic association led by Joseph Kasavubu. After leaving prison, Lumumba installed himself in Kinshasa where, from 1957, he launched himself into the political struggle. Joining up with Ileo and Ngalula, he succeeded, in October 1958, in taking the leadership of the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), a political organisation started up with the intention of eventually becoming a credible political party at the national level.

By a happy confluence of circumstances, the year 1958 ended with the emergence of Patrice Lumumba as one of the principal leaders in the struggle for independence. The turning point was the visit to Kinshasa by two east African leaders on their way to the first ‘Conference des peuples Africains’, held in Accra between the 5th and 13th December 1958. Concerned that a large country like Congo risked missing out on this great African rendez-vous, A.R. Mohamed Babu of Zanzibar and Tom Mboya of Kenya asked a hotel worker where they could find the political leaders of the emerging independence movement. The worker in question was very happy to bring about a meeting with Patrice Lumumba, then the commercial director of the Brasserie du Bas-Congo (Bracongo), which produced the beer Polar. Lumumba often offered this to clients, ostensibly for promotional purposes but often using this as an opportunity to awaken the clients’ political consciousness. Babu and Mboya were so impressed by Lumumba that they sent a telegram to the Pan African Freedom Movement for East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) asking for money to bring a Congolese delegation to Accra.

And so Patrice Lumumba, Gaston Diami and Joseph Ngalula accompanied Babu and Mboya to Accra, where Lumumba attracted the notice of the delegates at the conference, which brought together representatives from the 8 independent countries (Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia) and those of the political parties, trade unions and other organisations of the civil society of the Pan-African world. There he met the leaders of national liberation movements such as Félix-Roland Moumié of the Union des Populations de Cameroun (UPC), Frantz Fanon of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) of Algeria, and Amilcar Cabral of the Parti Africain pour L’independence de Guinéeet du Cap Vert (PAIGC), and he established strong working relationships with some great African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Modibo Keita and Ahmed Sékou Touré.

On his return to Kinshasa, Lumumba organized a popular demonstration on Sunday 28th December to inform the Congolese population of the resolutions of the Accra conference and their implications for the independence movement in Congo. Following the refusal by the first Belgian mayor of Kinshasa to allow ABAKO to hold a similar meeting the following Sunday, 4th January 1959, the population of Kinshasa rose in a three-day rebellion which sounded the death knell for the Belgian colonial regime in Congo. “Indépendance immediate”, the slogan of protestors, became a non-negotiable demand in the struggle of the Congolese people for their total freedom. Instead of the thirty years suggested by Van Bilsen in 1956, independence was obtained in four. The mobilisation of the population by radical political parties like ABAKA and MNC-L was responsible for the erosion of legitimacy, as much as the repressive abilities, of the colonial regime. Lumumba benefited from this new situation by placing the MNC-L throughout all the provinces of the country, to the point that his party became the spearhead of the Congolese independence struggle.

BELGIUM LUMUMBA

The assassination of Lumumba        

For more than 128 years, the US and Belgium played key roles in fashioning the destiny of the Congo. In April 1884, seven months after the opening of Congress in Berlin, the US became the first country in the world to recognise the claims of King Leopold of Belgium to the Congo basin territories. When the atrocities linked to the brutal economic exploitation of Congo led to millions of deaths, the US joined with other global powers to force Belgium to put an end to the status of Congo as a personal possession of King Leopold II and to give it the status of an ordinary colony. During the colonial period (1908- 60), the US saw Congo’s strategic advantage due to its abundant natural resources, above all its uranium, which was used to created the first atomic weapons, the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With the launching of the Cold War, it was inevitable that Washington and her Western allies would not be disposed to give Africans control over their own strategically valuable natural resources, for fear that they would fall into the hands of their Soviet enemies. Because of this, Patrice Lumumba’s attempt to secure an authentic independence and to obtain effective control over the resources of Congo, with the aim of improving the living standards of our people, was seen as a threat to Western interests. In their fight against him, Washington and Brussels used all the tools and resources at their disposal, including the United Nations under Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld and his U.S. assistant Ralph Bunche, Lumumba’s Congolese political enemies, and his assassins.

In Congo, the assassination of Lumumba is, for good reason, considered the ‘original sin’ of the country. Occurring less than seven months after independence (30th June 1960), it was a stumbling block for ideals of national unity, economic independence, and the African solidarity for which Lumumba had advocated, as well as being a terrible blow to the hopes for freedom and material prosperity of millions of Congolese people. In place of this, the country was divided into four parts: the west of the country under the central government of Kinshasa; the north west under a rival central government led by Lumumba partisans; and the mining provinces of Katanga and Sud Kasaï under the secessionist regimes of Moïse Tshombe and Albert Kalonji, at Lumumbashi (Elisabethville) and Mbuji-Mayi (Bakwanga) respectively.

The neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa was born from the dismissal of Lumumba by president Kasavubu in 1960 and the coup d’etat of 14th September by which colonel Joseph-Desiré Mobutu claimed to neutralise both protagonists of the institutional crisis. Based on an obscure article of ‘La Loi Fondamentale’, the temporary constitution bequeathed to Congo by Belgium, this action ran contrary to all the political conventions of a parliamentary system where the prime minister enjoys a majority in parliament. This was the case with Lumumba: the two chambers rejected Kasavubu’s action as invalid. The Western puppet-masters understood then that there would have to be a military intervention to remove Lumumba from power, and Mobutu had already been making preparations to this end from the beginning of the Congolese crisis in July. A former ally of Prime Minister Lumumba, he was at the same time linked to the forces of the counter-revolution as an informer for the Belgian and American security services.

It was this man who became the real master of Kinshasa, in his role as head of the Binza Group. So-labelled because its members lived and met up in the well-off residential district of Binza, this powerful clique drew its power from its members’ influence over crucial institutions and politicians; the army (Mobutu); the police (Victor Nendaka); the ministry of foreign affairs (Justin Bomkoko), the ministry of the interior (Damien Kandolo), the Central Bank (Albert Ndele). These individuals worked in close collaboration with Prime Minister Cyrille Adoula and President Kasavabu, and no important decision could be taken by these last two without the approval of the Binza group, the hub of neocolonialism in Congo.

Patrice4...

The secessions of Katanga and Sud Kasaï

Of these two secessions, that of Sud Kasaï is the lesser-known one yet it also played an important role in the political and physical assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Proclaimed on 8th August 1960 in Lumumbashi, the Sud Kasaï secession forged close links with its Katangan counterpart, siding with the interests of international high finance and the counter-revolution, with La Societé Diamantifère Forminière in Kasaï playing the same role – of money-lender – that the Union Miniere du Haut Katanga (UMHK) played in Katanga. The smaller secession took place as the Lumumba administration was receiving logistical assistance from the Soviet Union in order to fight a war against the secession in Katanga, due to the refusal of UN Secretary General Dag Hammerskjöld to allow the Security Council to perform its remit of helping the Congolese government expel the Belgian forces and white mercenaries and put an end to the secession. The soldiers of the National Congolese Army (ANC) en route to Katanga received the order to put an end to the small secession of Sud Kasaï before crossing the border. Unfortunately, the undisciplined soldiers committed atrocious massacres against innocent civilians, including close to a thousand men, women and children who believed themselves safe from danger in the sanctuary of the Catholic Cathedral of Mbuju-Mayi (today Bakwanga).

Dag Hammarskjöld defined these killings as ‘genocide’ against the Luba and pointed the finger at Prime Minister Lumumba. Aside from the fact that the atrocities committed in Sud Kasaï did not correspond to the definition of genocide in international law, these odious crimes were not the sole responsibility of the head of government, but of the entire chain of command: the superior officers on the ground; the Chief of Staff, Mobutu; Prime Minister Lumumba; and President Kasavubu, in his capacity as supreme commander of the armed forces. As such, neither Hammerskjöld nor Kasavabu had any justification either for accusing Lumumba of genocide, or for illegally dismissing him when the responsibility for this incident was largely a collective one.

The capital of Sud Kasaï would be baptised ‘la boucherie’, because it was the chosen site for the summary execution of Lumumbists whom the neo-colonial regime of Kinshasa wanted to destroy. The most famous among the victims is without doubt Jean-Pierre Finant (1922-61), the first democratically-elected governor of the eastern province, of which Kisangani is the capital. Of mixed Belgo-Congolais descent and father of the famous Congolese singer Abeti Masikini (Betty Finant, 1954-94), he was executed on 17th February 1961, exactly one month after the assassination of Lumumba, with eleven companions, including Jacques Lumbala (a former colleague of Mobutu), Emmanuel Nzuzi and Jacques Fataki. As in the case of Lumumba, who was handed over to Katangan secessionists, the Binza group saw no contradiction between collaborating with the secessionist regimes which it needed to destroy, and assassinating their common enemies, the Lumumbists.

The secession of Sud-Kasaï collapsed through its internal contradictions, mainly due to the struggle for power between Joseph Ngalula and Albert Kalonji, who was proclaimed Mulopwe or emperor of the Luba-Kasaï, a people who had never been under the leadership of a single leader since leaving their ancestral birthplace in Katanga in the 18th century. Having returned to Kinshasa to become minister of education for the central government, Ngalula plotted with the Binza group to destroy Kalonji and bring an end to the secession. This came about in September 1962, following an armed revolt under the direction of Kalonji’s Chief of Staff.

Contrary to the Sud-Kasaï secession, where the internal dimension was as crucial to its failure as it was to its birth; in light of the Lulua-Baluba conflict and its poor management – by first, the Belgians, later, Lumumba – the external factor was a defining one in Katanga. As Jean Ziegler aptly described it in his work La contre revolution en Afrique, in its progression towards the south of the continent, the African national liberation movement hit the wall of counter-revolution, whereby the white colonists, mining companies and their right-wing allies in the West, banded together to defend their privileges. Then, from Katanga to the Cape of Good Hope, the white counter-attack manifested itself in the creation of states controlled by white colonists, either directly, as in the case of South Africa, in Namibia and in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyassaland, indirectly through the colonial state (Angola and Mozambique), or via a puppet government of paid-up blacks (Katanga). The essential continuity was that all these regimes succeeded in defending and promoting the interests of colonialists and of the corporations that sought to maximise their profits through the exploitation of badly-paid and quiescent labour. In the context of the cold war, the counter-revolution had no problem in inserting itself in the hegemonic discourse of Western values, Christian and democratic, which excluded communism, atheism and authoritarianism.

Well before the Rhodesian colonialist Ian Smith signed his ‘internal settlement’ with Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Pastor Ndabaningi and Chief Jeremiah Chirau in Zimbabwe, another agreement had already been negotiated in Congo, between the Conféderation des associations tribales de Katanga (CONAKAT) of Moïse Tshombe and Godefroid Munongo, the UMHK and the Union Katangaise – an association representing white colonialists – to allow Katanga to secede from Congo and become an independent state. In this sense, CONAKAT was just a way of giving voice to the interests of white colonialists through African mouths. Without the financial support of the UMHK, the military and technical support of Belgium, and the management of administrative and economic structures by the colonialists, Katanga could not survive as a political entity. Moreover, the secession relied on considerable external support; not only from Belgium, but also from France, the United Kingdom, and the US. In the country of Uncle Sam, the Katangan secession enjoyed solid backing in reactionary circles – lobbyists for the cause included influential senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona (a radical conservative), Thomas Dodd of Connecticut (a Democrat reprimanded by the Senate for corruption), and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina (a notorious racist, despite having fathered a daughter with a black woman).

Following on from the assassination of Lumumba, the Katangan lobby in the US and Europe lost its influence with the key deciders such as John F. Kennedy and Paul-Henri Spaak, the Belgian minister of Foreign Affairs. These men understood that in the context of the Cold War, the territorial integrity of Congo was more useful to the West than a secessionist province which would continue to sow dissent across Africa and in the Third World in general, in turn raising difficult questions about the West’s responsibility for the death of Lumumba. Besides, these deciders no longer perceived a great threat to the economic and strategic interests of the West in Central Africa, given the physical elimination of Lumumba and the marginalization of Lumumbists after Lovanium. It is within this context that Kennedy would give the green light for the UN to put an end to the secession with force. Taking place on 29th November 1962, the UN intervention succeeded, with an agreement of capitulation signed by Tshombe on 17 January 1983. Ironically, the restoration of national unity to which Lumumba had given his life was realised by the interests of the imperial powers and their puppets in the neo-colonial regime in Kinshasa.

These efforts succeeded in putting an end to the Lumumbist regime of Kisangani in August 1961, to the secession of Sud-Kasaï in September 1962 and to that of Katanga in January 1963. The end of these three regimes would consecrate the rise of General Mobutu and his clique, the Binza Group.

Lumumba’s Legacy

Hardly had this process of unification finished before a radical social movement pronouncing a ‘second independence’ rose up to contest the neo-colonial state in Kinshasa and its pro-Western leaders. This mass movement brought together peasants, workers, the urban unemployed and students, alongside low and mid-ranking officials, who found an enthusiastic leadership among the former lieutenants of Patrice Lumumba, of which the majority had reformed to create the Conseil National de Libération (CNL) in October 1963 in Brazzaville.

Divided on the field into two wings – the Kwilu front, led by Pierre Mulele, and the Eastern front under Christopher Gbenye, Gaston Soumialot and Laurent-Desiré Kabila – the strengths and weaknesses of the movement can be used to gauge the global heritage of Patrice Lumumba, for Congo and the whole of Africa. The most positive aspect of this legacy is reflected in Pierre Mulele’s dedication to a radical program of change to satisfy the deep aspirations of the Congolese people for democracy and social progress. On the other hand, the Lumumbists of the Eastern front were more interested in power, and the privileges it conferred, than in genuine social change. In the latter case, it was all rhetoric and no action. In effect, the challenge for all those who want to follow in the footsteps of Lumumba is to make the leap from words into action.

A struggle that is far from over…

According to unconfirmed reports, Walter Kansteiner – US Secretary of State for African Affairs under George W. Bush, between June 2001 and November 2003 – designed a plan for the division of Congo into four countries. The justification for such a Balkanisation would be that, in its present dimensions, the country is too large and ungovernable. For the extreme right of the US Republican Party, and those with interests in the resources of tropical Africa – as is the case with the family business W.H Kansteiner, Inc of Chicago – this would facilitate access to resources, and make their transfer to outside markets easier. Besides, if Rwanda and Uganda could play the role of facilitator, why not?

For those nostalgic for the ‘White Man’s Burden’, and their lackeys in Africa, the reality is that their project for the recolonization of Congo will always stumble against the determination of the Congolese people to defend their unity, their national patrimony, and the territorial integrity of their homeland. The legacy of Patrice Lumumba, Pierre Lulele, André Kisase Ngandu and so many other martyrs brings women, men and children to shout “No” to balkanization and “Yes” to a “United Congo, a strong nation.” Just as the progressive leaders of the struggle for independence chanted this slogan on the eve of the achievement of sovereignty – united and nationalistic men and women of integrity – the real children of Lumumba continue to defend, against the odds, the greater interests of the Congolese nation.

Article by Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja

Clarification Needed:Genuine Conscious Brothers vs Hotep Negroes(Part 2)

The last few years I’ve been hearing this term called “Fake Hoteps”.  I’ve also heard other terms like Hotep Niggas, Ankh Negroes,Phony Conscious brothers etc.  In the above video film producer/author/pick up artist Tariq Nasheed pokes fun at the conscious community.  He goes on to say that there are black men who claim to be conscious or “woke” but really aren’t.  I can’t lie, there’s some truth to what he says.  Tariq says he didn’t make his Hidden Colors films for the conscious community. And I believe him.  Tariq has written other books on how to pick up women and get them to do what you want.  One of his books it titled The Art of Macking.  Although I wouldn’t describe Tariq has a conscious black man but he brings up valid points in this video.  He watches videos by real African scholars,collect notes then makes a film from it.  And he’s making money in the process. I’m not hating on him.  Most of the black history he had in the original Hidden Colors I already knew.  I already know 90% of everything in all his films.  So he’s not teaching me much but I think it’s good that he was able to educate some brothers and sisters.

Hotep1

Look at that pic above.  This is the type of memes I found while searching the internet. Yeah I’m sure many of you think he looks silly right? Don’t get me wrong now.  I do consider myself a conscious black man.  But I have a sense of humor and can laugh at myself.  I think many people think conscious people are super serious 24/7.  No that is not the case.  Conscious people like to laugh,tell jokes,have dinner with family and friends,make love and see a good movie.  We do everything that most other people do.  And I try to be open minded as best I can. But I still have my morals and belief system.   And if you’re a genuine conscious brother you will hold fast to your ideals. Now back to what Tariq was talking about. He says half of the conscious community is full of crap. I think he’s talking about the guys who have become well known in the conscious circuit.  Some of the names are guys like Brother Polight,Minister Enqi,Sara Suten Seti,Professor Griff,Red Pill and Blue Pill,King Noble,Iman Bashir..among others.  A lot of times they have lectures and debate against one another.  Some of them follow Kemetic knowledge,some are Moors or Hebrews.  And they debate each other on who has the best solution for black people.  It’s basically a knowledge battle.  And one of the ring leaders is a guy named Sa Neter. He’s known as the “Don King of Consciousness”.  It was entertaining to watch some of these debates at first but it quickly got old real fast!  They maybe cashing in by having these debates but what’s the end game?  Shouldn’t we be talking about nation building?  What about a black nation?  Rebuilding another Black Wallstreet?  Nope!  These guys are too busy verbally masturbating when we should be concentrating on solutions for our people.  They can’t even put aside their religious views and find common ground.

Umar Johnson used to hand out with these guys but he said he cut them off once he realized they weren’t about moving black people forward. I honestly can’t be mad at Umar for that. Tariq Nasheed also talked about fake hoteps who manipulate women to get them in bed.  Manipulation?? That’s kind of funny coming from a guy who writes about how to get women in bed himself.  But I digress.  He is correct that these some of these fake conscious guys do use women. They like to say they have “knowledge of self” but are really just saying that to sound deep. They may have read one or two books on Africa and watched Hidden Colors and now they think their scholars.  It’s also a way to impress women to get what they want from them.  To be honest there’s nothing new about men manipulating women to get them in bed.  Many men will say anything to achieve that goal.  And they come from all walks of life.  There are men who are cops,plumbers,garbage men,judges,athletes,lawyers..who all lie to women.  And all races of men do this as well. White men,Mexicans,Puerto Ricans,Asians etc.  So what is the big deal with fake hoteps doing it?  I think many women find it hurtful because these guys CLAIM to be conscious when they really are far from it. I think that’s where much of the anger is coming from. They’re claiming to be different then other guys but aren’t really conscious. Or they are what I call semi-conscious.

Hotep2

Are there other definitions of fake Hoteps? Check out the pic above.  I found it very interesting.  People who are race conscious will have varying views.  And black men who are conscious are no different.  You can’t put all conscious black men in a box.  I personally don’t condone homosexuality or lesbianism.  Anyone who follows my blog already knows this.  I find homosexuality abnormal and I believe it’s anti-life and goes against nature.  However there are some in the conscious community who disagree.  Some feel as though it’s okay as long as they don’t push the lifestyle on others.  I don’t think gay people should be killed or harmed.  But I don’t think that lifestyle is productive for African people.  And I have a right to my beliefs??    I believe the LGBTQ community wants everyone in the known universe to accept their sexual perversion.  And if you don’t it means you’re a hater or a close minded bigot.  Or their favorite…you suffer from homophobia.  That is utterly ridiculous!  I’m not afraid of homosexuals!  I think they’re more afraid of people who have a enough courage to speak their mind.  Some of us are not brainwashed by the pro-gay,anti-black media.

Then there is the belief that many black men are misogynist.   I believe there is some truth to this.  But there are black men who are conscious and unconscious that are misogynistic.  But you can’t put that ONLY on the conscious brothers.  There are mysogynistic men in all walks of life. But what is a misogynist anyway?

Misogynist: A person who dislikes,despises or strongly prejudiced against women.

Well I for one do not hate black women.  Why would I?  I was raised by a wonderful mother and I have great aunts,grandmothers and female cousins.  I have no hatred or resentment towards women. I have a right to my opinion and I can disagree with a sista.  If I disagree with a woman does that make me a misogynist?? No it does not.  There will always be disagreements in discussions.  I believe that there needs to be mutual respect on both sides.  And we’re all adults so we can agree to disagree on a matter.  But there should be no hatred or resentment because of  a difference of viewpoints.   You can call me strong willed.  Or call me opinionated but not misogynistic. I think the real problem we are dealing with is we all have a different consciousness due to living under white supremacy.  The core issue with talk about fake hoteps and fake Bohemian chicks is this. Its a battle between Knowledge of self vs wallowing in ignorance.  Many of our people love anti-blackness. We have been taught to hate to hate ourselves after 400 years plus of captivity.  And because of that we don’t like to hear about bettering ourselves,learning your history,embracing Africa,respecting women,rejecting white standards, and raising your consciousness. Many of us don’t want to do that. We rather watch stupid sitcoms that make fun of black people. Watch television shows like Power,Scandal,Blackish and Empire that promote images of blacks as thugs,drug dealers,whores,interracial daters,cut throat murderers and buffoons.  So naturally anyone who claims to be conscious or an intelligent black man or woman is seen as an enemy. Too many of our people are don’t respect black people(anti-blackness) so they don’t take your consciousness seriously.  They believe all who claim to be conscious are just phony people who want to sound deep and smarter than everyone else.   I understand we are all a work in progress.  I’ve been on this journey of learning about our people and culture for over fifteen years.  I first read books by Chancellor Williams,Carol Barnes,John Henrik Clarke,Dr Ben,Ivan Van Sertima,Marimba Ani,Frances Cress Welsing,Llaila Afrika,Amos Wilson, Runoko Rashidi,Cheikh Anta Diop,Queen Afua,Bobby Wright and Mwalimu Baruti.  I later started collecting dvd’s by Dr Sebi,Phil Valentine,Anthony Browder,Bobby Hemmitt,Leonard Jeffries,James Smalls,Jewel Pookrum and Richard King.  If you are not a familiar with these names I suggest you look them up. Many of them have videos on YouTube.  But YouTube debuted back in 2005. I was on this journey long before then.  I was studying African culture and history long before there was even a term such as fake hotep.  But it shows me that the contempt for knowledge and higher consciousness is growing.  The racist white supremacists that control Facebook,Youtube,Yahoo and Google have done a great job pushing black self hatred and black degradation.  You know it’s bad when intelligence,consciousness,honor and black self respect is looked down upon.  We have really hit an all time low as a people.

I’ll end this post in the best way possible.  This is a great video by one of the most brilliant minds I have ever come across. Amos Wilson was an author,Pan African thinker and psychologist.  There’s a reason most black people have never heard of him.  It’s because he had real solutions fro building black economy and a black nation.  He taught about black dignity and self respect.  So you can see why he’s pretty unknown in the mainstream media.  The give us these silly negroes like Cornel West,Al Sharpton,Jesse Jackson and Michael Eric Dyson.  They are just paid to mislead black people.  But Amos spoke the truth to his people.  Even if we didn’t want to hear it.  In this video he explains the power of consciousness.  And how a persons consciousness shapes the world around them.  And the consciousness of black people is seriously warped.  And if we want to move forward as a people this has to change.  I believe time is slowly running out for our people.  There will come a time when all the labels(Pro-black,feminist,conscious,man hater,educated,ignorant,woman basher) probably wont matter anymore.  The question is  will we wake up in time? Or will many of us become “conscious” when it’s too late? Peace my brothers and sistas.  And oh yeah…..Hotep!