My last post was about who is black/African. But for part two I wanted to address the idea of race mixing. It has been an issue for hundreds of years. And for black people at this moment in time it’s a serious issue. Black people have been taught by this racist society that looking African is a bad thing. We are taught that being black means being ugly and inferior. So I ask the question…is being mixed race better? is being less black-looking better? In this racist culture many people would say it does. many black people that are full of self hatred would agree for sure. This video(above) is very disturbing for many reasons. This black women has obviously lost her damn mind. This braindead fool thinks a “super race” will be created by race mixing. She doesn’t believe in black power or black unity. She talks about the greatness of having melanin and seeing the greatness in yourself. Which is no a bad thing. But she’s talking only about the greatness of black women and how they will birth the new “super race”. She talking about giving the black womb to other races of men other than black men. Is this black greatness? is making mix raced babies the answer to racism? She sounds very intelligent and articulate. But I’m not falling for her nonsense. It sounds like just an excuse to hate black men and promote swirling. This woman is clearly delusional.
Then of course there is the issue of the “one drop rule”. This is the belief that a if a person is even partially black they must be considered a black/African person. The video above is very good. The narrator explains in a very analytical way how the one drop rule is destructive for black people. The definition give for the one drop rule is the following:
“The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of Saharan-African ancestry (“one drop” of black blood) is considered black (Negro in historical terms). This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into law in the 20th century. It was associated with the principle of “invisible blackness” and is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status.“
We can no longer fall for this propaganda. This is an obvious attack on melanin and black genetics. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Who is black? What is an African? This is a question I have been thinking about the last few years. Mainly because I have seen many debates on YouTube,Twitter and Facebook on who is a black person. It’s a hot topic that just wont seem to go away. I think the fact that people are debating it must mean many of us are still very confused. Why is that? Why is the black collective so confused about our own identity? The video(above) is really good. I know for some it might seem offensive. But you can tell that the speaker has really analyzed this issue. It’s a very touchy subject that most black people want to run away from.
This picture(above) shows different African women around the world. And of course there are people of African descent in America,Canada and the United Kingdom. Some people say many of us are mixed raced people. Some say we come in different shades because of years of race mixing. I will address race mixing in part two of this series. I personally don’t think race mixing is good for the black collective. It seems to cause more confusion more than anything else. But I guess the real question is how is a black person defined? What do Africans look like? How are Africans classified?
Fellow blogger C.C. Saunders stated this about blackness:
“Blackness is not limited to a skin color, but it is a state of being, an incomparable experience prompted by skin color, facial features, body type and hair texture. Omitting any identifying attribute allots a significant privilege absent from the lifetime of any black person possessing these attributes in entirety. However, melanin, while a chief component of blackness, does not encompass the totality of blackness. To distinguish between black and melanated is essential to understanding blackness as a collective identity.”
Blogger Amos Magazine said this about African people:
“Prior to the enslavement of West and Central Africans, Africans had certain traits and certain biological markers that made them a separate distinct group. Africans prior to 1500 and prior to the infamous fictitious Willie Lynch Letter had traits. Africans prior to the invasion of Arabs, Berbers and other West Asian people had skin color from brown to dark brown. This is an African trait. Africans had one common hair texture. Yes, Europeans upon arriving in what today is called Rwanda did notice that many Africans were a lighter shade of Brown from other Africans. But they were not yellow or near white. They were simply a pecan brown color as compared to the dark chocolate color of the other group. They used these slight differences in order to pit one group against on another. Today, DNA* test (* because there are holes in this science) show that the Hutu and Tutsi were actually the same people and that Hutu and Tutsi were actually social status. Now Negros will use to in order to say mulattoes are Africans. ***(3star concepts mean this is something to pay special attention to) ***The Tutsi who were divided into people of a lighter hue of brown were not products of mixed raced sexual relationships. My opponents will purposely leave this out in order to compare a mulatto vs. an authentic African or an authentic disasporic Africans.”
Blogger Bhekizitha breaks it down from a biological standpoint:
“An African / Black person is clearly visually a “close” descendant of people from East Africa, a region comprised of countries now known as Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. Their color variation ranges from bronze, dark reddish-brown, dark or nut brown, dark-chocolate color plus “peppercorn” hair.”
This video(above) is very interesting. I first saw this video about four years ago. It’s the author Supreme Understanding. He has authored books such as How to Hustle and Win,Knowledge of Self and Black God. I’ve read a few of his books. I must admit that he knows quite a bit about black history and African culture. But he’s not African…he’s an Indian man. Years ago I remember seeing him in a picture with his black wife. In this video he says that being black is color,culture and consciousness. So he’s saying it’s not just physical traits that make you black. So if a Mexican,Indian or Asian man listens to rap music,studies African culture and has a black wife…..that makes him black? So it’s just about having a black consciousness? This can create a problem in the long run.
This picture(above) is from Supreme Understanding’s website. It’s titled What is Black? Looking at the pictures you can see all these dark skinned people from India,China,Pacific Islands,Malaysia and Australia. But are these people really Africans? Or do they have racial admixture? Were the original inhabitants of Australia or India really Africans? And if so,what does it mean for black people today? I think black people really like to be all inclusive. We like hearing that our ancestors were all over the world and created civilizations. That’s very true to a large extent. And to many of us we have a dream of creating some type of racial utopia. A world in which all people who have some melanin are brothers and sisters. But this is not reality. There will always be racial and cultural divisions. Just because you have dark skinned people in India and Malaysia doesn’t mean they can relate to a black person in America. The culture of a dark skinned Aborigine in Australia is totally different than a black person living in Jamaica. I always promote black unity,black love and black power on this blog. But you can’t have any type of unity if you can’t even decide who is black and who is not black. How can you have any type of cohesiveness when there are no clear cut definitions on your identity? And this is why the video by Supreme is problematic. He believes that all “people of color” are fighting against a white power structure. Therefore we are all in this fight together. But my thinking is that why can’t we fight a racist society and still maintain our own unique racial identity. Why does everyone with a little bit of color have to be considered black? By making everyone black…no one is really black. Our unique blackness gets lost in the process. Chinese people don’t have this problem. They don’t accept just anyone who might have their physical traits. I’ve seen Hispanics with a yellowish skin tone but they are not seen as Chinese. I’ve seen people that were biracial(Black/Chinese) with slanted eyes. But just because they had slanted eyes,Chinese people still don’t see them as one of them. By doing this it helps them stay homogeneous. They are able to maintain their racial identity. And this is something black/African people must keep in mind when want to distinguish ourselves from other groups. By letting anyone claim “blackness” it devalues those that are black in the process.
Take a real good look at this person. This is a black man. Or is it? Well I guess it depends on who you ask. This person on the cover of Metro Weekly is Janet Mock. The tagline on the magazine says “mighty real”. Which is very misleading since there is not much real when looking at this cover. You see Janet Mock was born a man. Which means he has a penis. As far as I know he hasn’t had his penis removed so he’s still a man. But that’s my definition. But according to this deranged European culture I’m living in I’m supposed to call him a woman. But isn’t Janet just a man in a dress? If I put on an astronaut suit does it make me an astronaut? If I paint myself white does it make me a white man? I wouldn’t think so. But the fact they we have to call these people a certain gender because it’s what they “feel” like shows you we are way off course. We have really lost our minds.
And what’s really scary is that more and more black people are accepting this false reality. One of the most popular men in this transgender movement is Laverne Cox(pic above). Cox has been on numerous mainstream magazine covers. He’s been on so many I’ve lost count. Covers that many authentic black women have never been on. Why is that? Is the racist white media trying to redefine black womanhood? Are they trying to portray black women as more masculine by having men imitate them? Sure looks like it to me. I think it’s a way to destroy the divine feminine principle. It seems like a combination of both sexism and racism. In a way it’s an insult to both black men and women. Are they trying to get rid of black alpha males? This is really sick and twisted!
Then we have actor Amiyah Scott. Amiyah is on the drama Star. Star is produced by well known homosexual Lee Daniels. Much like his other show Empire,Star is full of masculine lesbians,homosexuals,transgenders,violence,crime and interracial sex. All the things Daniels loves to portray as normal for the black community. By having more transgenders on network television it normalizes it. Which is the purpose in my view.
I don’t really follow the transgender/homosexual culture so I never knew about this. But they actually have transgender contests. It’s really big in Atlanta. The video(above) is a contest in which men compete to see who looks the most like a woman. It’s called the “I AM BALL” contest. I could tell they were all men so I don’t know how the hell you pick a winner.
Not to be left out but they also have a competition for a female to male transition. This is were females compete to see who looks the most like a man. This is really crazy to watch. I can’t believe they actually have a contest for this type of thing. What the hell is going on in Atlanta? I thought it was knows as “Black Mecca”. Is this what our people are now embracing?
Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche is a Nigerian writer of novels and short stories. In the video(above) she says that you can’t compare the struggles of women that were born women with transwomen. She says that it’s not the same thing because they have been women since birth. Just so you know the term being used today is cisgender. You will hear terms like cis male or cis female. Which means “male assigned male at birth”. Assigned?? I thought that you are whatever you were at birth. But you see how they’re making up all these terms to confuse us. Well at any rate Adiche was attacked by actor Laverne Cox. Cox disagreed with Adiche’s statement. Although she didn’t address Adiche directly,here’s the statement by Cox:
“I was talking to my twin brother today about whether he believes I had male privilege growing up. I was a very feminine child though I was assigned male at birth. My gender was constantly policed. I was told I acted like a girl and was bullied and shamed for that. My femininity did not make me feel privileged. I was a good student and was very much encouraged because of that but I saw cis girls who showed academic promise being nurtured in the black community I grew up in in Mobile, Ala. Gender exists on a spectrum & the binary narrative which suggests that all trans women transition from male privilege erases a lot of experiences and isn’t intersectional. Gender is constituted differently based on the culture we live in. There’s no universal experience of gender, of womanhood. To suggest that is essentialist & again not intersectional. Many of our feminist foremothers cautioned against such essentialism & not having an intersectional approach to feminism. Class, race, sexuality, ability, immigration status, education all influence the ways in which we experience privilege so though I was assigned male at birth I would contend that I did not enjoy male privilege prior to my transition. Patriarchy and cissexism punished my femininity and gender nonconformity. The irony of my life is prior to transition I was called a girl and after I am often called a man. Gender policing & the fact that gender binaries can only exist through strict policing complicates the concept of gendered privilege & that’s OK cause it’s complicated. Intersectionality complicates both male and cis privilege. This is why it is paramount that we continue to lift up diverse trans stories. For too many years there’s been far too few trans stories in the media. For over 60 years since Christine Jorgensen stepped off the plane from Europe and became the first internationally known trans woman the narrative about trans folks in the media was one of macho guy becomes a woman. That’s certainly not my story or the stories of many trans folks I know. That narrative often works to reinforce binaries rather than explode them. That explosion is the gender revolution I imagine,one of true gender self determination.”
What was this garbage? This Cox character has lost his mind! All this talk of gender policing and gender binaries is total nonsense. He was assigned male at birth because he is a MAN. It’s just that simple. All these terms are just going to confuse the younger generation. They will see homosexuals,lesbians and transgenders as just normal behavior. This is why men like Cox,Janet Mock and Amiyah Scott are given books and television appearances.
This is another reason people are debating gender neutral restrooms. Why is this even a debate? A man in a dress should not be able to go into a women’s restroom. There are little girls in there. No one wants a man pretending to be a woman in a women’s restrooms. And I don’t think most men would want a transgender men in a men’s restroom. This shows you how sick European culture has become. It is going right down the toilet. And this is all by design. And this is a serious issue for black people because we live among them. It is destroying how we view sexuality and womanhood. As I said before I think it’s a way of redefining black womanhood. And to destroy the divine feminine principle. I hope black people are paying attention. We are truly living in Hell.
I remember when I was younger there was the sitcom Different Strokes(1978-1986). It starred Gary Coleman,Todd Bridges,Conrad Bain and Dana Plato. Coleman and Bridges played two black brothers from Harlem. When their mother passed away they were adopted by white wealthy businessman Phillip Drummond. Even back then they were giving us the “white savior” propaganda. Hollywood is known for giving us this type of garbage.
Different Strokes was a huge success in the eighties. So of course Hollywood tried to duplicate it again. They created the show Webster(1983-1989). The show starred child actor Emmanuel Lewis. The plot was about a little black boy who lost his parents in a car crash. They even used the same plot as Different Strokes. They couldn’t even be creative and come up with a different storyline. Don’t be fooled by these shows. They were not just sweet and innocent sitcoms. They had an agenda. It’s obvious these sitcoms were geared towards black people. They were designed to make us believe that whites are our saviors and we should look to them for guidance and acceptance. They want us to forget that they lynched us,raped us and enslaved us for hundreds of years and was never paid back even after we were “freed”. During slavery we lost our language,customs and cultural identity. We were treated less then humans. Dogs get more respect than black people. Which is why sitcoms like this are so dangerous. It makes us believe the fallacy that our oppressors are our friends. Now we emulate Europeans in every way. Television and films have a way of altering black consciousness. We speak English or Spanish,dress like them,wear the same clothes they do and eat the same food. This puts European in a parental position. And after years of social engineering they have become our psychological parents. When black men dress and talk like white men he is imitating a white man. If he thinks black women are ugly and worthless he is imitating a white man. If he beats up black women he’s imitating white men. When a black woman wears a blonde weave and blue contacts she’s imitating a white woman. When a black woman feels all black men are useless losers she has the mind of a white woman. It reminds me of a quote by the great Pan African/psychologist Amos Wilson once said. Wilson said that every one has a biological father and psychological father. Wilson also mentioned that even when black men get involved with crime he is imitating his criminal white father.
Amos Wilson summed it up best:
“As long as the “black man” is involved in “black-on-black violence and crime” (unwarranted internal conflict: “gang turf battles,” “civil wars” and otherwise), he, then, will not have time to engage in what must be his true mission: THE OVERTHROW OF EUROPEAN DOMINATION! As I’ve often said, our attention must be diverted . As I said, once in a psychology class, why do so many “black men” kill other “black men?” Is because they have not yet decided to kill white men. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH! THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH! The cowardly black man has not yet decided to really deal with his true enemy! And, he displaces his frustration and his cowardice upon his own people. He attacks and uses his own, and he abuses his women and uses his children, and terrorizes his community (nation). He is great and bold to take out a gun (his army) to blow away another black man’s brain , but he has yet to take up the gun (use his army) and blow out the brain of his true enemy (stop alien exploitation, domination, encroachment, etc.).
He would march around the world and shoot some other man, but he won’t take up the arms against his true enemy. He can only, then, prove his “boldness” by an attack on his own, and by the destruction of his own. I do not see a common black criminal as a revolutionary. Because the common black criminal have the same motivation as the white ruling and middle classes. The white ruling and middle classes got a BMW, he wants a BMW. So if it means selling poison to our children, he sells poison to our children. If it means terrorizing the African community (robbing the coffers of African nations) to get the BMW (white/alien men’s status symbols), he’s going to do it. In other words, he approaches his world thieving, killing, etc., the same way his psychological father approaches the world: thieving, killing, etc. Everywhere this white man has stepped in the world there have been thieving, killing, etc.
The black criminal is but an imitator of his “psychological white father”. Therefore, we have “black-on-black crime and violence,” and “black-on-black crime and violence” is a necessity (assures politico-socioeconomic destabilization) for European power. It’s not the intention for whites to remove crime in the African community (end internal conflicts in African nations), it is their intentions to contain crime to the African community. You talk about the corruption of the police: it’s easy to corrupt a police man/woman when he/she is guarding a people that they do not care about (identify with). And when the corruption of those people he/she is guarding ultimately…MAINTAINS THE POWER POSITION!