Why I will not be seeing Wonder Woman

Black Wonder Woman....jpg

I almost did it. I selected a theatre and even looked up showtimes. As I began to mentally assemble my outfit and rework my schedule to accommodate viewing the film, I realized that I was all too familiar with this story.

Wonder Woman is yet another page in the consistent white female narrative designed to portray white beauty intertwined with an earthly anglicism. I need not see this film to know that it will portray the white Woman as the catalyst for all things good in a “bad” world.

Contrary to the ideally nurtured in the western world, the bad is seldom blatant. Both the individual and the collective have a fair chance at combatting that which they can see. The true “bad” in the world lies in Wonder Woman-like figures, whose embedded message seeks to uplift through depicting the very exclusivity that dominates the western hemisphere.

Wonder Women debuts in a climate that veils this exclusivity with the implication of “change.” Seemingly every film and television series has adopted the feminist agenda, avidly if not aggressively, feeding this fictive utopia to the masses. The film exists to promote feminism as the cure to all worldly evils, omitting of course that feminism is a worldly evil. Clad in a form-fitting costume with long and silky dark hair, Wonder Woman encompasses the conventional sexiness of a blonde with the rarity of a red head to project feminism as the height of femininity. Wonder Woman is a dark haired, dark- eyed white Woman–the pseudo “every woman” in seeming to encompass lightness and darkness simultaneously. What the casual gaze may fail to see, is that Wonder Woman resembles her target audience, and encompasses all her acquired audience wishes to become.  Her dark hair provides a strategic contrast to her fair skin, painting the “Wonder” of wonder woman as encompassing the figurative light to societal conflict or darkness.

The wonder in Wonder Woman is that she embodies the antidote to all the world’s problems. She’s Helen of Troy mixed with Hilary Clinton–a savior to white women but a mortal enemy to the woman of a darker hue.

Cinderella.....

Western childhood functions similar to this film, painting the white Woman as Wonder Woman in far less attractive variants. From the abundant white female school teachers, to the tooth fairy, Mrs. Claus, every princess from Cinderella to Snow White, the white female body is a consistent figure of humanity to the western gaze.  These figures function to embed into the black female psyche what “Superman” and “Batman” seek to implement into the general western psyche–that if you are white, anything is possible.

But as the young girl who reads these stories, attends these schools and watches these figures on television grows up, the fantasy of Wonder Woman vanishes into reality.  Instead the harsh world eventually prompts the once naive black body to wonder what was ever wonderful about these pristine figures of their childhood. Although portrayed as the hero in fictive and real scenarios, the white woman is gradually unveiled as an inevitable villain to the black female body.

So, as a black woman, I know this film functions as erasure. I know this film functions to seduce me into a amnesiac state where I falsely separate white female action and intention from white male supremacists. From the white women who chase our black men than scream rape when it goes sour, or objectify our wealthy black men as cash registers, or reduce the quotidian black man to his genitals, to the white women who abrasively target black women at work, back to the very white women who tormented the black female slaves—this movie functions to force the black psyche to accept a white hero, despite centuries of white female villainy.

White heroes, whether male, female, trans, or what have you, are never capable of saving anyone but themselves. For healing is incompatible to the autocrat, who decorates their lives with the blood of the oppressed.

Wonder Woman

Therefore, the true wonder woman will never occupy a leading role in mainstream film. She probably will never make six figures and is unlikely to rouse a shallow gaze on the street.

The true wonder woman has probably yet to arrive home from her twelve-hour work-day, her twenty-four hour job as a mother, or full- time victim of white supremacy. The true Wonder Woman sleeps at night with a six-figure debt heavy on her conscious from daring to dream outside of the confines of systemic oppression. She walks through a neighborhood of businesses owned by any and everyone but those who look like her. She faces ridicule for her skin tone, her nose, and curvy body and faces countless queries if her beauty or attributes are deemed outside the scope of blackness.  The true wonder woman is literally and figuratively raped, never respected, or rewarded. She is frozen in time, pieces of her flesh still floating throughout the Atlantic Ocean, or concealed in an unmarked grave beneath a skyscraper. She is dismembered by a system who uses her limbs to assemble their privilege and writes their laws in her blood.

She is the unspoken gospel of this poached land—the original statue of liberty—the feminine mold to which every race, ethnicity, and creed stealthy covets.

The Wonder Woman film exists to place the “wonder” into the woman concept. As a being excluded from this concept, I replace wonder with “black.” For the black woman does not need wonder, she is wonder. Furthermore, members of the black female collective need not go to the movies to view this fictive wonder woman—they must simply look in the mirror.

Article by CC Saunders

N*ggerizing the Contemporary Black Body,Bill Maher uses the N word

Bill Maher1...

It happened for the first time when I was seventeen.

I was interning for a local politician in Fresh Meadows, Queens. The environment was a predominately white office perched in an affluent neighborhood. My parents were over-protective and would not let me go onto the street and hand out literature, so most of my time was spent handling office duties—and as I would learn, engaging office politics.

One day while inserting data, a young white man rehashed an event that happened at Howard Beach. Rather than give an overview of the event, he decided to recite a racially charged graffiti act verbatim. The epithet read “f*ck all you n*ggers.” After reciting these words, he looked straight into my face, seemingly searching for something that I refused to acknowledge by returning his piercing gaze.

A similar event would occur years later in an interaction with a racial psychopath I mistook for a friend. Similar to my first experience, my pseudo friend expressed outrage in the use of a racial epithet, yet took it upon herself to repeat her uncle’s use of the word n*gger.  Like the previous incident, she too stared in my face as she uttered the term, a gaze I saw in my peripheral because I had refused her longing gaze. This same friend would go on to show me her white boyfriend dressed in blackface for Halloween. We have since lost touch, her face dissipated into a grudging appreciation for presenting a necessary evil to awaken my consciousness.

These particular incidents illustrate the antiracist efforts implemented by whites uncomfortable with black presence, working to transfer their discomfort onto the oppressed black body. This transfer is never painless. Rather it reflects the evil deemed necessary to maintain a fictive whiteness. The black body has historically been used a canvass for western anxiety, making the n word a common painting drawn on the black body to appease the demands of a white supremacist hierarchy.

Despite having the opposite effect, these incidents overtly functioned to distance the individual white body from their racist collective– an impossible, and disingenuous feat given the racial climate that defines America. It is this racial climate that predisposes any antiracist effort to inevitably help not hinder white supremacy.

Flash forward to this past semester. The setting is a writing course at a private university in New York City. To introduce a unit on critical queries I play Jadakiss’s “Why?” I am sure to play the clean version because as a black female on a journey to conscious, I have no place for expletives in my life let alone my classroom. Yet despite my efforts, when prompted to respond to a question in the song, a white female student stated “Why N*ggas can’t get no job?” despite the version played in class that stated “Why brothers can’t get no job?”

To which I responded “what did you say?”
She then proceeded to repeat the sentence and epithet. Every student in the class looked down. But, the worst is yet to come. When confronted about her word use she became combative and argumentative. This is the issue with the n word.

Is it an issue that white people use the n word? Yes. But this is not racism. It seems an essential component of oppression to preoccupy the oppressed with branches of racism and not the roots. Take for example the often unpleasant white and foreign businessmen that dominate black communities throughout America. Is it a problem that they are often unpleasant? Yes. Is this racist? No.

It is racist that the white and non-black foreigner monopolizes black economy—taking our money out of our communities. It is racist that the American system is designed to prevent black business ownership. Racism is the systemic action and language seen in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It is the societal hierarchy white people observe in every aspect of western culture. Using the n word is yet another means for white people to assume their acquired hierarchy over black bodies. This student used the n word in the classroom of a black female instructor and fought for the right to use a racially offensive term–that’s racism. Bill Maher illustrated a similar dynamic in his use of the n-word Friday evening.

Bill Maher welcomed guest Senator Ben Sasse on his HBO show “Real Time” in which the pair joked about the fields of Nebraska. When invited to “work the fields” by Sasse, Maher responded “I’m a house n*gger” to a reserved laughter from his audience, to which he expressed his gratitude.

Was Maher wrong for using the n word? Yes. But this was far from the first racist comment Maher has made and won’t be the last. It seems his sexual fetish for black Women serves as a means to validate his racial insensitivity to those foolish enough to believe that having sex with blacks makes forgives their racist tendencies. The very house slaves that he references were both products and victims of the white slave masters, and it is this ignored context that composes the core issue here.

The historical trajectory of black bodies in this country is not funny. The means for initial western wealth, who received cyclical disenfranchisement in exchange for centuries of labor, is hardly a laughing matter, at least for those robbed. In using the n word, the white person induces a collective amnesia that when retrieved portrays the retriever as “living in the past” or “playing the race card.”

Blacks have yet to receive reparations or even inclusion into canonical history for providing the greatest sacrifice for this country, so it seems a fractional effort for the western world to retire an epithet used to verbally subjugate the black body.

So why can’t the word be laid to rest?

The answer is simple, it bears too much power.

Many will say that “n*gger” is “just a word” and blacks put “too much emphasis” on this word. But it was never blacks who put too much emphasis on a term foreign to their indigenous tongue. This was never our word, rather the word is conjured from white creation solely to conceptualize black denigration. Yes, it’s an issue that blacks use the word. But until the black collective maintains power in economics, media, employment and housing , they lack the ability to be racist. Furthermore, it is not the black collective who have issues getting over themselves, it is the white collective that expresses difficulty “getting over” their fictive placement on a stolen land.

The abducted African remains the foundation for western wealth, and their significance much like the emaciated and overworked bodies have dissolved into the stolen American soil. Yet instead of sprouting seeds of progress, this soil breeds a continued oppression of black bodies. This oppression is perhaps most evident in the western words implication that colloquial or comedic use of the term “n*gger” symbolizes racial progress.

Thus, in waiting for the term’s retirement, the black collective anticipates the impossible–for the white world to take a small step to relinquish their systemic power. The term was implemented as a means to maintain a position above the black body, and whites continue to use the term publicly for the same reasons. Maher, could have easily, and I’m sure he and the majority of whites do, used the n word off camera. The decision to do so publicly was because he could. Similarly, in my provided examples, each white individual used this racial epithet in a public place, drunk off a systemic white power that conceives every public space as subject to white domination.

The sadistic white mind— historically inebriated off power—assumes the height of racial psychopathy in staring into the black collective and calling them what every stolen opportunity, every stolen dollar, and every drowned, whipped, lynched, burned and raped ancestor symbolizes in past and present America.

Interestingly, this gaze into the black eye, is a central component of my two earlier examples. Notably, both acts seemed centered on not just saying the word to a black person, but staring them in the eye as they did so. I align said behavior with the traditional racial psychopath who looked blacks in the eye as they raped them, who looked as black flesh was chewed by dogs, who watched the life leave a black body during public lynchings. Namely, my mind thinks of the late Claude Neal and the white eyes that watched his flesh be torn from his body and jammed down his throat in a torture murder that lasted several hours. Let us not forget the white gazes that purchased the mutilated portraits of black bodies, and those who purchased black limbs ripped from their bodies in mob attacks.

White desire to induce and see pain illustrates white assemblage as contingent on black dismemberment—substantiating the white collective as what Dr. Bobby Wright labeled a racial psychopath who performs evil with no conscious.

Maher does a similar act in staring down the contemporary pain of the black collective, and mocking the very institution that proved a platform for his lucrative whiteness and conventional success. His ability to stare into the collective gaze of the black collective and use a term that  jests the narrative of the abducted African violates the black body in the same manner as a lynching or rape.

Using the n-word is a socially accepted means to verbally assault the black body. The word does not function with the simplicity of an article, or the certainty of a noun. For the “n*gger” is no person, place or thing, it is an action. In a 2007 essay for The Atlantic entitle N*ggerization, Cornel West defines “n*ggerization” as the following:

N*ggerization is neither simply the dishonoring and devaluing of black people nor solely the economic exploitation and political disenfranchisement of them. It is also the wholesale attempt to impede democratization—to turn potential citizens into intimidated, fearful, and helpless subjects.

To use the word “nIgger” is an attempt to “n*ggerize,” to subject the black body to a verbal bludgeoning that ties the contemporary black body to a tree beside the ghosts of their ancestors, bare-backed and anticipating the physical wrath of white supremacy designed to force the black mind to mentally acquiesce to inferiority.

Therefore, it goes without saying that Maher’s apology is as insufficient as it is insincere. It also goes without saying that Maher should lose his job. Although it is doubtful that he was every deserving of such visibility anyhow.  Nevertheless, whether fired or not, Maher’s fate will not stop racism. Who knows, Maher may have a clause in his contract that promises a huge payout if fired. He is also at the end of his career, and in addition to being a white man in America, it is guaranteed that Maher will not suffer, because earth is not hell for whites. Thus, it is not his job that the conscious community desires Maher to lose, it is his privilege.

Will the heat of hell change the setting? No, just as firing Maher will not end black suffering. If Maher does get fired the firing will function to imply that the world has “come a long way,” despite occurring in a world where Bill O’Reilly can get fired for “sexual misconduct” but cops are not fired for murdering black men, women or children.

It will also serve as the foregrounds for firing blacks who saying things like “white people,” “pass the crackers” or even “white privilege.” As an oppressed group, we must be sure not to misconstrue what appears to be an opportunity for progress for what it is—an opportunity. Nothing in America has been said or done for the sole purpose of helping blacks, and America proceeds cyclically not linear.

Welfare, affirmative action, diversity initiatives, financial aid, etc all function to aid whites, despite seeming to provide opportunities to the disenfranchised. Moreover, in accordance with the historical trajectory of a country established on the spilled blood of those labeled “other,” the white world will find a way to turn n-word, a source of collective black pain, into a gain for whites.

Article by CC Saunders

Are White people our psychological parents?

Diff'rent Strokes

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.

webster

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!

Housing Projects:Human Experiments on Black Self Destruction

In 2004, white people looked back on the history of western psychology and proposed a list of “Forty Studies that Changed Psychology.” Joined by papers from freud, pavlov, milgram and skinner, calhoun’s “Population Density and Social Pathology” (1962) captured the white imagination with hundreds of citations and many references in pop culture including novels, comic books and films. It’s impact on Black life is unquestionable; yet despite its Black impact or white popularity, you’d be hard pressed to find a Black person cognizant of its content. Fortunately, the reading man is a ready man, and not only can a reader find the research, a reader can even find several summaries:

[Observations made of rats which were supplied with unlimited food but limited space {in high-rises no less} showed that:] Dominant males became aggressive, some moving in groups, attacking females and the young. Mating behaviors were disrupted. Some became exclusively homosexual. Others became pansexual and hypersexual, attempting to mount any rat they encountered. Mothers neglected their infants, first failing to construct proper nests, and then carelessly abandoning and even attacking their pups. In certain sections of the pens, infant mortality rose as high as 96%, the dead cannibalized by adults. Subordinate animals withdrew psychologically, surviving in a physical sense but at an immense psychological cost. They were the majority in the late phases of growth, existing as a vacant, huddled mass in the centre of the pens. Unable to breed, the population plummeted and did not recover. The crowded rodents had lost the ability to co-exist harmoniously, even after the population numbers once again fell to low levels. At a certain density, they had ceased to act like rats and mice, and the change was permanent.

In essence, the government-funded calhoun correlated population density with social pathologies and since then Black people have been herded into population dense housing projects and riddled with identical social pathologies: street gangs, confused mating, neglectful mothers, child abandonment, high mortality, withdrawn individuals, no harmony, permanent corruption, kwk. The name ‘projects’ isn’t coincidental and its targeting of Black people isn’t accidental. For instance, on the surface, in the united states of america, the Housing Act of 1968 prohibited the use of high-rise developments for families with children (unlikely given how many children are in high-rises today.) The real legislation in that law was Section 235 which gave white people a means to get out and live in the suburbs, effectively leaving Black people behind to the full wrath of the experiments. And it worked. white people lived in the suburbs and Black people lived in the projects. What we know as white-flight is just ‘when the project begins’ and what we know as ‘gentrification’ is ‘when the project ends.’   rats1

Of course, the casual reader may have been mislead into thinking research on rats has no bearing on human beings; however, despite the applicability of the research, the intention of the researcher to apply it to people, the u.s. government funding the research, or the impact of the research on architecture, psychology and science in general–the fact remains that not only do Black people live in ‘Projects’ and white people as early as 1573 correlated dense urban living with ‘rascall and vile sort of men’ (see baret j.); but the more salient fact is that white people have countless studies on Black people and white people control Black environments. Certainly, Black people have a short list of studies on whites, most of which use white studies on white people and few of which are significantly read by Black people; but it’s very similar to the lab rats boldly writing books on their white researchers. Are they truly studying or reiterating? And when they publish with the researchers, is that not more study information for them?

Now, that Black people are studied by whites is undeniable. If you want to learn a fact about Black people, the quickest means is, unfortunately, going to whites. What’s more white people are all very quick on Black facts and statistics; much more so than Black people are of white facts and statistics. However, why white people study Black people isn’t self-evident. I won’t waste much time on conjecture: some will say for sexual accessibility, to financially exploit, to kill us off, to study themselves, because only one Race can be on top, all of the above or none of the above–who knows? The truth is that Black people are in different labs that white people constructed, whether you are in the hood, the prison, the suburbs, the gated community or the white neighborhood. And white people collectively put you there for collective study. What for? Only whites know. What’s more important is for Black people to acquaint themselves with the research and even moreso the smartest solutions out of this predicament.

projects2

For instance, it’s self-evident that if social decay is a result of a lack of space, the solution to the Black problem is emigration. In other words, if the excess rats left the laboratory, the remaining society would have thrived. However, in the rat situation and the Black situation, the whites limited his subject’s individual mobility. The classic example is that Black people wish to move out of the hood all the time; but those who are successful in that transition often find themselves priced out of their destination and returning poorer than ever. Why? Because whether you are in the hood or in the suburbs you are a part of the experiment and if, for instance, the researchers in the suburbs want you back in the hood, he need only make a call and you’re back in room 14. Am I lying?

Further, it’s worth noting that in calhoun’s research, he would observe that the mice became territorial and violent toward one another. But to make it easy for him to verify that the mice were territorial he would mark a handful of mice with different colors. Another scientist then commented that despite how mice are color blind he may have created the territories by assigning different colors, in which calhoun noted that it was possible, especially since the mice could possibly smell the difference between the marks. However, he also lended the idea that although the colors were used on the mice, many mice were uncolored but were as territorial notwithstanding. Anyone in the hood can tell you that different projects (territories/turfs) are represented by different gangs who wear different labels which are oftentimes colors [i.e. neighbors in the same building would rarely be gang rivals]. Not everyone in the building wears the label–but in order for whites to easily study them, many gang affiliates do. Two prominent gang colors — blue and red — have been in Black projects since 1969 and 1972, respectively; very shortly after the 1968 Housing Act and for nearly 50-years! And the flags/bandanas that gangs associate with are manufactured and distributed by, you guessed it, white people–the researchers.

It’s easily said, not so easily done, that Black people should disassociate entirely from territorialism. However, it behooves us to condemn without understanding. In the mice situation, the limit of space also meant the limit of roles; in human terms, the limit of space also means the limit of employment. As in, without predators or diseases, the mice lived longer lives and occupied their social roles longer than nature would permit, so a lot of younger mice would reach the age for social roles and be without any. One impact of this was to destroy the mice’s mating, just the same as an unemployed Black man isn’t as attractive to a Black woman as a gainfully employed Black man or, by design [often and unfortunately], a well-to-do white man. Again, a cursory study of the hood–a prominent project being done to us–is that near every local employable opportunity is taken by eurasians; from the stores we shop down to the police force [The police are not only there to kill us, but also to take our jobs!] The few jobs Black people find in the hood are custodial, transportational and more often than not menial; and many of those employees are aged and not going to give those jobs up. So you have countless young Black people without employment yet under normal circumstances it would not be horrible. For instance, if a hiring factory were nearby, hood employment would be solved [Note to Reader: Build a Black Factory {computers, phones, cars, soap, hair products, frozen foods, kwk}]–or if plentiful arable land was nearby, hood employment would be solved. But there are no hiring factories and not enough arable land near hoods. This is by design.

projects1

Further, the researchers decided to test what impact they can have on Black people if they offered Black people employment as drug dealers and gave them guns, movies, music videos and comic books which reflected how to effectively make a living violently drug dealing. Note: anyone can tell you that Black people do not import drugs into the united states and Black people do not manufacture guns in the united states, but somehow Black people have possession of large quantities of drugs and guns in the united states and its usually the ones with drugs who have the most guns–and those guns are never pointed at the researchers. Anyone can tell you this. It’s easy to suggest Black people should sell their drugs to white people or point their guns at white people; but the experiment is always being perfected. Today, white people mis-educate Black people in schools. They know, in fact, that most Black people only have an 8th-grade education, to this day. They know Black people will drop-off/drop-out in High School because High School is geared toward College and few Black people (particularly males) aren’t intimidated by College when they are being failed left and right. They designed it and we are the lab rats, falling hook-line-and-sinker. In fact, white people know that this article I am writing is above the 8th-grade level so he knows many Black people would not only pass up reading it but will also be unable to grasp fully what is being written. The cracker is laughing. He designed his system to have minimal flaws.

So what in the world can you do? I personally organized a handful of Brothers and Sisters to go into the hoods (where our population is most dense) and endeavor to radicalize the Black population there. Whether it is making them cognizant of the experiments, informing them on how to organize economically, or giving them self-knowledge above and beyond the 8th-grade, that is what I do aside from these writings. And it’s resisted by Black people! It’s thankless work. I’m even resisted by the Black men and women I organized! Only a handful are 100% committed. So the white man sees yours truly, Onitaset Kumat, petitioning certain communities and he’s laughing. The cracker even nods at me. He looks at me and says, without saying, “Nigger, we would have given you any position your Nigger-ass wanted. You individually are smarter than most of us. In another time, we would look up to you, like we looked up to Kmt, Kush, Timbuktu, Olmec, etc. You are a special Nigger, why you wasting your time on those other Niggers?” But personally, I’m just not with abetting the crackers’ agenda. And it’s upon Black readers and leaders to take the same stance. This white man mis-organized Black communities to be self-destructive. Countless Black people, like the lab rats, are turned against themselves while ignoring the impact that the researchers are having. You’ll have your crowd of Black women saying Black men ain’t it; or Black men saying Black women ain’t it; or Black people keeping white secrets (particularly sex secrets–you know who you are! [read “Pieces of a Puzzle: The One Thing Black Females Will Not Talk About” by Reneathia Tate); or Black people serving white people cheaply. But until Black people wake up to the experiments and work toward undoing it, they will be at the mercy of a sadistic and savage people. Black people today are sexually accessible to whites, servile to whites, working for whites, subjugated by whites, mis-educated by whites, mislead by whites, deprived of maturity by whites, reporting all of their information to whites, requiring permission for basic things by whites, being fed and clothed by whites, studied and experimented on by whites; and these white people make sure of it everyday.

Black man and Black woman, you are in a Project. Call it the hood, call it Prison, call it the suburbs, call it a neighborhood, call it Earth, you are in a Project. The solution has always been what it always was: Maroon and Build For Self. I said it for over five-years and ancestors willing, I’ll keep saying it for another one-hundred years. You must break free of white people: then and only then will you be free. Know yourself, know your enemy, and be the rare African who is 100% committed to our liberation. That rare African is our most valuable asset.

Article written by Onitaset Kumat

Elementary Genocide 3: Academic Holocaust

Genocide 3....

This is part three to the Elementary Genocide Documentary series.  It’s a great film by producer Rahiem Shabazz.  I have part one and two.  They were both very educational. And this film looks just as good as the others. The film seeks to explore how the “Murder In The Streets, Same As Intellectual Murder In The Classroom”. The documentary features notables such as Prof. James Small, Kaba Keme, David Banner, Shahrazad Ali, Michael Imhotep and many more. Be sure to purchase it when it comes out.

http://elementarygenocide.com/

Get Out- Interracial/Horror Film(Hidden truths)

get-out-poster

Jordan Peele’s directorial debut Get Out proves a fascinating engagement with the racial truths of the contemporary world. The film centers on interracial couple Chris and Rose who are traveling to meet Rose’s parents in a New York City Suburb.

Prior to their visit, Chris asks Rose if she told her parents that he is black. Rose makes a mockery of this query, a query that encompasses the film’s many acts of foreshadow and dramatic irony. Get Out proceeds to illustrate that it is Chris’ blackness that makes him Rose’s prey. The couple’s visit to meet Rose’s parents proves a sick and calculated effort to abduct black bodies and re-appropriate them as a means to enhance the lives of a white counterpart. In short, the film’s resonance lies not in the images themselves but what lies beneath.

1.White Liberal

One of the most demonstrative illustrations in the film is its portrayal of the “white liberal.” Rose, Chris’s girlfriend not only dates a black man but defends him in the face of overt discrimination. Chris is racially profiled by a police officer on the way to meet Rose’s parents. The policeman asks Chris for his identification, to which they receive Rose’s wrath. After the incident, she states that she won’t let anyone “F%ck with her man.” But little does Chris know, Rose is merely protecting Chris the object and not Chris the person. This objectification becomes clear in the silent auction that takes place in Rose’s parent’s garden. What they disguise as “Bingo” is an auction where interested white buyers place bids for the black body Rose brings home. So questions like “Is it better?” referencing black male sexual performance, is the query of a prospective buyer desiring a worthy investment.

Rose portrays a physical embodiment to the phrase “every shut eye ain’t sleep and every goodbye ain’t gone.” An assumed ally can very well bear oppressive feelings towards a marginalized body. Assumed allies often veil self-interest in seemingly supportive gestures. Namely, Rose does not verbalize her prejudices yet is not any different or better than her parents or their “garden party” guests.

2. The Poisonous Apple

Get Out depicts Chris, a black man,  as an Eve-like figure and Rose, a white woman, as the poisonous apple that exploits his vulnerabilities and renders a series of irreversible consequences. The film intertwines physical hypnosis to induce black acquiescence to a  new identity. Rose acts as a form of hypnosis in her pursuit and pseudo-love for the black male. In seeking to consummate white acceptance and assimilation in his romantic relations with white women,  the black male body enters a vulnerable state exploited by his “prize.” Thus, Rose uses her external appeal to sink her thorns deep into the black male psyche. Just as their love seems to bloom, it is not Rose who dies, but her black lover–illustrating the measure of a rose’s beauty is the ability to distract admirers from its thorns sinking into their flesh.

get-out3

3. Science and black experimentation

The Armitage family abducts blacks, hypnotizes them, and uses the black body to improve white quality of life. The procedure leaves a small portion of the black brain but replaces the majority with a white brain. Thus, the black person becomes “a passenger” in his own body. This procedure seems synonymous to the abduction of African bodies and displacing them onto indigenous soil. This displacement renders the black body a passenger in the western experience as each generation proves more distant relationship to their African origins. While the African brain may not be physically extracted, it becomes westernized so that descendants of abducted Africans feel more American than African–making the black body a commuter in their own oppression.

Interestingly, upon first meeting, Chris and Rose disclose that they hit a deer on their way up. In response, Rose’s father remarks that they “did a service” by hitting and ultimately killing the deer. It is this same ideology that prompts the white conservative to seek out black bodies to dismember for their own personal benefit. In their minds, the Armitage family does a service to blacks abducted for their procedure, as their procedure affords the black body a purpose believed to not exist outside of serving whites. Prior to preparing Chris for the procedure, Mr. Armitage asks him “What is your purpose, Chris?” To pose this question prior to their intended procedure suggests that their use of his body incites a purpose otherwise non-existent.

It is this same ideology that prompted white doctors and scientists to use black bodies to test out medical procedures. Henrietta Lacks’ doctor felt entitled to the contents of her vagina, so much so that he did not even consult her next of kin prior to abducting her cells. The pearl-like substances that killed her would acquire purpose in the lives Lacks would come to save following her death. Thus, just as the Armitage family deems the black body purposeful in servicing whites,  Henrietta Lacks’ story similarly illustrates the black body as purposeful solely when appropriated for western motives.

Slavery and the contemporary world implement a similar ideology as the most celebrated black figures: athletes, entertainers, and actresses all serve whites. Thus, the television, radio and even the education system all act as an informal hypnosis implemented as a means to control black bodies and place them on a dead end path to white servitude.

Film Review Get Out

4. The unassumed intellect

Get Out channels Charles Chestnut’s “The Goophered Grapevine” and “Dave’s Neckliss” in illustrating the unassumed intellect in Chris’ TSA friend, Rod Williams. For those unfamiliar with Chestnut or these stories, a prevalent style of Chestnut is to implement a character who due to their vernacular speech prompts most to assume that he is intellectually deficient. The unassumed intellect uses these preconceived notions to his advantage and deceives his “intelligent” counterparts by the story’s conclusion.

Similarly, Williams provides comedic relief to audiences in his delivery. Yet the dramatic irony evokes laughter from some and frustration from others as audiences know that Williams is the sole party in the film that knows the truth. This depiction functions positively, as it evokes a caricatured black image as a means to exploit presumed western conceptualizing of black intellect. In a perfect world, caricatured imaging of blacks would disappear completely. However, it is an act of advancement to include stereotypes in a way that prompts contemplation, or that performs in a way to challenge western predilection for the compartmentalized black body.

The Final Verdict

The most resounding part of the film for me is when the black male body reappropriated as the Artimage grandfather, snaps out of his hypnosis and not only shoots Rose but shoots himself. This depiction illustrates black detachment from a controlled identity as a necessary component to disabling mental enslavement. Furthermore,  blacks not only have to rid themselves from physical obstacles but the part of ourselves that encompasses these harmful ideologies.

My least favorite component of the film was the means in which the hypnotized black body reverts back to semi-consciousness. Although the black body is held hostage by a white brain, it a flash or white light that snaps them back into consciousness. Thus, although it is a black man who physically saves himself from his pending imprisonment–it is a stroke of white light that enables his escape.

Thus, while seemingly a cautionary tale to interracial dating, or to the black body trusting whites in any capacity–the film evokes a white savior in representation rather than form. At surface level, the film seems to evoke the separatist ideology implemented by civil rights leaders like the late Malcolm X. However, the authorship of said movie makes this close reading impossible to take seriously. For this reason, Get Out reminds me a lot of Birth of Nation.

After viewing both Birth of a Nation and Get Out, I left the theater somewhat content. These feelings faded almost instantaneously as I realized that these movies while depicting the complexities of the historical and contemporary black experience can only resonate but so deeply. Namely, both Peele and Parker write and produce movies that should be revolutionary, but are not.

Jordan Peele and Nate Parker both conclude their films in the same manner. Specifically,   Birth of a Nation and Get Out end with all central white characters are murdered by blacks. While fatalities at the hands of blacks substantiate black bestiality, it also functions to depict white bodies as factors that must be eliminated to free blacks from an oppressive state. Like Birth of a Nation, Get Out is authored and directed by a black male married to a white woman. This dynamic casts said black authors as significantly less harmful and least likely to actually eliminate the white demographic because to do so would be to not only murder their wives but the mother of their children. Furthermore, with their interracial unions, the black male writer and director assumes a non-threatening stance in which the murder of fictive white characters seems an artistic choice rather than a means to uplift the black collective.

While the western world attaches a taboo labeling to interracial unions, these unions function favorably to foment white supremacy. The strongest black leaders are strong not because of what they say but because of what they do. Thus, these films are noteworthy, not revolutionary, as it is not enough to implement images that suggest an ideology disconnected from the thought and action of the author.

Writer and producer Jordan Peele also complicates the ability to take Get Out seriously with his comedic background. Thus, his depiction of a white family who abducts blacks and uses their bodies for their own benefit—becomes a well-executed joke rather than reflective of a past and present horror not limited to a New York City suburb.

Article by C.C. Saunders