When I was 6 and 7 years old, my mom used to listen to NPR while she was dropping me off at school. There would always be a segment of a man speaking. I didn't really understand what he was talking about, but one thing that stuck with me was the ending "From death row, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal". I've always researched Black history and when I got in my teens, I remembered that name. I looked it up, and read about the Panthers, and further into Mumia himself. I started listening to and reading his commentary on a regular basis 4 years ago. I also had the chance to look at some of his court transcripts and found that he initially had not been given adequate resources to defend himself. Abu-Jamal has been fighting for his life and freedom for decades. He recently won a battle to be taken off of Death Row. Since then, as opposed to being placed in the general population, Mumia has been placed in the Hole.
I think that Mumia's case and others like his should open up legislation as well as discussion about citizen's rights to defend themselves and others against police abuse (violent or not), under a clear cut set of circumstances. We know that some officers have in the past, and will in the future abuse their power and take advantage of any group they so decide to discriminate against. But their power to protect and serve does not mean that we should be placed as permanent victims of their brutality, railroading, abuse, as well as the condition of minority Political Prisoners, and the causes that lead one to become a political prisoner.
Since the internet became a common platform for communication, it has given many the opportunity to take control of their finances that may not have existed otherwise. Whether it is through online stores, blogs, advertising, or performing jobs remotely, if you are willing to put in the time and effort you can find a method to make money, and a website to do the job. There is opportunity to make any amount from small change, to a regular paycheck, to setting yourself on a road to riches. As long as you have access to a computer and the internet, you are capable of making money.
The down side to doing business on the internet is that there are millions, if not billions of people providing the same services, writing, developing web sites, and applying for the same job/contract that it usually takes a large effort of scraping and scratching to make a decent paycheck online. But still, in order to make money, you have to get in where you fit in and draw the traffic/business with your own style of getting things done.
Some of the sites that I would suggest to make money online (aside from blogging) include fiverr and craigslist. oDesk is another option, but for those working in the West, it is hard to compete with some of the rates that workers in the east are willing to perform a job for. Getting a job on either oDesk, or fiverr takes a lot of work, but once you build up a reputation in these online working communities, you will be well on your way to making money on your own. You will not get rich right away, but you can definitely earn some gas/lunch money while you work your way up to a decent pay check.
Learning to make money online is one of the ways that the Black community and others in the working class will be able to bridge the "digital divide". It is important that we take advantage of opportunities and create opportunities for ourselves, especially in these times. It would do us a lot of justice if we focused more on becoming producers in the internet/technology arena more than consumers. We create the trends that the world over follows, yet we don't profit from any of it.
Since I've started learning more about money and the Internet, I've come to see how certain habits we as humans have translated from the real world to cyberspace. One specific example is our tendency to herd towards things that could potentially harm us, or have no affect on us at all, all in search of the thrill of seeing and discussing shocking, sometimes distasteful, and almost always taboo subjects and events.
Recently, a Forbes Magazine author posted an article called "If I Were a Poor Black Kid". News feeds all over the net had something to say about the article. Black publications on, and possibly even off, the net are publishing their own articles, essays, and Facebook comments in response to the buzz that this man's article has created. Of course within the Black community this has created another fighting ground between the political and social camps of those who agree with the author’s statements and those who disagree. Of course, everyone is a critic, and entitled to their opinion. Regardless of what the author’s true intentions behind writing the article, or what anyone may think about him or the article itself, one thing everyone seems to have forgotten is that someone (Forbes) is making money from the attention we’re giving it. It doesn’t matter whether he had good intentions or bad intentions behind writing the article. We’ve made it too easy for people outside of the Black community to make money from putting their 2 cents in about our community, its condition, or the reasons for its condition. When someone says something insulting or degrading about the Black community, we flock to their doors just to see/hear them say it again. It speaks volumes about how little many of us understand about how money is made on the internet.
This situation with this article and others like it – even in other forms of media - is the same. Online, businesses get paid based off the number of viewers coming to their site, as well as any products or services they may sell. So all the people who went to that page to read it just so they could disagree and post comments on the page, or posted the link for others to go back and read it are STILL PUTTING MONEY IN THE AUTHOR AS WELL AS FORBES’ POCKET. Kind of like when Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre made The Chronic dissing Eazy E. Eazy still got paid royalties for every song Dr. Dre made on that album.
If you hear gunshots or see smoke, you don’t run in that direction to see who/what/when/where/why. We run the OTHER way. It’s a survival tactic, right? Well the same way we apply that tactic to preserve our physical wellbeing, we should start applying it to our financial and mental well being as well. If someone says that an article, or other form of media is disrespectful to us and it goes viral, then as a people instead of leading others to go see/read it, we should ignore it. It can be viral in every other community all it wants to be, it should stop when it gets to us. Which would have some type of impact, given that studies show we have the highest online presence - especially in social media. Now of course, people will still read the article. The thing is, we shouldn't continue to include ourselves in those publicizing and discussing it. Now once the smoke clears, of course let's go in picking it apart to see (being honest with ourselves) what we can take from it to preserve or improve our condition – and leave the rest where it is.
The attention and money that companies get for publishing this kind of content takes away from the web hosts, writers, artists, and businesspersons who have something worthwhile to offer their communities, their respective social group, and the world. That’s not to say that we should only take in moral, uptight, or politically correct media and content ALL the time. But let’s make sure that we’re not helping the trapper by flocking to it.
Where do Black people fit into the Occupy Wall Street Movement? Although most would like to approach the OWS movement with a colorblind view, it's not realistic. There are problems that the Black community has that other ethnic groups don't have. Given that fact, the black community has to find some medium to discuss those problems and brainstorm viable solutions to them. This can't be done within the arena of OWS, or can it? Where there are similar problems we work to solve them with groups affected the same way. Where there are exclusive problems, we deal with them as an exclusive group.
Generally, when black politics are brought up in a racially heterogeneous setting most of those concerns and claims, no matter how legitimate, will be vehemently attacked. If we identify problems and their causes, people say we're complaining. If we identify solutions to our specific problems, people say we are being racist, divisive, exclusionary, and the like. Both types of responses are generally used to beat around the bush of the race issues in economics, politics, and society in general as opposed to dealing with the issue as it is. At least that is the experience that many blacks currently, or at one point, within the OWS movement have observed. The same goes for many who have attempted to present a black social or political platform to a mainstream audience in any setting throughout history. There's no doubt that there are plenty of blacks present at the Occupy protests in various cities. But are any problems native to the Black community being addressed? The short answer would be "No". The long answer is more complex.
The issues being addressed by the Occupy movement have a large impact on the economic and political well-being of the United States as a whole. The solutions that will eventually arise from the movement will undoubtedly have an impact on the Black community, as it will on all communities. But the question is what type of impact will it have? Given the possibilities, we should maintain a strong presence at the protests, general assemblies, and political actions when they are carried out. But to be effective, we must also work to address problems that are specific to our own community. For too long, we have allowed laws in the US to be made ABOUT us and not for us. There is a difference. A law made about black people can have a positive or negative affect. Regardless, it has some degree an intended affect on the black community.
The best way to do that would be outside of the OWS arena, in exchange for one that is more hospitable to the subjects of Black self-actualization and self-determination. But that discussion shouldn’t stay outside of the OWS arena. To ensure the success and widespread acceptance of the solutions to the problems that Black people face, I think it would be most effective to hold 3 different discussions: (1) a discussion on the solutions to our own economic and political problems, (2) A discussion on the solutions to problems of mainstream America that affect our community, (3) A discussion for how we can take advantage of the OWS movement whether our own resolutions pass or fail , and finally (4) A discussion that would involve tailoring our arguments and agenda in such a way that we don’t have to mention “black”, “African”, “African American”, or “minority” that can be presented and discussed in the arena of OWS. The results of the OWS general assemblies and the success of the new resolutions should be recorded and brought back to the independent table of the black community, and the process repeated until the movement ends.
In the end, we should have developed an understanding that these resolutions would benefit us without exclusively mentioning so. These would give our communities leverage by which we could secure enough power to become independent and self-determined as a people. This is how the ruling class has done it for centuries. They only made laws and rules specifically mentioning whites after they had secured enough power to limit intervention. If we expect to survive in the current political and economic climate, we’ll have to learn to adapt and take advantage of the same method. All in all, it would be foolish for us to completely neglect the OWS movement, but also equally ignorant to ignore using the momentum to fuel our own. The Occupy The Hood movement seems to be heading in that direction.
I've been looking for more information on this author all week. She was pretty controversial back in the 80s. She discussed a lot of the problems that we have that cause us to have failing and unhealthy relationships, single-parent homes, lack of leadership and other issues that cause us to pass down problems to following generations. She wrote quite a few books, but the two books that were the most controversial were the relationship manuals she wrote for black men (The Blackman's Guide to Understanding the Blackwoman)
and black women (The Blackwoman's Guide to Understanding the Blackman).
From what I know about mainstream feminism, there is the idea that women shouldn't be required to play a specific role within the [nuclear] family, if they choose to have a family at all. For black women, they have issues to deal with on two fronts being both black and women. And their hooking up with the white feminist movement kind of help take the black man (who, being black has common problems), out of the driver's seat and create a more submissive role for him in the family and relationships in general. The best example I can give in response is the quote "being a strong black woman doesn't mean 'have a bad attitude'." And a lot of times, families break up because of drama caused by either the man or woman being so "independent" that they felt they didn't have to respect themselves or each other. The child is just there soaking it all up and that's how the following generation gets left to fend for itself socially, intellectually, and/or financially. Not only that, but these types of problems are even indirectly supported by the government through the requirements needed for aid programs like housing, medical, and other forms of assistance that may require the man be absent from the home. If our families and relationships were more functional, we as a people wouldn't need to depend on such programs to the degree that we do.
For those who caught on to her jargon, Shahrazad Ali is a member of the Nation of Islam (NOI). According to the NOI and their idea of the most efficient family structure, the black man (original man) is the leader, provider, protector of the family. The woman supports him (shares the same goal/idea, and showing it through her actions) and teaches the kids. From that, many feminists would say that the woman is being treated like property, or a subject of the man. That's not to say that there's no room for individuality, but one person's individuality doesn't take precedence over the good of the family or community. Personal freedom is good, but should be limited when it comes to maintaining the welfare of a relationship or family unit. And that goes for both men and women.
According to Malcolm X, each member of the family had a set of classes related to their role in the family. They basically have 3 sets of classes. One for the men to learn subjects relative to their primary role(self-defense, how to get/keep a job, how to keep a woman, etc). One for the women to learn about subjects relative to their primary role (general housekeeping, raising the children, how to keep a man, and how to act at home and abroad). And finally one where they both congregate at the same time. The men also have to take a section of the womens' classes which includes general housekeeping duties and how to act at home and abroad. The idea is that a man can't expect a woman to do something that he can't do when it comes to maintaining the house and family. So it's not that one can't perform the generally accepted tasks of the other. They have their own respective duties that allows their partner to handle their own responsibilities. Of course a member of the NOI could explain their perspective on relationships better than I could, but the points that Shahrazad makes are still valid in repairing our relationships today. The historic concepts and forces that she explains and points out throughout her videos are still relevant, 20 years later.
Polygamy and inter-racial relationships are added to the discussion on a talk show in this video
A continuation
Finally, I end with another video of Shahrazad's discussion coming to a more positive end.
Notice that when she's speaking by herself the message gets across clearer than it does when she's on talk shows. Once we can get past the sensationalism and compulsive habits in our everyday, personal conversations then we can start progressing toward healthier relationships and stronger families - the economic and political power will come with that. But we have to start by looking at ourselves first, acknowledge the good and the bad, and change to make the relationship work.
With the upcoming elections and criticism of the current political regime, we still have a lot of problems that have yet to be resolved. And people are mostly making a shift from a Democratic vote to a Republican vote. The thing that we should understand is that both parties are really fighting for the same goal, they just have different views on how the country should get there. Unless you factor in credit, there has only been so much money to go around. The rich have most of it, the working class are struggling for the crumbs the rich drop.
Democrats take money from the rich to give to the poor in the form of welfare, better working conditions, and a raise in wages. In return businesses raise their prices and claim that they had to do it in order to make a profit.
Republicans let the rich keep their money and hope they're nice enough give the poor jobs. Then the poor can't afford to pay the companies because they don't have much spending power, or end up losing their jobs to technology or outsourced jobs. Either way when it comes to foreign policy the goal is the same for both of them... keeping America and friends on top of the global political and economic weather.
Regardless of which party's candidate is in power, the working class loses it's ability to keep its head above water, as a whole. Yes on an individual level people need to budget and save their money, etc. But if bills, and just trying to take care of your family, takes up most of your income, if not all of it, then what do you have left to save? Depending on your wage and what the economy looks like in your immediate area, that little "save $5 a day" rule eventually goes out the door for low income households because you didn't have the $5 to save in the first place. Up until the global warming and "alternative energy" issues came up, when politicians say they're creating jobs, they usually mean making it easier for corporations like McDonalds, Walmart, and temp agencies to put out more low paying jobs. A job is a job, but they might as well stop pretending to be helping us with jobs you can't even keep the lights on with.
When it comes to insurance, those companies have a lot of power that they really shouldn't have. They determine (directly or indirectly) a lot of the economic policies that the consumer, or the worker eventually pays for.
The private sector has never kept the economy going. leaving everything up to the private sector is why you have the concept of the "99% vs the 1%." When an unofficial list of demands came out for the Occupy Wall Street game, most of the demands in the list revolved around closing corporate tax loopholes, decreasing the amount of political influence corporations have, and stopping congress from being able to give itself a raise. I don't know what they're doing now beside just randomly drawing attention to themselves. Most of the ruling class had a handout that put it ahead of everyone else in the game. The country's economic system is not about "how hard can you work to get ahead", it's about "who can you work hard to get where you want to be". Exploitation.
On September 21, 2011 the entire United States witnessed the lynching of a Black man. The execution of Troy Davis should serve as a wake up call for whites and others to a couple of factors many Blacks and other minority groups have known for decades. One, racism in the form of white supremacy is still just as powerful as t has always been. As much as people would like to ignore it or deny it, this is a known fact. Two, the entire criminal justice system, from the police to the courts, to the prisons, is flawed and easily corruptible. It is geared toward imposing the will of the white ruling class on the lower classes. The Troy Davis case proved both of these points.
The situation reminded me of Michel Foucault’s (pronounced me-shell foo-co) book Discipline and Punish. In the book, Foucault explained the evolution of capital punishment and the development of the prison system. He explained that originally governments used public torture and executions as the primary form of punishment for crimes. The idea was that the condemned would serve as an example and deterrent to other criminals – even for the smallest of offenses. The media’s depiction of medieval executions is somewhat inaccurate. During such public executions, the public would be comprised of those who supported the execution and those who opposed it. After the execution, riots would erupt between the opposing groups. Those executed were often seen as martyrs. When groups become organized and gain dominance during riots, those riots become revolutions. The fact that these riots occurred proved that public executions weren't an effective method of dealing with crime or dissident activists.
A more effective method of dealing with criminals was needed as society evolved with new forms of government and industrial technology. This led to the development of chain gangs and labor camps. The labor camps and chain gangs put the inmates to work deemed useful by the government and other special interests, there was still always a change for rebellion and escape. The chain gangs punished prisoners by assigning them to jobs that reflected the nature of their crimes. The prisoners were said to pay their debt to society by physically working to improve the aspects of society that they had previously damaged. This method of punishment was supported by many reformers because it was more humane than public torture and executions.
Over time, governments developed the prison as the main method of punishment. Prisons became a way of using the same method of punishment for all crimes. By observing, training, and controlling every aspect of the prisoner’s life governments and prison authorities sought to impress a generic ideal of discipline to all f its convicts. Foucault explained that this method of punishment was meant to create people who would easily returnsociety to hold positions in institutions that required the same discipline such as schools (as students), (blue collar) jobs, and the military. The general function of all four of these institutions is to break a person down mentally and/or physically so that those in control of those institutions can build the subjected people up to be who/what the institutions were designed to make them. In capitalistic countries, the ruling class wanted (and still wants those convicts to serve as the manpower behind the institutions that keep the ruling class in its position at the top rung of the economic and political ladder. Needless to say, prison also has a secondary affect on one’s financial health. It affects not only the prisoner’s ability to generate income, but forces his family to fill the void of financial support that is left by the inmate’s absence. And without the financial ability to join the ruling class (primitive accumulation of capital), according to Marx, one has no other choice but to become a member of the working class (which includes both the middle and lower classes), or the lumpen (the criminal segment of the working class). This explains why many of the people who are released from prison often return.
Most of the forensic methods used today are primarily for the purpose of finding a suspect guilty of a crime. Forensic evidence maintaining one’s innocence is mainly the other side of the coin. The criminal justice system operated the same in the early days of America and developed similarly leading to the current day. Discipline and Punish explained this process for the entire Western world. As a friend of mine put it, “Michael Foucault is the white man that every Black man needs to read.” (The same goes for Karl Marx and The Communist Manifesto as well.) Despite the evolution in the methods of punishment, little was done to secure safety nets for those who were wrongly accused, let alone provide effective methods of repairing the damage done to such individuals. Such is the case for Troy Davis and many other political prisoners like Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier.
Troy Davis’ case was questionable to begin with, given that 7 of the 9 primary witnesses claimed that they only testified against him due to pressure (meaning intimidation or threats) from the police. One witness was told that he would be charged as an accessory to the murder if he refused to testify against Davis. It’s actually very common for them to use such methods to extract information from someone, whether that information is correct or not. I’ve seen it personally a few times before I was educated on what was going on. Obviously, neither the police nor the courts would ever take responsibility for such actions. Needless to say, many will try to use the fact that 7 of the 12 jurors were Black to rove that Troy’s case is not an issue of race. The thing many don’t realize, or choose to ignore is that anyone of any race can be used to support white supremacy directly or indirectly.
To those who understand the concept of being “safe” when it comes to race, it’s obvious why Obama decided not to say or do anything to help. He was most likely advised not to comment, whether he personally wanted help or not – and he took that advice if that was the case. Regardless, Obama has never spoken out in favor of Black men, not even during his campaign when Diop Olugbala posed the question “What about the Black Community”. Although he ironically was a member of a church that, according to the media, supported Black Nationalism to some degree, he seems to have distanced himself from those circles.
Hundreds of thousands of people called for Troy’s clemency. Celebrities (such as Big Boi of Outkast), regular citizens, a former FBI director, and even George W. Bush (of all people) opposed Troy’s execution. The flood of calls, emails, Tweets, and petitions finally won Tory a temporary delay of his execution minutes before he was to be executed. The PEOPLE did that. The Supreme Court took hours reviewing the case only to maintain Davis’ guilt. Maybe they saw something no one else saw or paid attention to. And if that is the case, then those who opposed Davis' execution should study the court transcripts the same as every other court has. Otherwise, the highest court in the land refused to admit that the justice system failed and killed an innocent man.
)
). 
