If you attended/watched Tavis Smiley's 2006 State of the Black Union, I'm sure you have an idea of what the title is all about. The Burning House - it comes from, perhaps, an alarming statement Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made days before his death. Pipe Dreams - well, that's what either idea regarding what to do (and what can possibly be done) about The Burning House have been called.

During the Pioneers & Pacesetters panel, as you all may know, Min. Louis Farrakhan recited the MLK quote (below) which was stated in-confidence to Harry Belafonte (also on the panel) and suggested that via Biblical/religious prophecy that 'We Should Let The House Burn'. The House is America, generally. In particular, I believe, it refers to our current form of government.

Min. Farrakhan referenced Thomas Jefferson's [American] Revolutionary idea and encouraged us to Alter or Abolish our current form of government and form a new one. Farrakhan made the case for the latter. He suggested that America via the government via the powerful Whites who control American society... that America would never fulfill its promise(s) and was clear in saying America never has fulfilled its promises whether they were to us or Native Americans or whoever. He stated that as he spoke in opposition to the idea in the theme chosen from a Barbara Jordan quote:Farrakhan's statement was, perhaps, the only statement that deviated from the 100%, across the board, unconditional support from Tavis Smiley's Covenant with Black America (except for maybe the faint appeal from the Republican congresswoman who wanted "family" emphasized). To say the least, even though widely applauded by the audience, his statement caused a stir. But why?

Well, here's the MLK quote complete with the jist of Harry Belafonte's response to it (from a 1996 column written by Belafonte):
quote:
Midway through the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., realized that the struggle for integration would ultimately become a struggle for economic rights. I remember the last time we were together, at my home, shortly before he was murdered. He seemed quite agitated and preoccupied, and I asked him what the problem was. [This is what he said]:
    "I've come upon something that disturbs me deeply. We have fought hard and long for integration, as I believe we should have, and I know that we will be victorious. But what bothers me is that I've come to believe that we're integrating into a burning house."

    "America has lost any moral vision it pretended to have, or in fact may have had."

    "...I'm afraid that even as we integrate, we are walking into a place that does not understand that this nation needs to be concerned deeply with the plight of the poor and the disenfranchised. Until we can come to grips with the fact that... we'll forever be perpetuating the ills in which we now find ourselves."
BELAFONTE: That statement took me aback. It was the last thing I would have expected to hear, considering the nature of our struggle...

I would like to see Black America rise up again and honestly examine where we are at this point in history. We must stop relying on the Democrats, on the Republicans, on institutions that oppress us, and take responsibility for ourselves. Whenever we've stepped out to assume responsibility for our future, we've succeeded in our mission. White America didn't give us the gains we've made. Through various movements we went out, fought for them, took them and made ourselves better people, and the world a better place. I am far from disillusioned. Deep in my soul, I know there are more Rosa Parks ready to emerge. Perhaps we are the firemen who can save the burning house. Martin would have embraced such a thought.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n7_v27/ai_18770623


My question is: What do we make of all this?
What are your views about the State of Black America, whether America is a Burning House and what we should do in terms of being "Firemen" or should we say, "Burn, Baby Burn" while forming, constructing something new?

To be clear, as he alluded to during the panel, Min. Farrakhan has suggested the creation of a Ministry of Trade of Commerce, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Health and Human Services, Ministry of Science and Technology, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, etc. Part of that is a response to Hurricane Katrina and his insistance (first made public at the Millions More Movement event in D.C.) that we rely on and provide FEMA like services, e.g., for ourselves. One aspect of the Convenant, on the other hand, would seem to serve as a list of demands we would place at the feet of political parties as a statement of solidarity and a statement of clarity as to our agenda - what we will and won't support and what the parties can do to get our support, etc.


Which, if either, is more practical?
Which, if either, will be more fruitful?

Are they mutually exclusive?
Last edited {1}
Original Post
Are they mutually exclusive?---Nmaginate

I'll start here.

Pursuing a covenant with ourselves is mutally exclusive to petitioning any political party, especially the Democrat and Republican Parties.

To seek the support of such political bodies is to repeat, to ask for, the failures and deceit of history.

As to our role:

I choose the 'firemen' approach. I don't like the 'burn' approach for several reasons. First becuause that approach leaves you with a ship. And we don't have the resources to build a new one.

Second, I/we are too heavily invested in the ship to simply 'burn' it.

We tried a 'burn baby burn' while trying to build something new.

I think we burned our own communities while adopting a new variant construction of 'color'.

It was a good thing to do...then.

It no longer serves us well.

We need to construct a better way. One that first of all leverages our political power as a people, and secondly raises, if not fully establishes our identity as a parity-value in our society.


PEACE

Jim Chester
I think Belafonte misunderstood the point that Farrakhan was making about this. I think Belafonte thought Farrakhan was saying we should give up on America and stop voting or move out or some such consequence. Perhaps "Mr. B." felt Farrakhan was inferring some of the more "dramatic" courses of action that the Nation has supported in the past - armed insurrection, etc. Who knows? I think the minister meant that, as it is constructed now, our government and society are not going to be things that we can passively rely upon for our liberation.

I would venture to say that Belafonte agrees.

To be honest, I was left confused by the comments. I found real consistency between Belafonte's earlier remarks about "revolution" and "rebellion", and Farrakhan's reference to the burning house. Perhaps the comments had more to do with some broader or deeper interest/need in creating distance between he and Farrakhan than any substantive differences.

I could be very wrong, but Belafonte's comments seemed more driven out of ego (or some other emotional need) than out of real substance. Farrakhan came on strong and as usual was beautifully eloquent. Maybe B felt F stole the show and in his absence (Farrakhan had to leave early) he wanted to get in the last word or whatever? Again, I don't see much difference between them - at least in what I heard yesterday.

What did you think?
Last edited {1}
To put it another way, I think there is real INconsistency between Belafonte talking about REVOLUTION and REBELLION and then so adamantly saying we need to be firemen.

Doesn't make sense to me. Confused
quote:
Maybe B felt F stole the show? Again, I don't see much difference between them - in what I heard yesterday.

What did you think?
I agree. I think both Mr. B and Cornell West rushed to pigeon-hole Farrakhan's comments which, while I thought they were a bit out of place, I didn't see them as substantively that far from the core attitude behind the Convenant Movement. There's an overriding sense and emphasis on self-help in both.

Cornell West definitely wanted to act like Farrakhan was talking about a "separatist" nation or something. Maybe I took that wrong but that seems like where he was trying to take it to. And I found it rather interesting upon researching MLK's comment that it is Mr. B's surmise as to what MLK would have supported - i.e. the "Fireman" Instinct. Of course, I was reminded of the words of Malcolm X on this very "Burning House" subject, and I couldn't shake the irony:
    "If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call them today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here."
To Mr. B's defense MLK did say the following (complete quote from segment above):
quote:
"And I'm afraid that even as we integrate, we are walking into a place that does not understand that this nation needs to be concerned deeply with the plight of the poor and the disenfranchised. Until we can come to grips with the fact that, given the consequences of our own history, we owe the world an opportunity to lift up the underclass and bring people to a new level of existence, we'll forever be perpetuating the ills in which we now find ourselves."
So I guess the big part of my question about what's practical, etc. is which lofty goal seems more realistic (for lack of a better term)? Both are very lofty and ideal - admirable. In that sense, considering things as they are both can be equally called PIPE DREAMS.

One would have us do the seemingly impossible seemingly for ourselves. The other would have us do the seemingly impossible, not only for ourselves, but for others, the whole world even of marginalized and oppressed people.

That aside, I think we all know Farrakhan wasn't talking about leaving or going anywhere or even withdrawing from America. You know and I know that Farrakhan meant exactly what you reported. I do, however, think there's a bit of ego on either side. I just wish there was a constant, moderating voice that says "We Need To Do Both and Can't Afford To Put All Our Eggs In One Basket" particularly one where there's some type of expectation that America will fulfill its promise.

So I agree with Mr. B... It's about taking whatever it is we determine we need. And, as he noted when he referenced the FDR vs. A. Phillip Randolph story, we have to be about making things happen but that can't exclude or de-emphasize what we have to do for ourselves.

So I wonder how Mr. B, West & Co. would respond directly to the idea of having a FEMA like Black National "Ministry" as an agency capable of responding to such emergencies. I don't blame Tavis Smiley for his reaction, though I thought the situation was going to blow over since no one interrupted The Minister.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
To put it another way, I think there is real INconsistency between Belafonte talking about REVOLUTION and REBELLION and then so adamantly saying we need to be firemen.

Doesn't make sense to me. Confused
Yeah, it really made for pretty twisted allegory. MLK was pretty adamant about RADICAL CHANGE. Whether he would have endorsed a "Fireman" Instinct/approach or not, he would have insisted perhaps to some degree like Farrakhan did on the Revolutionary principle of ALTER or ABOLISH. MLK would have had more profound and pronounced ideas about what to change with the system other than trying to maximize its potential utility for us, IMO.
I did not hear all of Cornell's comments (had to do something real quick) but I came back on the part where he said governing ourselves is a "pipe dream". I will go back and review his whole comments in a minute, but I wanted to say this first in regards to what Minister Farrakhan said.

Minister Farrakhan words were in tune with the Covenant but his words spoke to what the Covenant does not , and they contradicts Tavis Smiley position that fixing ourselves makes America better. So here is the real question, Does putting the fire out in our community, amongst our people make America better and stop the burning in America? or does it only stops the burning amongst us?

This is key because no one here and no one on that panel including Cornell who recognizes and spoke to the deep love for Black people Minister Farrakhan has would suggest that Minister Farrakhan is against putting the fire out in our community, thus it only means his comments were that we should not play the fireman for America and try to cure it of its ills while we cure ourselves. One might argue aren't our problems and America's problems one in the same, and I would answer to a certain extent but surely if our problems were one in the same across the board than when America is doing good we would be doing good and such is not the case politically, socially or economically. So I am with Farrakhan on this, LET THIS MUTHA&*^*R BURN! But continue to work hard on our problems and if a consequence of us fixing our problems makes America better in some ways good but I am certain the problems that America have that are not related in anyway to what's troubling Black people will continue to get worse.
quote:
No one here and no one on that panel including Cornell who recognizes and spoke to the deep love for Black people Minister Farrakhan has would suggest that Minister Farrakhan is against putting the fire out in our community, thus it only means his comments were that we should not play the fireman for America and try to cure it of its ills while we cure ourselves.
Thank you...

I'm trying to understand the Super-Negro thingy... Here it is, a whole symposium dedicated to how we can [better] "help ourselves" (because in some ways we aren't), but this Noble Negro Notion of Saving America, if not the world, becomes a counterpoint to suggestions that we "govern ourselves" - focus on administering directly to our needs and not relying on others to do so?

You have got to be kidding me...

At the very least, after Katrina, a FEMA like Ministry of Emergency Relief should be the least of what comes out of the Convenant and/or the Millions More Movement.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
the "Fireman" Instinct. Of course, I was reminded of the words of Malcolm X on this very "Burning House" subject, and I couldn't shake the irony: [LIST] "If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call them today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here."


Here's my thought for what it's worth: Yes there's a part of me that says "Hell yeah, let the house burn down" but then you think about the world as it is now. You look at it up close and you see that whether you like it or not the parts are interconnected like crazy. The Japanese economy goes into a depression and this depresses markets globally. An Asian fly gets a new flu bug and we all have to worry.

My point:

When jobs are offshored, they're not just offshored for poor white people. As we experience global climate change, it's not just going to get warmer for white people. As the world hits peak oil production, the gas is not going to get pricier just for white people.

As much as I want to applaud Malcolm's statement because it makes me feel good to do so, we need to face up to the reality that we live in the Master's house.

It won't do us any damn good to put out the fire in the dining room if the kitchen is still ablaze.


So when people say "Let the Mutha burn" they are in effect assuming separation is both desirable AND possible.

I say that though it may be desirable it is not possible.

Look at poor Haiti. That's formally an independent Black Republic and who controls Haitian politics?

But I do agree with Nmaginate on this
quote:

I do, however, think there's a bit of ego on either side. I just wish there was a constant, moderating voice that says "We Need To Do Both and Can't Afford To Put All Our Eggs In One Basket" particularly one where there's some type of expectation that America will fulfill its promise.

So I agree with Mr. B... It's about taking whatever it is we determine we need. And, as he noted when he referenced the FDR vs. A. Phillip Randolph story, we have to be about making things happen but that can't exclude or de-emphasize what we have to do for ourselves.
Last edited {1}
quote:
As much as I want to applaud Malcolm's statement because it makes me feel good to do so, we need to face up to the reality that we live in the Master's house.
It ain't about a "feel good". There's a principled position there. Indeed, it's no more rhetoric than the Noble Negro Notion that we can not only Save Ourselves but Save America (and the World) too.

quote:
It won't do us any damn good to put out the fire in the dining room if the kitchen is still ablaze.
And, really, when and where has that actually been suggested? I do think the whole point of a Convenant, etc. is to lay out some priorities. And Malcolm's quote says something pretty specific:
    "If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder
    to put the blaze out than the master would."
That suggest misguided, misdirected or out-of-whack priorities and not just some "feel good" rhetoric. But if it is, then, again, the idea of what's possible tells us that we can't and won't put out America's fire alone, even if desireable.

So it comes down to being realistic no matter what. Things can be as interconnected as they want to be (as they actually are) but when there's a history of limited and sporadic "connections" with others on those things and in areas where we are "interconnected" then it behooves you... us to act accordingly, responsibly and contrary to vague, even noble rhetoric.

It's pretty funny though... In any other instance people would be so quick and clear to talk about "What We Need To Do For Ourselves."

quote:
Look at poor Haiti. That's formally an independent Black Republic and who controls Haitian politics?
You're going to have to do better than that. And don't abandon your "interconnectedness" theme in an effort to buttress your point. Either that means something or it doesn't. And who is talking about a "Black Republic"??
quote:
I agree. I think both Mr. B and Cornell West rushed to pigeon-hole Farrakhan's comments which, while I thought they were a bit out of place, I didn't see them as substantively that far from the core attitude behind the Convenant Movement. There's an overriding sense and emphasis on self-help in both.


This is point I was trying to make when I said that they disagreed with Min. Farrakhan after he left. You said it much better than I, Nmaginate. Smile

However, I can definitely see the point that Min. was trying to make. And he used the neglect, which no one in our community can deny, on the part of the government towards our people. Because I know I had several relatives affected by Katrina and Rita.
He used the neglect of those storms to emphasize the need for us to have our own programs set up to help ourselves. I can't say that I disagree with that assessment. I donated to the Millions More Movement. I wouldn't mind working for an organization that promoted international brotherhood, trade and economic cooperation among African descended people. But these types of organizations just haven't been formed yet and they need to be. We need to have some viable options as a people.
I know one thing, YEMAYA... I was glad to see Na'im Akbar on the panel.

(They've got to narrow the panel down so people can have more opportunities to talk.)
I was glad to see Dr. Akbar too. I have to admit, although I am a strong sister, I have my weaknesses and issues and Dr. Akbar will definitely help you see the light. He's good like that. Have you gone to his page on Africa Within??

I've been reading his works since 1999. I had to get out of some of my ways of thinking about myself and my brothers and sisters. I chose to use one of his quotes as my signature, that's how much I respect his works.
Oh yes, YEMAYA... But, thanks for the link. I'll have to revisit Africa Within.

Any particular ideas (seminars, essays) of Akbar that were helpful to you?
The first article I read of Dr Akbar's was his essay called "Rhythmic Patterns in African Personality". That was quite a handful. Some things I must admit I have to read twice to get the gist of what the author is talking about, especially since I don't have a background in psychology. I also read about Dr. Akbar, how I first became aware of him in Nathan McCall's book "Makes Me Wanna Holler". That was when I really began to track him down and find out what kind of work he did.
I really enjoyed his speech about the relevance of Isis and Osiris and how they translate with our people today.
Here are some links to his speeches on Africa Within and his official site.
He is definitely a pioneer in his field of study.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
No one here and no one on that panel including Cornell who recognizes and spoke to the deep love for Black people Minister Farrakhan has would suggest that Minister Farrakhan is against putting the fire out in our community, thus it only means his comments were that we should not play the fireman for America and try to cure it of its ills while we cure ourselves.
Thank you...

I'm trying to understand the Super-Negro thingy... Here it is, a whole symposium dedicated to how we can [better] "help ourselves" (because in some ways we aren't), but this Noble Negro Notion of Saving America, if not the world, becomes a counterpoint to suggestions that we "govern ourselves" - focus on administering directly to our needs and not relying on others to do so?

You have got to be kidding me...

At the very least, after Katrina, a FEMA like Ministry of Emergency Relief should be the least of what comes out of the Convenant and/or the Millions More Movement.

The Super Negro thing is a form of exceptionalism, that goes back centuries. It is similar to the exceptionalism often found among cultural or political black nationalist. While the later group often asserts that black folk are different, unique, or distinct culturally, socially, historically, or even biologically and thus need a "nation" of our own, the former understands black uniqueness as as somehow salvific for the world.

Even before it appears in King, it is present in black culture and is closely linked with black folks reception of the Bible. As we all know, many black folk came to identify with the Hebrews in the OT. They saw themselves as God's chosen people, as the elect, and as such, they have something special to give to the world. In the NT, this gets associated with Jesus Christ and the notion of redemptive suffering for others. Thus, you get the Civil Rights rhetoric of enduring suffering (better than anyone else) for the redemption of the nation.

I really think that we need to jettison this tradition, but I think that it will be hard to do so. It has been one of the ways that black people have attempted to give meaning to their oppression. Black folks have said for centuries the words of Joseph in Genesis, "what you meant for evil, God meant for good." Black folk find it hard to confront the possibility that our suffering is pointless or meaningless, so they tie this redemption myth to it.

This is one of the places where I part with West, because he accepts this as part of the King/Civil Rights paradigm. I want to see if we can move forward without it.
quote:
The Super Negro thing is a form of exceptionalism, that goes back centuries.

...They saw themselves as God's chosen people, as the elect, and as such, they have something special to give to the world... the notion of redemptive suffering for others... the Civil Rights rhetoric of enduring suffering (better than anyone else) for the redemption of the nation.

I really think that we need to jettison this tradition...
I don't have any particular problems with it. It has its place but, most importantly, it has its proper proportion and applicability.

quote:
  • Black folks have said for centuries the words of Joseph in Genesis, "what you meant for evil, God meant for good."

  • Black folk find it hard to confront the possibility that our suffering is pointless or meaningless, so they tie this redemption myth to it.
  • Properly proportioned or applicable, relevant and realistic = the former. The latter is out-of-proportion. The former deals with the psychology the latter aims to combat while at the same time being realistic in its attempt to encourage, motivate or mobilize.

    It's done all the time when people invoke MLK and others "who died to give us..." the right to vote, the opportunities, etc., etc., etc. None of that ventures off into the Super-Negro stratosphere.

    ... Anyway, thanks! I appreciate you breaking it down like that and "exceptionalism" was exactly what I thought about...
    Yemaya:

    I have always liked your signature. It certainly is true.

    Getting out of that 'prison' is proving to be the greatest bondage of our history.

    I see our loss of who we are. the loss of our identity, as the final bondage of that peculiar institution.

    kresge;

    I also hope we can rid ourselves of this perception that we are the savior of our oppressor, or the 'redemption of the nation'.

    Because this rhetoric is embedded in our religions, it extraction is going to be very difficult. A kind of 'blindness' sets in that prevents rationale though.

    Emotion reigns.

    Nmaginate:

    I think there were so many egos at work on that stage it was hard for clear idea to survive. While it wasn't exactly what happened, there was a seeming resistance to allowing 'The Covenant' to survive.

    My conclusion stems from each speaker having to reach for their copy of the book in an effort to get themselves 'back on point', so to speak.

    I also agree there are too many speakers on the panel. Clearly, it is an effort to cover the 'political spectrum'. No one gets offended.

    In general:

    My dissappointment is I missed any discussion about a political party, or whatever name, and if it occurred.

    There was an awful lot of 'brain power' on that stage. Not broaching that clear need, says something is still lacking.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester
    quote:
    Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
    My dissappointment is I missed any discussion about a political party, or whatever name, and if it occurred.

    There was an awful lot of 'brain power' on that stage. Not broaching that clear need, says something is still lacking.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester

    You did not miss it, because it was not raised. This was the substance of the question on my index card that I handed in. Democrat and Republican do not constitute the political spectrum. There was no question about the viability of third parties, even on the local or state level. I think that is a serious oversight. I am not even saying that it has to be a so-called African American party, but there I think it behooves black folk to "think outside of the box" in this respect.

    This was also my frustration with the rhetoric around voting. Now, I have voted in every election local, state, and federal sense I have been of age, in part because my grandparents frequently talked about what it took for them to get the right to vote. That said, I resent being told that I have to sit down folks who don't have my interests at heart, and beg that my interests be included in their platforms. Thats basically what those letters from the Dems and Republicans represent for me. Sure they are going to give serious consideration to all the issues of the Covenant. Roll Eyes

    This is why even though I believe that the Honorable Minister Farrakhan was ultimately wrong, I understand the orientation. I wake up some days with a lack of hope and say, let it burn.
    quote:
    This is why even though I believe that the Honorable Minister Farrakhan was ultimately wrong, I understand the orientation. I wake up some days with a lack of hope and say, let it burn.
    It has nothing to do with a lack of hope. It is a different orientation though. It's one that draws on a logical conclusion collected from a realistic acknowledgement of the history heretofore.

    quote:
    I resent being told that I have to sit down with folks who don't have my interests at heart, and beg that my interests be included in their platforms. Thats basically what those letters from the Dems and Republicans represent for me. Sure they are going to give serious consideration to all the issues of the Covenant.
    And that orientation, though it expresses some of that same resentment, is still directed or come froms a very different place. But you've expressed why the Convenant as a political instrument, in and of itself, is somewhat of a Pipe Dream. Farrakhan's sentiment, however, comes from a self-help orientation. Why "beg" others for things we should at least be trying to do for ourselves?

    Again, after Katrina, an Emergency Disaster Response Agency, at the very least should be something we try to make happen as well as insisting on the US gov't, our gov't better serving us in all aspects.

    And one thing I say (and have said for a while), especially since people want to talk about Personal Responsibility particularly in the context of the African American Community... then yeah, if there is any movement to lay a clear, solid and organized demand before the U.S. gov't then by all means let's say to them, "Give us our tax money so we can do for ourselves." That's a democratic demand. IMO, it's a step towards constructive engagement that can transform American Democracy.

    The fact that we are interconnected with others in this nation is not lost on me, for one. The fact that we tend to be trendsetters when it comes to political protest movements is not lost on me either.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    quote:
    This is why even though I believe that the Honorable Minister Farrakhan was ultimately wrong, I understand the orientation. I wake up some days with a lack of hope and say, let it burn.
    It has nothing to do with a lack of hope. It is a different orientation though. It's one that draws on a logical conclusion collected from a realistic acknowledgement of the history heretofore.

    Agreed. I conflated several things in that statement that do not necessarily follow.
    I am not even saying that it has to be a so-called African American party, but there I think it behooves black folk to "think outside of the box" in this respect.---kresge

    I heard all of Wade Henderson's presentation.

    What a waste.

    Smiley gave him almost a groveling introduction that was lauditory beyond Henderson's profile. His presentation sounded like a rally speech from 1062.

    That's one seat that could have been taken of the stage, OR better yet given to one the members of the 'Youth Panel'.

    There was another 'minister-type' that couldn't quite 'remember his name'.

    That's another seat.

    I sincerely believe that a political body focused on the needs of African America will change the political dynamic of the nation.

    And this is not pursuant to this 'We will save the nation crap.'

    I mean such a politica entity will take the 'slam duke' mentality out of both major parties.

    In trying to keep us 'on the bottom', everyone else's boat rises, simply because ours gets lifted.

    That's not a change in menatality, but rather a result of desperation.

    On Sunday evening, Bellefonte and Moseley delivered a discussion around Moseley's newest book that Bellefonte characterized as 'outside the box'.

    The success of African America has always been 'outside the box'.

    I issued an open invitation to anyone who wants to align themselves with such a party.

    It will always remain open.

    http://iaanh2.org/Docs/Identifier.doc

    http://www.iaanh2.org/Docs/Registry_Solicitation_Form.doc


    PEACE

    Jim Chester
    We talk about economies going down if something happens to america, but because of americas economy many countries are forced to be poor. They are not allowed to put their goods on the global market and Africa for instance only participate in about 2% of global trade. So while it good times for european nations its hell for the poor countries of the World. What I think Minister Farakan was saying basically is lets be self sufficient create our own institutions sustain our own selves so that if the ship does go down we can at least have a life jacket and a survival kit. I dont think we as a people have any real confidence in ourselves, we talk a good game but deep down we dont believe we can create anything for ourselves.We think white people are invinceable and we could neverchallenge them.I say this is the very slave thinking that keeps us shackled.
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    I think Minister Farakan was saying basically is lets be self sufficient create our own institutions sustain our own selves so that if the ship does go down we can at least have a life jacket and a survival kit.


    And thats what Cornell West called a pipe dream!
    quote:
    Originally posted by Faheem:
    quote:
    Originally posted by ZAKAR:
    I think Minister Farakan was saying basically is lets be self sufficient create our own institutions sustain our own selves so that if the ship does go down we can at least have a life jacket and a survival kit.


    And thats what Cornell West called a pipe dream!

    Perhaps, but I think what Cornel was referring to is the reality of American hegemony. In light of this, can one be autonomous. I do not think so. We can talk about the economic resources of African Americans, but they are inextricably part of a network of political/economic power that Hardt and Negri refer to as Empire. This, again, is something I believe that nationalist do not understand. In a sense, the time of the nation state has passed. We have multinational corporation with earnings larger than GNP's of most countries. We have entities such as the World Bank and the IMF who punish states that do not play the game.

    Again, using the house metaphor, is there an outside. If so, what/where is it?
    For one we can get serious about the education of our peoplep; children and adults.Design cirriculms that focus on the needs of our people inside a global construct. We can revamp the HBCU system so that it address our global needs. Create exchange progams and on the ground projects with countries in Africa and throughout the diaspora.Build Co-ops so we can begin to produce some of the goods and services we need. Invest globally in African infrastructure. Things like these are very plausable,it requires a lot of hard work and dedication but its a way to begin addressing our needs while at the same time open us up to a global african community where bridges can be built and networks formed,Not saying we should limit our focus to these , of course we have to deal with the system. I believe we can work on both fronts
    The 'spinners' are already at work.

    One of the talk shows is representing Minister Farrahkan as being brought in to deliver the 'State of Black Ameirca' address, and rest you can guess.

    No other speaker over the entire day was mentioned.

    For that matter, no mention was made that there were other speakers.

    PEACE

    Jim Chsster

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×