One can observe it all too often, African Americans defending their own abuse. For example, applauding insults against themselves (2011 CBC conference) or attacking with abusive ad hominem tirades those who speak out on their behalf (Smiley is "jealous" about a conference attendance slight, and Dr. West is being "personal" due to an inaugural invitation slight), they make these allegations with such conviction that one would think they had proof of them somewhere. It is behavior indicative of folks gone insane. While most, if not all, of these ad hominem distractions are being orchestrated by hired agents seeking personal rewards; hosting television shows (for which they are not qualified), money and basement party invites to the Big House, the relentless socioeconomic destruction of the Black middle class and the ever deepening crisis of the poor continue unabated. These facts are ignored (expendable) simply because the people whose lives they impact are expendable. This post will briefly discuss how, saddest of all, too many of these expendable ones have inadvertently joined forces against themselves, while mistakenly believing that their actions are in defense of themselves.
When this post speaks of insanity (a legal term for the clinical designation psychosis -- lost of contact with reality), the intent is not to question orientation to the three spheres of person, place and time. The intent is to discuss psycho political responses to perhaps the gravest social/economic/political crisis facing African Americans ever in our history, chattel slavery, Old Crow, not withstanding. Why would I make such a statement?
Throughout the history of African Americans, the focus on the cause of social / economic/ political injustices was always clear. This clear focus facilitated a strategy of moving forward, challenging these injustices without having to fight each other. Naturally, there were disagreements about tactics, strategies, and even philosophical directions. As Harold Cruse discussed in his book Crisis of the Negro Intellectual, there were, and still are, at least two streams of political philosophies in Black America. Generally speaking, these were described as assimilation and self-determination. But in both cases, the focus on the etiology of the problem was always clear-- White supremacy (racism).
Now things have changed.
The cause of the change in focus is grounded in several factors, culminating with the 2008 presidental election. Before 2008, in fact, beginning some 40 + years ago after the Civil Rights Movement more Blacks than ever were allowed to enter the middle class to achieve what Sam Yette calls pacificaction in his book The Choice: The Issue of Black survival in America. At the same time that more Blacks were being propelled forward economically on the wings of what was by that time a waning Civil Rights Movement, more Blacks were simultaneously being stuck in poverty by the same socioeconomic policies that were propelling the new Black middle class. It was a complex operation, almost contracdictory in a real sense. One way to conceptulize it is to consider Einstein's Big Bang theory of an expanding universe--everything expands in all directions at the same time (the Black poor and middle class economic demographics).
This increase in the Black middle class allowed for right wing charletons (white and BlacK) of the Republican Party to advance a nonsensical theory called colorblind society. The theory held that American society was free of racism (colorblind) and that any Black who couldn't make it was simply inferior (lacked personal responsibility). A handful of successful Blacks were paraded about as evidence of how far Blacks could go if they "unclenched" their fists. Sociologists were already advancing a so-called deficit model that pretty much said the same thing. The model held that poor Blacks had a deficit of culture; the way they talked, dressed, and ate fried chicken for breakfast kept them poor; socioeconomic policies had nothing to do with it. So it went.
But serious social scientists inform us that, due to socioeconomic policies, the Black middle class began experiencing declines in real standard of living measures of income, fair access to credit, and net household worth during the Nixon administration of the 1970s. A process that continues to this day according to recent studies by Brandeis University, The PEW Institute, and US Census Bureau. The PEW study found that median househould wealth disparities between Blacks and Whites have increased 20 fold over the past several years. Michelle Alexander, in her book --The New Crow: Mass Incarceration in the age of Colorblindness, informs the reader that while many were celebrating the end of Old Jim Crow, a New Jim Crow was operating that has resulted in the mass incarceration of millions of African Americans via the unfair application of drug laws that focus primarily on African Americans. Moreover, the criminalization of these Blacks leaves them shackled for life, being denied even the most fundamental of opportunities such as employment, food assistance, and housing. Not for a moment, but for a lifetime.
For decades, the right wingers put before Black America their stooges. But the charlatans' cry of victim blaming colorblindness was rejected by more than 90% of Blacks. Such nonsense was simply inconsistent with Blacks' everyday life experiences. Besides, about 90% of Blacks were Democrats electorally.
But most Blacks were unaware of changes occurring in the Democratic Party. Accustomed to voting out of habit, rather than policy analysis, they voted for Democrats upwards of 89% as they had voted mainly for Democrats since FDR's 1930s New Deal programs. What was occurring that Blacks were unaware of was a right wing takeover of the Democratic Party led by Al From in the mid 1980s. From's Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) brought right wing ideology into the party, causing a rift between progressives and so-called Blue Dogs DLC conservatives. By all indication, the conservative wing gained the upper hand beginning with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. So indistinguishable are they from Republicans, Howard Dean once called them the "Republican wing of the Democratic Party." It is from them that we got "welfare reform" and "three strikes and you're out" laws during the Clinton 90s. Few Blacks noticed because the economy was better for Blacks and the president had a Black golfing partner, played the saxophone, and regularly invited Blacks to The Big House.
In was during the 2008 presidential election that the right wingers in the new Democratic Party and their colleagues in the Republican party finally achieved what they had been unable to achieve with Republican Blacks for decades-- got Blacks to accept the cultural deficit and colorblind confidence game. In fact, there is evidence that more Republican conservatives supported the Democratic Party's nominee than supported the nominee of their own party in the 2008 presidential election. And they did it for the expressed purpose (in their own words) of "ending Black identity politics" and rendering Blacks psychologically incapable of addressing Black grievances. (See the Atlantic Archives- "Ten reasons why Republicans supported [the Democratic nominee]). How many Blacks are aware of this fact?
Of course, the con game to neutralize African Americans' sanity and end their protest of injustices was no longer called "colorblind," that was too outdated and patiently Republican. The new term became post racial. Yes, post racial and the election's outcome speciously proved it. Thus, personality cult worship, gestating for months was now born and nurtured by television and all other venues of mass influence. The old Republican mountebank pushers of colorblindness had won at last. African Americans for the first time in history would no longer make demands for redress of wrongs. Indeed, they would now, and hopefully in perpetuity, support their own abuse. Everything wrong was now their own fault. They attacked each other for "speaking in Negro dialect," being like "Aunt Jemima," etc. They had no idea that they had participated not in a group advancement cause, as they believed (uninformed, most still believe it) but in a Pyrrhic victory, brought about by Pavlovian stimulus pairing (classical conditioning) wherein their aspirations were stimulus-paired with their detriment and therefore they could not choose their aspirations, their dreams and hopes, without choosing their detriment.
A few days after the election, a CNN poll found that 94% of Blacks felt that centuries of racism had been cured (in three months) and that Dr. King's "dream" had been realized (although before then, it was considered disrespectful to refer to Dr. King's legacy as a mere "dream"). That left only 6% of Blacks, representing all socioeconomic strata, with their mental faculties in tack. According to the poll, that 6% said nothing had changed, nor would anything change any time soon.
Since then, as the data have begun to come in regarding the worsening condition of Blacks (with no public policy initiatives to address Black concerns other than "shut up and stop complaining"), an increasing number of Blacks have begun to regain their sanity. To prevent this from happening in a mass way, a cadre of self-serving Blacks have accepted their dictatorially assigned roles of keeping Blacks confused and in denial of the hardships of their lives. They encourage them to support their own abuse by alacritously embracing the same benign neglect policies in play since the Nixon administration. Only this time, unlike then, there is no effort on the part of Blacks to have their grievances addressed.
In fact, the cadre of "permed pimps," and other opportunists either ad hominem Blacks who speak out (including duly elected officials), or behest their probably well meaning but uninformed sycophants to attack such Blacks as "Uncle Toms," etc.
Some of these characters are thrust into Blacks' faces everyday, speaking in tongues, claiming to have "access" and assigning value to trivia. But what access do they have? Foreign policy is formulated at John Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), a Neocon haven, as it was during the previous administration. What roles do the likes of Sharpton and Melissa Harris Perry play in that process (since they have access and all)? Even domestic policy is obviously beyond their influence. For example, they, along with a handful of zealous followers, have bemoaned for months now about states changing their voting laws. But that battle was won in 1965 with the signing into law of the federal Voting Rights Act. Consequently, no state can change its voting laws without first getting approval from the Justice Department. What access do they have if they can't influence the enforcement of laws already enacted?
Racism, according to its post racial version, is no longer the institutional denial of social /economic / political fairness, or a level playing field. It is now the words of fifth-rate politicians like former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, who when not hanging out at the White House (or with his buddy Al Sharpton) seems to make such idiotic statements as freely as a forest bird chirps.
However, so naive and incompetent are some who purport Black leadership, they have begun to agree with the racists, rather than challenge them in a way that represents the truth about the Black condition and how it got that way. For example, when Gingrich made the recent comments about Blacks and welfare, the response of much of Black leadership was to agree with his intended implications that Blacks receive welfare due to being lazy. "There are more whites on welfare than Blacks," they mumbled. In other words, there are more lazy whites than lazy Blacks. But that paradoxical signification does nothing to explain that Blacks' economic condition is due to institutional racism, despite a myriad of studies that detail this fact. Moreover, the response was paradoxical. While whites may out number Blacks on welfare roles due to their larger share of the general population, the data are clear that Blacks are proportionally the most economically destitute group in the country.
But there is a ray of hope. Many younger Blacks seem to have caught on to the distraction games. For example, a few years ago, a successful young Black actress stated in response to an interviewer's asking her views on the so-called "N" word: "I'd much rather for someone to call me the 'N' word, than to leave me stranded on a flooded roof for a week in the hot sun with no food, water, or sanitation." She said, referring to Hurricane Katrina.
In that regard, it is not difficult to imagine what a person who is unemployed and homeless would prefer-- a focus on Gingrich's, or Beck's, mouth or food and shelter.
In the distractions, ad hominem, and other madness, there is virtual silence about the $200 billion that Blacks have lost in home foreclosures over the last few years. Nothing is said about the 50% + (in some census tracks) African American unemployment rate (with no end in sight other than the monthly release of false data), the growing wealth gap; the systematic firing of Black teachers and other government employees; the failure to enforce civil rights laws (that Ricardo Jones explains), and the increased preying on Blacks for incarceration, etc., One could go on and on citing data, from the recent Census Bureau report on increased poverty to environmental observations of suffering many of us see daily. Whenever there are comments regarding these realities by the hired enforcers of Black acquiescence, they are circular, evasively non focused, and downright incoherent.
Indeed, despite these realities, some say that everything is fine. That any Black person who is hungry and homeless is just inferior (uneducated, lacks personal responsibility). They pretend that what they believe is real--that Dr. King's work for a just society has been achieved, just as the Republican conservatives (Black and White) argued deceptively for decades as they sought to undue Civil Rights gains made by previous generations of African Americans on the false premise that they were no longer needed. Supporting the Republicans' arguments, while believing themselves to be in opposition to those arguments, some Blacks even consider the abolishing of affirmative action initiatives (such as the recent ending of Defense Department contracts for Blacks) as an "accomplishment" of which Blacks can be proud, even though it will lead to the lost of millions of African American jobs according to experts. Again, any dissent from this cult-worship is met with hostile ad hominem bashing.
The dissenter is "jealous," or "carrying a personal grudge," "lying," etc. No emphasis is given to the content of the dissenting critiques, and no research is conducted to determine the truth. The mad dash to drown out the validity of the critique is simply an indirect way of expressing a profound lack of caring; a schizoid-like emotional detachment from the suffering of those whose needs the critiques address.
To continue on in this way can only be interpreted realistically as a crisis of sanity. And no good can come of it.
I appreciate the message you left on my page. However, I do not understand how someone with such interest in the concept of genocide as you display, would not already know more about the subject. The research material on the subject is almost boundless.
Secondly, when I use the term psychocide, I'm referring to mental (psychological) destruction. While I appreciate your interest in my posts, I do not share my email address with the public. Nor do I personally email people with whom I have Internet discussions (which is the same as sharing my email address). Any communication you wish to have with me, please limit it to the confines of this site. If you wish to get my opinion on a post you have written (as you stated), please post it on this site. I'll be more than happy to give you feedback in that regard.
I looked for your page on this site, but was unable to find it.
Again, thank you. I wish you well in your topic of interest, and look forward to reading your post on this site.