Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Can I ask a question?
When does the results seen in "Segregation" point to the presence of strategies that produce certain unsavory results?
I can't help but notice that people with a certain agenda seek to conflate the segregation of today with the compulsory segregation of the past. They know that this is a lie.
In a democratic society where there is private property rights respected - people are going to live where in the place of their choosing. It is unavoidable that a certain group of people who are seeking to protect their own cultural and moral priorities are going to tend to live next to other people who fortify this view. Will there be some who do so off of their racist beliefs? Indeed. I fail to see, however, how a choice to vacate an area due to racial sentiments is the same as those who block other people from living where they choose due to race? At what point do you become the suppressor of free will and become totalitarian in nature?
I have a firm belief from my personal observations as a Black man that a growing portion of that which we are aggrieved about stems from our inability as a race to confront the void in our culture and our willingness to manage it among ourselves that is the root of the problems that are perpetuated within our own communities.
Segregation also means "ownership" and "all by yourself" - allowing your theories to be on display. To those who have attempted to shift the evidence of their equality upon the government to express rather than to the PEOPLE themselves to confirm this via their acumen in ordering themselves in line with their stated common goals and thus actually produce them.
For me there is a particular pain knowing that my people - the African-American people who are descendants from people who were free on this Earth for tens of thousands of years as they prospered instead make reference to their descendancy from SLAVES who were made that way for four hundred years. How might a person who indexes himself to slavery ever return to his previous form in which he was given instruction by God to manage the land and all of the wild animals that are upon it? The two are mutually exclusive, unable to occupy the same space at the same time. One thought must die so the other can live. Kunta Kente cannot be "Toby Kente-Moore" as he seeks to retain references to his past while paying homage to his new circumstances. One must die so that the other can be reborn.
Sadly much of the rhetoric that I have heard from the "Progressive Information Station" in my years of listening do not bear out. As you listen - FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE are their ultimate goal. If you go along with them then Fredrick Douglass' words to "let us alone" would be assumed to be their ultimate goal. They wear their hair naturally as a symbol of their connection to their unmolested ancestors who were free. As you inspect their product more carefully you see that they have no intention whatsoever to be "free" as their ancestors were. "Freedom" of choice also means the obligation to live in the bed as you have made it. This basic transference to this government that is said to be "for the people" is out of alignment because they don't apply the other portion which is "of the people" - an implicit reference to the obligations that come with it.
When is there enough evidence on the ground that forces a measure of INTROSPECTION? Such an inward view would be a time out from the "chase" that is thematic of their popular movement. As they take a break from their expansionary chase they would be confronted with the need to set up better management structures within the plateau upon which they now stand, that they currently control. No longer does their long term oppressor have proximate control over this turf.
The challenge is to force into consciousness that THEY NOW have enough control over this plot of land to put their inherent skills to work as a means of producing a better outcome for the people that they CLAIM to be working on behalf of.