Thursday, December 30, 2010

Cultural Anthropology and Counter Insurgency...The Vietnam War and The Iraqi/Afghani Wars

Gerald Hickey was a anthropology graduate student from the University of Chicago visiting Vietnam during the war. Hired by the RAND corporation and The U.S. military to study the Vietnamese and help them win the war.

Hickey wrote programs that the military rejected because they didn't like the results. Hickey found in his research that the villagers just wanted physical & economic security from the government, he found that overwhelming force [the military's favorite tactic] was counterproductive in this type of battle. Force creates martyrs, shows the enemy your overly brutal, and all that leads to increased recruitment for insurgent forces.

He stated that "Vietnam is a political war, and should be fought in the political arena." He found people [Montagnards or "highlanders"] who were willing to assist the U.S. in the war [despite their opposition the S. Vietnamese government]. He stated the Vietnamese custom of "accommodation" should be used to negotiate...the military said no they believed it "giving in or surrendering".

In the end the U.S. lost anyway, Hickey was ejected from the RAND Corporation and from the academia due to ethical conflicts. The military has a history of considering cultural anthropology as a "nuts n' huts" ideology and useless in real life battle. Ethnocentrism made a fool of this nation before, and from the looks of things it will again.

In 1984 Capsar Weinberger [Secretary of Defense under Pres. Reagan] created the 6 principles to avoid another Vietnam and those principles are:
(1) The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.
(2) If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. 
(3) If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives.
(4) The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed—their size, composition and disposition—must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
(5) Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress.
(6) The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

Those plans were resurrected by Colin Powell in 1994 but abandoned by the end of Clinton's presidency.

There is and seeming always have been a severe lack of cultural understanding in the National. Security establishment. It puts us all in danger, but it puts those that fight these wars in the most danger because they are the ones fighting an ideology they don't understand and have no information on. They are being used much like pawns to be sacrificed for some "greater good", they are not the only ones though.

Because so are the insurgents. An insurgent is a person looking to topple a government, some call them revolutionaries. These people are not backed by an existing government, they are renegades fueled by nationalism and an ironclad agenda. In Vietnam it was the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese who worked in paramilitary units (small armed groups/militias) with the agenda of uniting Vietnam under a communist regime. In Afghanistan its the Taliban, an organization consisting of multiple paramilitary units and intelligence cells hell bent on filling the void left by Saddam Hussein when he was dethroned in Iraq. The Taliban already have control over Afghanistan, so getting Iraq would be a huge coup.

The Taliban's genesis goes back to when the, then Soviet Union, invaded Afghanistan in 1979, looking to take over their oil and other national resources.
At the time, the Soviets were America's #1 enemy and so they sent the CIA (unofficially I'm sure) to arm and train small cells of Afghanis (these cells were called The Mujihadeen) to fight the Soviets off. The Soviets where in Afghanistan for 10 years before they surrendered and finally left.

While the U.S. helped Afghanis fight the Soviets. They had problems of their own...in Iran. 1979 was the launch pad for the Islamic Revolution. The Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers had ran the U.S.-backed Iranian king Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah) out of Iran. The U.S. Launched an overthrow of a popular Iranian leader named Mossadegh during the 1950s, and replaced him with the Shah. The Ayatollah began openly rebelling against the Shah and his western benefactors (American, Britian, Israel). The Ayatollah and his followers wanted to have Iran's government work under Islamic Law (Sharia Law) and to have Iran ran for the benefit of Iranians without Western influences, influences that they believed to be contrary to Islamic teachings.

After some time the Ayatollah gained enough popularity (despite being in exile in France) that he was able to drive the Shah from his throne into exile. This was the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

The Islamic Revolution's main purpose was to protect Islam in Iran, but not just there but wherever it may be in the world so because the U.S. never listened to the grumbling of Arab nations over the treatment of Palestinians in Israel (since the 1950s), because the U.S. tried to take out Iran (by helping Saddam attack them) in the mid-1980s, and because Bush Sr. wrecked Saddam and Iraq (early 90s) the cup ranneth over to say the least.

Radicalized by the teachings of Iran's charismatic Ayatollah, cells of Muslims became staunchly anti-American, anti-British, and most definitely anti-Israeli. This lead to the terrorist attacks of modern history and the birth of many terrorist networks most notably The Taliban (formerly the Mujihadeen).

So what does all this have to do with cultural anthropology? Well its simple, Islam has its own culture. A culture that has been shunned for years, you see it today where Muslims are called "cave dwellers", "sand niggers", "camel jockeys" etc by people who have no idea about their culture. Islam is seen as evil by a lot of people (they don't really help their argument of Islam being peaceful with terrorist attacks). But they fail to see that the Muslims just wanted to be left alone. Its crazy that, it all boils down to leaving them to their own devices.

So, just like when the Vietnamese democratically voted for communism, and America decided to involved itself to stop the spread of communism led to the most wasteful and unpopular war in U.S. history. America inadvertently (and sometimes overtly) stepped in to interfere with Islamic culture which is leading to TWO wasteful and unpopular wars...and they are happening simultaneously!

The government not understanding this is why the wars are not over, not understanding this is why Iraq and Afghanistan have become the new Vietnams. Because you have the elites filling everyone's heads up with thoughts of victory and superiority that they haven't noticed that the wars are 8-9 years old and are probably nowhere near over.

You have the elites who tell you that the insurgents have no chance of winning because the U.S. has better technology, more troops, better training etc forget to tell you that the insurgents have more heart, better battle strategy, and a full understanding of the American war machine's might.

Insurgents are regular people, this is what it boils down to,
whether everyone wants to admit it or not they are. Some of them have had family members killed, they believe in their agenda and are willing to die (and become a martyr) for it. You can't scare these people!

The U.S. has done all that it could short of the A-Bomb. They tortured them in places like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba or in Poland and other places where they keep their secret prisons. They have targeted drones hunting their leadership down one at a time, and that's not working. They lead the public into believing they have killed or captured a "high ranking" Taliban officer just to find him replaced within hours. They have burned Korans, flushed Korans down the toilet, raped Iraqi women, bombed hospitals, schools, homes etc and wonder why recruitment never ceases (they want revenge dumbasses) or why they can't really get solid intelligence on their leadership (why should they help you when your killing children?). Like I said they are regular folks, this battle can be won but only if the U.S. gives up their brute force agenda its not working because it will not work. In fact its working against them.

Sun Tzu said: "If you know yourself and your enemy, you need not worry over the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory you have you will also suffer a defeat." and believe me when I tell you, they don't really know the enemy.

Abortion and Crime

Recently I came upon a video from an economist named Steven Levitt. In the video he discusses a book he wrote which suggests the legalization of abortion led to lower crime rates in the future.

He and his partner believed that since low income kids are more likely to be aborted and those same low income kids tend commit more crime, then ultimately more low income abortion led to lower crime rates.

They believe that since the 70s when abortion was legalized that the crime rates dropped in the 90s because those "at-risk" children were not born and thus did not grow up to become criminals in their late teens or early twenties [which are the years some people believe people tend to commit crimes].

To summarize the concept, it is structured thusly:
1-underprivileged people are more likely to commit crimes,
2-underprivileged people are more likely to have abortions,
Therefore, the more abortions in low income areas the less potential criminals born in the world.

This idea looks promising and I'm sure they have many, many mountains of evidence to back their claim, I still call shenanigans on this and here's why...

"Underprivileged" youths and families are usually minorities. Abortion rates especially among blacks is exceptionally high and yet crime is still prevalent in underprivileged communities. So even if the data shows that crime dropped in high risk areas during the 90s it didn't stay that way. Besides and I believe they address this, the 90s had a better economy than the 70s and 80s which would lead to lower crime in itself.

Another thing not mentioned by Levitt but mentioned by me, is the racial make up of this study. I mentioned before that minorities make up the majority of the underprivileged communities, so by definition he's saying that if blacks and latinos aborted themselves at higher rates then crime would drop at higher rates (already proven false).

Eugenics also comes into play here. Eugenics is defined as: "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)". Looking at that definition and combining it with their study, you can see that they are saying that "underprivileged" youths (blacks and latinos) are a criminal culture, meaning that they are born to or predetermined by their nature to be criminals and thus their high abortion rates is good and benefit society as a whole.

Of course Levitt and Donahue didn't say all that. In the video eugenics isn't mentioned at all. So its safe to say they might not have even meant to co-sign eugenics but it can't be helped that eugenics is what they are proposing. They never mentioned race because a major point is that the poor are more likely to commit crime. Meaning that poor whites are included. So maybe then instead of eugenics, its a very creative stab at promoting class warfare. The rich wanting the poor to thin themselves out (for what reason I would not know, they need the poor).

Levitt & Donahue's study was a popular one when it was released (I believe the original book; Freakanomics, was released in 1999). There were many debunking papers written to challenge their assertions and eventually it fizzled out. I'm sure if someone wanted read them they would see more solid evidence using crime rate figures and other things to debunk their ideas and maybe some that feature the eugenics argument. Regardless of whether its been debunked to death or not I wanted to discuss it here because as a man that was born in an underprivileged home, and was born during the 80s when abortion was legal and had friends who fell into crime, I take offense to the argument even being made. Especially by so-called "intellectuals", men with degrees, professors at American colleges where I am a student, where my brothers and friends from similar backgrounds are students that these people got acclaim for an argument that had shades of applauding genocide on the underprivileged class, and destruction of the minority family structure.

In closing, this correlation is one that promotes eugenics and genocide. Whether inadvertently or overtly it does, and its sad to see people putting so much stock into this. Historically people have been looking for ways and reasons to get others to believe in a superiority/inferiority concept, this is just one more thrown on the heap. We've seen things like this before (the Bell Curve) and they always hang around in the minds of people that are believers in their data. But like all the others this one could not handle the rigorous testing that comes with theory and thus it is dead...and rightfully so.

People You Should Know: Marcus Aurelius

Marcus Aurelius ascended to the crown of Emperor of the Roman Empire in 161 A.D as a co-emperor. When his co-emperor died in 168 be became sole emperor of Rome. Now us Americans hate terms like "king" or "emperor" we instantly think of bloodthirsty tyrants. But many considered Aurelius "the last good emperor of Rome".

Aurelius is historically known as a man of the people. The people, specifically the poor of Rome greatly benefitted from his reign. He built more schools, hospitals, orphanages than any other emperor (from my understanding). He also saw to bring fairness in slavery.

Looking to force slaveholders to treat their slaves better by creating laws and other regulations to ensure the human treatment of slaves. It is assumed that Aurelius was an emperor to be proud of during that time. While under his watch Rome fell into a recession due to the Roman love of war. These long wars cost a ton of money (just as they do today) and Aurelius needed to bring forth funds to pay his soldiers. Instead of doing what our gov would do (tax the hell out of us) it was said Aurelius sold his personal belongings! When Rome achieved victory he used money gained from victory to buy back what he sold. Some people preferred to keep the emperors things and he was fine with that. This is incredible considering he could have just ordered his belongings returned to him by force.

Aurelius was known as an emperor for the people but the thing Aurelius is known for most is his fantastic writing. Specifically his master work "The Meditations" where the Emperor shared his philosophy on life.

The Meditations is considered classic text and a building block in creating "stoic philosophy". Aurelius philosophy championed such virtues as: wisdom, justice, fortitude and moderation. He believe that "morality leads to tranquility" and being tranquil and moral should be mans ultimate goal in life (I will share some quotes from this text later).

Like almost all Romans of the time it is said Aurelius greatly disliked Christianity. But unlike other emperors Aurelius never hunted for Christians in order to persecute them. Sad to say people found practicing Christianity were punished by death and more Christians were executed during his reign than any other but on the other side of the story it was also said Aurelius never initiated the martyrdom of Christian practitioners.

Marcus Aurelius died 180 A.D of a mysterious disease some believe he caught the plague. Although completely Roman is his love for expanding Roman imperialism, killing Christians, and subjugation of peoples after his conquest of them. Aurelius was considered kind, morally upright, and a lover of justice.

Marcus Aurelius Emperor of The Roman Empire from 161-180 is a person you need to know. But why? What makes Aurelius relevant to today? I would say the idea of having an intellectual leader is one foreign to our contemporary society, nay our modern world. In a world where men are driven by agenda and not justice, where leaders treat their followers like expendable trash an emperor, a term, a title we are taught to hate still created a following by not only expanding his empire, not only by expanding his own purse, but also by expanding his mind and the hearts of the citizens.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Dead Aid...Africa and Monetary Aid

Recently, upon some downtime in between finals I came across a video. In that video was an African woman named Dambisa Moyo. She is from the African country of Zambia. Moyo was very educated she had gone to Harvard, gotten her Ph.D in something I don't remember from Oxford and had written a book entitled Dead Aid.

In the book she says that the Western world, specifically the U.S. should stop sending aid money to Africa. Well of course dissonance kicked in and I at this point was pretty flustered at the idea of an African not wanting Africans to be aided financially. However being the fair person I am I continued to listen and understand her theories and came to the conclusion...that perhaps she's right.

You see to Moyo, all the financial [government to government] aid that the West sends to Africa is squandered by the state governments.
She differentiates medical aid [which is necessary] and this government to government aid. She states that the original purpose of this government to government aid was to help African governments invest in African citizens for economic growth. In other words to fight poverty and to her the financial aid to fight poverty in Africa has failed, for numerous reasons, but the top reason is that the African governments see this aid as INCOME.

What does this mean? Well the way she puts it: that African governments have been receiving financial aid [usually in the upper millions to billions of dollars] regularly for 50-60 years with no improvement to the population at large and no dent in African poverty. In fact those impoverished populations are poorer than before [the same can be said for America]. Therefore she says those African governments have decided not to pursue their own country's economic growth because they will continue to receive money under the pretense that they are poor. She believes cutting African nations off will force the governments to invest in their own nations and create jobs and wealth etc, in their own respective countries.

She also mentions the widespread corruption of African governments. It is fairly well known that many in African governments just pocket the money given to them for their people and never distribute it, or they distribute very little of it.

She also tells of how little Africans know of banking and markets. Now I won't bore you with the economics or statistics but the amount of banks in Africa are minimal. She says Africans have what economists call "dead money" [keeping money in places where it doesn't earn interest, i.e under the mattress] and thus all of Africa's wealth and her people's wealth die out over time.

She believes that by cutting aid, African governments would be forced to encourage economic growth within their own states and then those governments can start to look into making their citizens more economically intelligent with the money they have earned. All of this combined should spur more economic growth and pull Africa out of widespread poverty, or at least that is Moyo's theory.

Strangely enough I had never thought of it before. I had heard about corruption in Nigeria, Malawi, etc but I assumed all of that was corporate bribery which is something she oddly left out in the video [not to say it isn't mentioned in the book, I haven't read it]. Corruption in Africa is almost always followed by a corporate name: Haliburton, Exxon. I never thought about government to government bribery, or that these governments don't distribute wealth but rather see it as their paycheck to do with it whatever they wish.

Moyo's beliefs are not farfetched and in fact in these hard economic times in this country, these ideas should be considered even more. With the massive debt the U.S is in do we really want to keep funneling funds, we don't have, into Africa? Well no, but I would say in these harsh times we need to cut off all financial government to government aid, not only to Africa but to other countries as well.

Then it struck me...think for a second about the wealth of natural resources that sit in Africa...diamonds, gold, rubber, oil..do you really think Western capitalist governments and their corporations want to educate those people on the wealth they sit on? Imagine if they had to pay the governments and people what those commodities were really worth. How much more would we, here in America, pay for goods? Scary to think how much we benefit from African ignorance and yet some of us strive to see them awakened. Kwame Nkrumah's plan for Pan-African socialism would thrive and Africa would truly prosper, possibly beyond the Western world.

With that said, I fear Moyo's ideals will fall on deaf ears. They will continue to support corruption in African governments because it keeps the prices on African natural resources low and their corporate bottom lines fat. But also because we, the American public and Westerners in general, greatly benefit from Africa's ignorance with cheap goods.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Are Rappers Targets?

In light of the Yung Berg drama I felt compelled to ask this question..."are Rappers Targets?"

Random violence against rappers is becoming commonplace since I've been following rap music and the culture. There has been numerous attacks, of course the infamous 2Pac & Biggie murders but other than them we've had far to much violence.

Rappers like Beanie Sigel, Camron, Max B, Spice 1 & Fabolous have been shot. Rappers Yung Berg, Trick Daddy, Papoose, Tyga & 50 Cent have been physically assaulted. T.I, Snoop, Shyne, Remy Ma, Lil Kim, Foxy Brown, Prodigy & Cassidy plus more have been arrested and done jail time. Mystikal, C-Murder, Pimp C (R.I.P), Ras Kass, Styles P & Flesh-N-Bone spent long periods of time in jail (all have been released). Lil Wayne, DMX, B.G, 50 Cent & Young Jeezy have/had drug charges. The Game, Tony Yayo, Da Brat, Foxy Brown, Jay Z, & Styles P have been arrested for assaulting others. Busta Rhymes, Nas, T.I & Birdman among others have/had weapons charges. Maino & Saigon are what we would call "jail niggas" they spent more time in jail than they spent free. Both spent almost theyre entire teenage years in jail. Rich Boy & Gucci Mane have justifiable homicides under theyre belts. Whats my point? Are rappers targets for criminals and law enforcement? Some arrests are justified some are not and some of those assaults are justified others are not. But do people care? I mean to hear a rapper got shot Isn't front page news anymore, hearing one got arrested is as common as the sunrise, so I am going to try to sort through this.

First things first arrests prior to becoming a rap star will be ignored (this eliminates certain people). Lets talk first about murder cases. Snoop Dogg, C-Murder, Beanie Sigel (on trial for attempted murder). These are just a few. Beans' case is easily eliminated he was attacked by robbers at gunpoint. In defense of himself people got shot so I guess its somewhat justified. Snoop was supposedly in a shootout wit "rival gangsters" and allegedly killed a young boy, he was found not guilty. C-Murder was convicted of murder. A murder he says was pinned on him because of his stage name...get it? "C-Murder". All 3 are gangsta rappers. They rap about murder so why is it hard to believe they have or would commit one? When I ask "are rappers targets?" I also mean are they targeted by the police as well.

The Game, Lil Wayne & DMX are the most arrested rappers these days from DUIs to assaults to gun possession to animal cruelty these dudes cant catch a break. Are they being harrassed or are they just stupid? I would argue a bit of both. You would have to be stupid to keep getting arrested for the same thing. If the cops know you are stupid of course they wanna catch you in the act, I'm sure they'd like nothin more. I mean shit they rap about violence and brag about coming from violent communities so thus they must be violent people. Lil' Wayne & DMX are junkies (heavy usage of various drugs) how hard could it be to catch a junkie with coke? Especially a celebrity junkie, can't be that hard. A mixture of police harassment and they're own stupidity is at play here.

Getting shot is a rite of passage these days but its a shame cops blame the victims in these cases more than the shooters. Fabolous, Cam'ron & Beanie Sigel were shot during robberies (Cam'ron a carjacking). Neither man cooperated with police. Cam'ron was arrested for refusing to cooperate. Stupid? Yep Cam'ron is a dumbass but he's following a dumbass street code.
In another blog I talked about the difference between snitches and victims. Cam'ron was a victim, but he behaved like a perpetrator and was treated like one. Beans, Fab & Cam WERE targets of violence. Rich rappers in urban cities shining...surely they new better, but to protect the macho image they have they had to "be in the hood" and people have to see them to vouch for them and enhance their street credibility. I can see it now... "Hell yeah my nigga Fab was round here the otha day, he a real ass nigga!" and so the thirsty assailant waited for Fab to come back so they can take his jewels. Thats an easy set up.

Rapper Scarface is always in his hometown and hasn't been attacked because he doesnt wear gaudy jewelry. Problem solved right? Put pride to the side and stop wearing shiny shit and flossing your money around struggling folk and you will not be attacked..simple enough right?

So are rapper's targets? Yes, rappers are targets but only because they make themselves targets. Nobody said you had to chill in the hood. The point of getting rich is to leave the hood!! Leave and stay gone. Who is gonna fault you? Somebody who can't get out themselves? Stop doing dumbass crimes when you know the "hip hop cops" is watching, plotting, waiting for you to fuck up and plaster another mugshot on tv for viewing audience. You can call it harassment but when you make it so easy why shouldn't they arrest you? The easiest way to make a short name for yourself if to fuck over somebody the more well known the better.

Like I mentioned before, fools cant wait to catch a rapper with their guard down. Chain snatching, beat downs, robberies all happen when people looking to cash in on another persons fame. Rapper Tru Life told BEEF (the dvd) he robbed famous rap group Mobb Deep at gunpoint. Truth is he and his goons robbed some little known affiliates of Mobb Deep. So why lie? You still arm robbed some rappers. Point is he was tryna discredit Mobb Deep and add stripes to himself.

If little known rappers do it what do you think Jon Doe's gonna do? An African rapper snatched 50s chain...why? Who knows but I bet he got more attention from that than anything else he does in his life. Sometime that 15 mins is all you need to be seen.

Ironically it was 15 mins of fame that created the huge financial cash cow known as 50 Cent. Through beefing with bigger better known rappers like Jay Z, Ghostface and Raekwon (of Wu Tang Clan), and of course Ja Rule. 50 Cent was put in the limelight and he took advantage. Others however fall by the wayside and copycat chain snatchers take theyre place as the flava of the month.

Publicity comes from high profile artists going through trials and tribulations. Rappers are targets for those who starve for attention. Whether they are writing "tell-all/expose" books (like video hoes...I mean chicks), beating them up, arresting them or attempting to make your bones in the industry at their expense. Attention is usually the common denominator. Rappers are targets but they drew the target on themselves by partaking in foolish acts with no thought of consequence on their lives or public image. So when rapper's whine about aggressive policing, "haters", golddiggers I must remember they did it to themselves.

Poor Hip Hop I hardly knew Thee

As I sit here and think about one of my favorite things on Earth. I say unto myself "boy, things sure done changed" and I say "of course, I know that!!!"

I sit like an old man in a rocking chair on his front porch jus looking at BET I felt like Don Coreleone when he cried for Sonny "Look at how they massacred my boy!" except my boy was hip hop.

I see how these kids have taken the game and flipped it on its ear. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. I sit and think how the "golden era" MCs like Nas, KRS, BDK & Rakim took pride in being a great rapper not hustler.

They worked hard to master the craft but not anymore these new kids don't even try. It's got to the point where I don't watch BET, MTV or listen to the radio. Its pure trash now. Dudes don't even know what lyrics or content or being real or standing for something are anymore.

They don't say what they feel they say what they think you wanna hear. Its all about money, clothes, & being overly sexual and what's the worse thing is the ones that spearhead this are guys who are too old for this immature shit. Examples are Birdman (Brian "Baby" Williams CEO of Cash Money Records who is upwards of 35 years old), Rick "Rozay" Ross (William Roberts popular rapper who is also upwards of 30 years old). Don't you think 40 year olds have more going on or more to say that money, cars, and hoes? If your over 30 and you don't have a true grasp on what life is really about maybe you should quit..LIFE.

So I'm throwing in the towel on these new dudes theres good ones but to few and far between for me to care. Hip Hop as I knew it were there was room for many different types and styles of hip hop is gone now sad to say.

Stop Snitchin vs Start Snitchin

I was watching an episode of Law And Order SVU (a great show by the way) and the case was a string of rapes in murders of underage girls in a black community. And I noticed something in about the middle of the episode, a large group of brothers had gathered outside police station. Ice T and another detective come outside and the brothers start with the ol' "if they was white there would be police everywhere" routine, in which Ice said "we doing the best we can" that was quickly followed by the "if y'all know anything your help would be appreciated" and what happened? They all got that look, you know the look the "i don't know nothing" look.

It was at that point i got kinda salty because here we have a large group of people complaining about the lack of progress on the case....yet nobody wants to help. They kinda defeated the purpose right? Although its possible that nobody knew anything how likely is it that if they did they would step up and say something? I know its a show and all but these types of things happen. Lets apply this to everyday life.

Now would a guy who stood up in spoke out be a snitch? If he trying to protect his community, and make a better place for his family is that bad? "Snitching" is a misunderstood term I'll explain.

The term "snitch" is often misused and misunderstood in today's world. In some circles a "snitch" is ANYBODY who cooperates with the law for any reason. That's not true, a "snitch" is a criminal who cooperates with the law in exchange for something. My grandmother calls the cops on some strange looking people across the street, weird as that is, its not snitching. If you see a robbery and you help the cops identify the robbers you are NOT a snitch you are a WITNESS (a key difference). A snitch would be if one robber blamed it all on the other robber or if one of the robbers gives up another criminal in exchange for lesser time or a "walk"(no jail). So basically if you are NOT part of the criminal underworld you are NOT a snitch and helping catch criminals is a good thing. If you ARE a criminal and you help the law catch other criminals you ARE a snitch and that's a bad thing.

Drug kingpins like Rayful Edmond, Nicky Barnes, and Frank Lucas ARE snitches. They are criminals who helped lock up other criminals some they were even friends with.

The man who gets robbed and is telling the cops who his robbers were is NOT a snitch (he a VICTIM). A woman who sees a crime committed and reports it to the police is NOT a snitch (she is a WITNESS). However a dopeboy that was busted with weed and faces jail time but instead gives up his boss, IS a snitch. It is a very simple concept.

In closing thugs need to stop snitching on each other, be a man take your charge. Ordinary citizens shouldn't be afraid to protect your community, in fact they should be congratulated.

Of course silly hood rules like, "no snitching" or "stop snitching" are created to keep the general public ignorant and most time in fear. Snitching is a crime punishable by death in the street, so it works as deterrent for criminals to keep quiet. Sadly it deters the citizens from keeping their communities free of drugs and crime.

Racism Re-Defined

One of the worst things a person can be called during the span of their life is a racist. The terms racist and racism have been used to describe many people although based on how it's been defined by the user. There are times when something such as prejudice or discrimination is considered racist. The idea behind this paper is to discuss and define racism on its own while not mixing it in with prejudice and discrimination, The reason racism should be defined on its own, is because as mentioned earlier to label someone or something as racist can be very harsh. So harsh in fact being labeled a racist or being party to racism can cost a person their job and it can change the general public perception of that person. The label of racist is not an easy one to escape either. So for that reason racism needs to be defined not as something that can be thrown around so easily. Some of the definitions used within this paper can be viewed as legitimate from many different sources. Including but not limited to the sociological definition of racism, the psychological definition of racism, and the "official"widely accepted definition of racism. The idea being to show the many differences in how racism is defined by the many different fields of study and in the general public. Some may agree and some may disagree but racism is not a term that should fit into this small box. The power that some words have is great and they should be defined with the power of those words in mind. The idea that it's just another word that can be tossed around haphazardly is wrong. The word should be used with the idea that when something or someone is racist or is involved with racism it or they should be called as such while not diminishing the term with overuse.

The universally accepted and often used definition of racism can be found in dictionaries and on basic definition websites like dictionary.com. That definition as quoted from dictionary.com is: "The belief or doctrine that inherent differences among various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others." There are good things and bad things about this definition. The good things in this definition are that racists do often behave as if their race is superior to others. Racists also usually feel that their culture is culturally superior to others. Some of those are usually stating other cultures are or were more primitive or less developed than their own. There are even racists that believe their race was put on Earth to rule others. These types of racists are often more scarce or silent in this belief. Now for the negatives of this definition. First the belief portion is really hard to prove, sense knowing someones beliefs is somewhat crucial to this definition. This implies that you would have to know them in-depth and or they would have to share with you their beliefs. The problem with that is in 2008 getting a person to admit to being a racist is definitely a death knell to both their credibility and integrity and they are aware of that so the chances of getting an admission of this are minimal. As mentioned earlier it is also difficult to find racists that feel that their race was meant to rule others. It was also discussed that one can keep that belief or ideal to themselves and it would be difficult to prove they actually believe that. So after dissecting this definition one can find that this definition is a bit too vague. It requires a lot of intricate knowledge of the person some of the information you would have a hard time acquiring especially sense as mentioned before the label of racist is not a good one. The good points are it gives you an idea of how racists behave and what they could believe. Perhaps a more focused definition is necessary. If the universal definition is too vague maybe one should look elsewhere for a more suitable definition.

One could look to a specific field of study to find a more proper definition. Sociology is the study of society. Surely people who study society can come with a suitable more in-depth definition. Sociologist John J. Macionis in his collegiate study book Social Problems defines racism as: "The assertion that people of one race are less worthy than or even biologically inferior to others" (p76). This definition touches on a different angle the universal definition doesn't and that's assertion" the act of enforcing their beliefs. It makes a lot more sense that a racist would enforce his beliefs without necessarily putting them into words. Also the biological inferiority is interesting angle sociology puts on racism. Especially in situations regarding stereotypes and stereotyping. Stereotyping is based off prejudice and is not always bad but it is rarely good. One such situation involving stereotyping can be saying that Asian males are not good at basketball because stereotypically Asian males are small and fragile. While Black and White American males are usually what some would consider the average basketball players height and have the average basketball player's toughness. An example of that would be NBA player Yao Ming (Chinese) while physically large enough (he's 7ft 3in) was seen as not "physical"or tough enough to play in the NBA. Were the fans and commentators who made this assumption racist against Asian males? No it was a prejudice a prejudgment based on the knowledge they had or believed about Asian males. While still improper to prejudge no one considered them racists. So in the above example it can be proven that a biologically inferior argument doesn't necessarily mean racist. But what about the assertion? Various people would agree that an assertion that a race is inferior cannot really be defended. If someone out to prove Yao's a typical physically weak Asian man by bullying him (on court or off) that can be considered an act of racism. It would imply a level of harassment specifically aimed at making Yao look inferior. This by far one the most detailed definitions one may find on racism. Dr. Feinburg excellently points out specific situations where racism has been viewed and in some areas run rampant. He also accurately points the purpose of racism and what racism has been known for doing. However there is a specific detail that poses a problem. And that is Racism serves to discriminate against ethnic minorities and to maintain advantages and benefits for White Americans. That particular portion of the definition is unfair. This would mean only White people can be racist and only minorities can be victims. While historically speaking racism has been used for this exact reason the definition he uses obviously needs a bit of updating . However Dr. Feinburg's definition is hard to top because of its great detail and the ethos of the author. After dissecting the definitions of specific fields of study and the universal definition of racism if one were asked to define it for they how would it be defined? It would be hard to define a term that's been around for years and has been defined so well by so many. However by reading how different fields of study define it one can see that a proper definition has to be more specific as well as fair. So what would such a definition look like?

Let's try this as a definition of racism: Racism is the systematic assertion of power used to specifically disadvantage, disenfranchise, physically or mentally harm others of different ethnic or racial backgrounds other than their own. Looking at this definition one can see that power is a pre-requisite. Why? Many people hold personal prejudices not necessarily race specific or even if it is one cannot do much about it outside of keeping their prejudices to themselves. But people in power tend to put their prejudices into action. As was proven by Dr. Feinburg's definition. Purposefully disadvantaging other races is a sign of racism within this definition as well. It is because by putting extra roadblocks in the way of other people you are asserting. Of course some would disagree with this definition because it lacks the belief or idea of hatred within a racist these people would probably prefer the universal definition. One could feel it's implied if you are going to disadvantage people or physically harm them you would have to harbor a hatred or dislike of those people. Some would say you don't need to posses any "powers" to be a racist these types of people would favor the sociological definition. Well racists historically put themselves in positions of authority or power in order to oppress those they disliked. If one preferred Dr.Feinburg's definition that racism is found mostly within institutions, it can be agreed that institutions can be racist. However this above definition can also be applied to singular persons. Racism has come a long way. Many different important people have defined it, many more experienced it. The purpose of this paper was to successfully update the term and to separate it from the closely related prejudice and discrimination. One can find that both discrimination and prejudice are parts of racism and racism cannot exist without both of them. However racism has been updated in a way that is specific and if one is charged or labeled as a racist people have a way to prove it was done intentionally. And that was the ultimate goal to show a racists intent.


In Defense OF Hip-Hop

I recently came across an article on the web written by a guy named Thomas Chatterton Williams the article is called Black Culture Beyond Hip-Hop it was published in the Washington Post back in 07 and its made of the kind of things that piss me off. First the guy attempts to make the argument that its hip-hop that causes the stagnation of graduation rates of black inner city kids. Well firstly he has no proof of such a statement its mindless ignorance. Second there is who knows how many factors that play in why drop out rates are so high. It could be inner city arrest/crime rates, drug usage, inadequate education, too high education standards, lack of support, and the newest one a lack of credible institutions. To blame hip-hop for drop out rates is asinine to say the least. He cites a writer in his column that I would much rather tackle his name is John H McWhorter. McWhorter (black guy believe it or not) is a black conservative "intellectual" who has written books and for the purpose of this topic also wrote a negative critique article on hip-hop.

John H McWhorter is on of hip-hops most out-spoked challengers. In his article called How Hip-hop Holds Blacks Back he points the finger of blame at hip-hop for promoting black stereotypes with a few more added gems. He blames hip-hop for misogyny, anti-social behavior, anti-authority behavior, criminality, over aggression and hypersexuality. He views hip-hop as an assault on the black race that should be extingushed. Well I say all the elements he blame hip-hop for is American. America promotes criminality (The Sopranos, Goodfellas etc...) America promotes hypersexuality (Real World, Sex In The City etc...)Yep America promotes misogyny (anyone notice how the media butchered Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin? or how women are greatly disrespected in those old gangster movies i.e Michael Corleone slapping his wife in Godfather 2?) Hip-Hop is a reflection of American culture believe it or not. He says hip-hop provides a fatalistic view of the inner city and assaults the mentality of young blacks. I say no song is worse than actually walking past drunks and crackheads on your way to school. The view he speaks of existed before hip-hop because the people's complaints existed bfore hip-hop.

People You Should Know: Assata Shakur

[Quick word: no relation to Tupac] Assata Shakur was born JoAnn Deborah Bryon on July 16,1947. JoAnn became "aware" in school when she began meeting people who thoughts about Blacks were more positive than she was used to. She began joining many political and social organizations including the Black Liberation Movement, the student rights movement and a movement to end the Vietnam War. She believed being an activist was not only meaningful to her community but also for her it was fun. Joann then changed her name to Assata Shakur [Assata= "she who struggles" Shakur= "The Thankful One"]. Her abilities as an activist brought her some meaningful titles one of which was being the leader of the BLA [Black Liberation Army] and also a high-ranking even perhaps leader of the BPP. But with the titles came targets and in 1973 Assata and 2 of her friends where pulled over by 2 New Jersey state troopers for a "motor vehicle violation". Apparently according to the FBI Assata had warrants in New York for various felonies one of which was bank robbery. At this point the story becomes a "he say she say" tale. The story of the FBI and the NJ troopers is that Assata and her friends opened fire. A shootout began leaving one of Assata's friends killed and a New Jersey trooper was also killed. Assata herself was shot twice, a trooper wounded and her other friend was arrested. The FBI state that the dead trooper was killed "execution-style" and that Assata fled the scene of the crime shortly after the shooting. Assata was soon apprehended were she says she was tortured before standing trial for the death of the trooper. In 1977 both Assata and her friend were found guilty of first degree murder, assault, battery of a police officer, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, illegal possession of weapon and armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. Assata says to this day that she isn't and never has been a criminal [she was found not guilty of the crimes in New York]. While in prison Assata gave birth to her daughter. Assata was imprisoned for 6 years, 2 of which she spent in solitary confinement. But on November 2, 1979 Assata escaped from the New Jersey prison [she says she was "liberated"]. Assata resurfaced in Cuba in 1984 where she was given political asylum and was reunited with her daughter. She claims all the tribulations of her life were due to the FBI's COINTELPRO program. And J.Edgar Hoover's racist belief that the BPP was the greatest threat to American security. While in Cuba, Assata has written numerous books and done interviews where she explains her flight from America.

In one such interview she says she was forced to leave feeling she was being falsely imprisoned due to racism and persecution. She still proclaims her innocence of all crimes. She says she chose Cuba because it was close to the U.S so she wouldn't be far from her family, also because Cuba is as she put it "very-principled" in its struggle of "Eurocentric racism" that America and Europe force upon people of color throughout the world. Another reason is because she wanted to see socialism in action and believed the Cuban people were very different from Americans, saying Americans "felt like they were not part of a community, but were isolated units afraid of that interaction, of contact..". She believes in Cuba's stronger sense of community and even with the rumor of the ending of America's blockade of Cuba that she would not be sent back, saying she believes that Cuba is a nation immune to America's "institutional terrorism". Although she's been in Cuba for at least 25 years the FBI still have a standing $1,000,000 bounty on her for crimes such as; Acts of terrorism, domestic terrorism, unlawful flight to avoid confinement and murder. Assata Shakur is considered heroic and even referred to herself as a "former 20th century slave" who ran for her freedom and away from persecution, on the other hand the FBI considers her the mother hen of numerous criminals and an extremely dangerous fugitive. Since being in Cuba, Assata has written her autobiography and even has a song dedicated to her by popular rapper Common entitled "A song for Assata" on his 2000 album "Like Water for Chocolate". In the song Common tells Assata's incredible story [which he learned from her book and other research] which in turn prompted me to do research of my own that lead to this blog. . I consider Assata a heroine, a person of strong convictions and incredible courage.

The Strip Club and Strippers...The Humanitarian Angle

I just came from my first trip to a strip club. The idea of making money off the desires of men [half and some fully naked women, chicken wings, liquor/beer and football/boxing on ESPN] while intriguing and almost guaranteed to make you an assload of money has a side I never noticed until I went there personally.

First let me say I was never a supporter of strippers. I always thought of them of as the stereotypical scandalous, immoral hoes we see on television and movies. And while its easy to view them through that lens I really couldn't.

Before I was intoxicated I watched the girls but not just their bodies but I watched their faces [yeah I know what kinda loser is studying strippers while they're slapping and popping ass all over right?]. But in the middle of all that I just looked at their faces and I noticed a lot of them looked so unhappy and almost bored at what they did.
I noticed that they only seemed to "enjoy" it is when they made eye contact with you [which my homeboy told me is a trap to get money so even that's insincere]. When I got buzzing all of this became irrelevant I mean it becomes all about the ass and tits then.

As I began to sober up I once again noticed the degrading way this is to make money. You have guys literally throwing money at you [imagine being a cashier at Walmart or something and people just throwing money at you instead of putting it in your hand], stuffing money in your underwear for just a dollar or two [same scenario as before your a cashier at a store and someone stuffs one dollar bills in your pants]. I watched an extremely beautiful and incredibly sexy black women prowl around on a stage in a thong like a lion or a wolf and scoop up money guys threw at her.

I couldn't help but think of lions in a zoo after the zookeeper throws meat in the cage. To me it was the same. After awhile I started feeling uncomfortable, I felt like how can people do this every night? On either side of the issue: how can a man watch women degrade themselves in this way? How can a woman do this comfortably every night? Now I won't go into the women are queens who deserve our utmost respect spiel that usually goes here. Its common knowledge, but even if you don't consider every woman a queen, surely she's a human being. And as a human being she deserves better than crawling around on a stage for men who are being fueled by booze and chicken wings...right?

I suppose not everyone thinks like me and while I don't hate the clubs or even dislike them its a great release and a good experience but I suppose one would have to be drunk or he would have to suspend his thoughts for awhile to enjoy it fully. I recognize from the woman's side its just a job like working in a hopsital or a store. It just requires a different amount of nerve, a greater amount to walk around naked in front of thirsty, horny, drunk guys for change.

I suppose the whole ordeal made me pity strippers and made me think about what happened to make them have to do what they were doing. No doubt some of them enjoyed it, and probably could do other things if they wanted but its the ones that hate the job, in the same way you or I hates our jobs what keeps them going? I'm not one to stop a stripper to ask and all but I couldn't help but wonder and to feel a little bad for them.

Another thing is I always said to myself I could never date a stripper [of course sex with one being completely different] because of the nature of their job, I can't say that I have changed my mind but I would probably give it more thought now than I would've before. In closing a strip club to me is a zoo, you feel bad for the animals sometime they're not in their natural habitat, they're given scraps and put on a stage to perform in front of an audience. The difference being of course a stripper could quit, she can just refuse to do the job while a tiger can't just open the cage and go home or put in 2 weeks notice while looking for a new job. So I suppose I have to learn to suspend my thinking and just see it as women working it won't be easy but I'm sure I can.