Usually I wouldn't waste time with stuff like this but its simply to delicious to ignore. I can't describe it but allow me to, if the reader doesn't mind, to copy & paste word for word something from a recent Rush Limbaugh show:
RUSH [Limbaugh]: "Dr. Frank Luntz. Dr. Frank Luntz was at Orlando, Florida, on Wednesday at the Republican Governors Association, and Dr. Frank Luntz said this."
[Frank] LUNTZ: "I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death. Okay, "they
should occupy a job" and "take a bath." I get that
joke. But, man! They're having an impact on what
the American people think of capitalism. And so
I'm trying to get that word removed and replace
it with either economic freedom or free market."
RUSH [Limbaugh]: "So Frank Luntz, favored pollster of Fox News, is now telling Republican governors, "Don't use the word 'capitalism.'" It hurts us. Frank Luntz is trying to get the word "capitalism" removed from the conservative Republican lexicon; and instead replace it with either economic freedom or free market. Frank Luntz says, "I'm so scared of the anti-Wall Street effort. I am frightened to death." They're about
disbanded, aren't they? They've migrated to
where it's a little warmer than it was. I got 15 of
them to show up the other night. Obama got a
hundred of them. What is there to be afraid of,
for crying out loud? But there you have it!
There's capitulation, and now we can't use the
word."
End of quote (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/12/02/luntz_capitulates_to_the_left_advises_that_capitalism_is_a_dirty_word)...
What's there to be afraid of Rush? Luntz, Republican propagandist, is absolutely right. For all of Limbaugh's braggadocio about OWS being disbanded, how could he miss that?
I called Luntz a "propagandist". Why did I do that? Because under a very reliable definition of propagandist or producer of propaganda that is exactly what he does.
Harold Lasswell in Political Theory of Propaganda said it best: "The problem of the propagandist is to intensify the attitudes favorable to his purpose, to reverse the attitudes hostile to it, and attract the indifferentor, or worst, to prevent them from assuming a hostile bent."
So when Luntz says "I'm trying to get that word [capitalism] removed and replace it with either economic freedom or free market." Using Lasswell's definition what is he doing? Producing propaganda. Therefore he is a propagandist.
He's trying to use buzzwords like "freedom" and "free market" because he needs to change public opinion, rather manipulate public opinion of his ideology.
Noam Chomsky dubbed this act "manufactoring consent". Let's define that term for those of you who don't understand it:
"manufacture consent, that is to bring about agreement on the part of the public"- (Chomsky).
Luntz wants you to agree with him and his ideology. So much so he will use any means necessary, even deception to achieve that goal.
But why? Why does Luntz wanna impose his linguistic jiujitsu on us? Perhaps Walter Lippman can answer this: "it was necessary [to manufacture consent] because the common interests elude public opinion entirely and can only be understood and managed by a "specialized class" of "responsible men" (Lippman)
"Responsible men" like Luntz who are smart, cagey and overall just plain better than us. The "specialized class" being those who pay bastards like Luntz to play these games with words, trying to mindfuck everyone into agreeing with him.
But why should we cater to this "specialized class"? "The class of citizens who have to take some active role in running general affairs, that's the "specialized class". They are the people who analyze, execute, make decisions and run things in the political, economic and ideological systems- (Lippman).
The elites who run our systems, who keep themselves rich and in power are "special", so then, what then are we? Well according to Lippman we are a "herd", yes a "herd" like cattle. To be more precise he says: "There is the "bewildered herd"..their function...to be spectators [and] not participants" (Lippman)
Basically we should shut up and let guys like Luntz dictate. We should do nothing more than choose between Luntz and his Democratic counterpart, its not our place to participate in the process. We should not be able to define our own words or to be allowed to fight against concepts we don't like.
That's what Occupy Wall Street is to them, a "bewildered herd". Masses that are uncontrollable, illogical, immoral criminals who dare to make demands of the "specialized class" but Luntz was being honest when he said he was afraid, the elites are always afraid. They always fear revolutions and revolutionaries, they fear losing control.
Sure it starts with the elimination of "capitalism", the word not the ideology, and replacing it with "economic freedom" but where does it end? Well it ends when we have neutraized and overcome them. If we have the power to force them to change their verbiage, we have the power to make them change this society. If they refuse, they are removed and their spots, ironically, should be occupied.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Class warfare and the friendly fire therein
Marxism is essentially a pro-labor social stance. Now I see a lot of people talk as if that is a bad thing. Since when is it wrong to be a laborer and be pro-labor?
The majority of Americans are laborers and are working class, so then is it to say they are "marxist" for looking out for their own benefit? Didn't Ayn Rand call it "rational self-interest"?
Why is it okay for those with means to look out for their own benefit but the majority of the nation should not?
For instance House Speaker Boehner said "we listened to the American people." <- is that a marxist statement? According to most of you it is because whenever someone is "listening" or "in tune" with the labor class it is marxist.
When politicians run on platforms of helping to create jobs what do you think that is? Its telling the majority of Americans [the labor class] that they are looking to create work for you. Is that marxism?
If your in doubt ask yourself this: Why would the elite class care about job creation? They wouldn't be elites if they didn't already have money.
I have done a lot of independent studying as of late [before school started] and I came to the conclusion that America is thoroughly Anti-populist.
Meaning they hate the commonfolk which are the majority of the nation. Now where do I get this? Well you have people who are staunchly anti anything potentially "collectivist", when collectivism is not wrong.
This country was built on collective efforts! Where did this come from? I say the 50s, 60s, 70s because there were raucous populist uprisings. Workers, minorities, gays, etc during these times, but not only in America but in other nations as well [like China, for instance].
So now the 80s hit and when Reagan kicks in everybody hates the working man now. I mean people are so hell bent on riding the coat tails of the elites that they actually put them on a pedestal above themselves.
Look at the prison system.
Overwhelmingly poor, working class whites and minorities. Financially hierarchical systems of legality, medical, financial, political and social systems despite the majority of the country being poor or working class (what John Edwards has referred to as "Two Americas"). Why is this allowed?
Wasn't the purpose of building this nation was to NOT have elites? In my opinion the biggest collectivists are the ones who claim to hate it.
They are the ones who join political parties, lobbying and action committees yet they tell you how bad collectivism is.
They say a corporation only has responsibility to its stockholders but what are stockholders if not a collection of individuals?
The hypocrisy is amazing one you think about it.
The whole thing is a mindf-ck. They repeatedly believe that the well off will eventually sprinkle something down and the rest have to just wait and see, maybe scratch something for themselves from what is left. Meanwhile they are getting pumped (through heavy taxation) to feed the government beast.
Then you have the perversion of values where people actually get themselves tricked into thinking its honorable to offer up more of your money so he can keep more of his. He's telling you government is evil, and government is the devil etc and that corporations are beholden to profit so they have a stake in success.
When that too is a lie, they will just get their government buddies to sign off on a little bit of help, but these same people say government is evil and is stopping us from making more jobs.
Enough with the lies and propaganda:
"...truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas...
... one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day. It doesn't have to be that way.
We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems: one for families who get the best health care money can by, and then one for everybody else rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, HMOs...
We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else..."-
John Edwards [2004]
I do not support John Edwards but he was right then and he's right today. The difference is that in that speech he was talking about uniting the "Two Americas" but in the 7 years that has passed the breach has grown exponentially.
Time to stop the friendly fire and become "rationally self-interested".
The majority of Americans are laborers and are working class, so then is it to say they are "marxist" for looking out for their own benefit? Didn't Ayn Rand call it "rational self-interest"?
Why is it okay for those with means to look out for their own benefit but the majority of the nation should not?
For instance House Speaker Boehner said "we listened to the American people." <- is that a marxist statement? According to most of you it is because whenever someone is "listening" or "in tune" with the labor class it is marxist.
When politicians run on platforms of helping to create jobs what do you think that is? Its telling the majority of Americans [the labor class] that they are looking to create work for you. Is that marxism?
If your in doubt ask yourself this: Why would the elite class care about job creation? They wouldn't be elites if they didn't already have money.
I have done a lot of independent studying as of late [before school started] and I came to the conclusion that America is thoroughly Anti-populist.
Meaning they hate the commonfolk which are the majority of the nation. Now where do I get this? Well you have people who are staunchly anti anything potentially "collectivist", when collectivism is not wrong.
This country was built on collective efforts! Where did this come from? I say the 50s, 60s, 70s because there were raucous populist uprisings. Workers, minorities, gays, etc during these times, but not only in America but in other nations as well [like China, for instance].
So now the 80s hit and when Reagan kicks in everybody hates the working man now. I mean people are so hell bent on riding the coat tails of the elites that they actually put them on a pedestal above themselves.
Look at the prison system.
Overwhelmingly poor, working class whites and minorities. Financially hierarchical systems of legality, medical, financial, political and social systems despite the majority of the country being poor or working class (what John Edwards has referred to as "Two Americas"). Why is this allowed?
Wasn't the purpose of building this nation was to NOT have elites? In my opinion the biggest collectivists are the ones who claim to hate it.
They are the ones who join political parties, lobbying and action committees yet they tell you how bad collectivism is.
They say a corporation only has responsibility to its stockholders but what are stockholders if not a collection of individuals?
The hypocrisy is amazing one you think about it.
The whole thing is a mindf-ck. They repeatedly believe that the well off will eventually sprinkle something down and the rest have to just wait and see, maybe scratch something for themselves from what is left. Meanwhile they are getting pumped (through heavy taxation) to feed the government beast.
Then you have the perversion of values where people actually get themselves tricked into thinking its honorable to offer up more of your money so he can keep more of his. He's telling you government is evil, and government is the devil etc and that corporations are beholden to profit so they have a stake in success.
When that too is a lie, they will just get their government buddies to sign off on a little bit of help, but these same people say government is evil and is stopping us from making more jobs.
Enough with the lies and propaganda:
"...truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas...
... one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day. It doesn't have to be that way.
We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems: one for families who get the best health care money can by, and then one for everybody else rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, HMOs...
We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else..."-
John Edwards [2004]
I do not support John Edwards but he was right then and he's right today. The difference is that in that speech he was talking about uniting the "Two Americas" but in the 7 years that has passed the breach has grown exponentially.
Time to stop the friendly fire and become "rationally self-interested".
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Innocence Project
The Innocence Project is a collection of defense attorneys that specialize in post-conviction services. They help inmates who have questionable convictions seek new trials or even total exoneration. They do this by carefully researching each case looking for improprieties. These improprieties come in many forms but the innocence project has narrowed them down to a select few that are the most common:
*Bad Lawyering (lazy, ineffective defense attorneys)
*Prosecutor/Police Misconduct
*Junk Science (non-scientific evidence being used as scientific evidence or questionable science)
*Eyewitness Misidentification
*False Admissions
*Questionable informants
The Innocence Project also provides reforms that, if applied would limit or eliminate these improprieties from taking place.
On the heels of Troy Davis' execution many should see the work of the Innocence Project. In Davis' case a large majority of the witnesses either recanted or their testimony was in some other way compromised. All this has lead in the now widespread belief that Troy Davis was indeed innocent. The only people that truly believe he was guilty was the family of the victim and the prosecutor. Davis sat in prison for over 20 years and even though his case never caught national headlines until right before his execution, it has raised a crucial debate about the criminal justice system and capital punishment.
The Innocence Project has had many cases overturned, and the convict exonerated and very few of these cases ever made national headlines. The thought then becomes that anything which raises questions about the belief in the legal system, a belief mind you that must be there if the system is to work, is ignored or minimized. The Innocence Project's work, Troy Davis' witness recants and contradictions are just two of the things that cause great, widespread disbelief.
Despite all the efforts of the ACLU to prevent Davis' execution it still took place, despite all the efforts of the Innocence Project many men and women who are truly innocent are executed or still sit in prison, all for the sake of protecting the sanctity of a disturbingly unbalanced system.
To learn more about the Innocence Project check out their website:
http://www.innocenceproject.org
*Bad Lawyering (lazy, ineffective defense attorneys)
*Prosecutor/Police Misconduct
*Junk Science (non-scientific evidence being used as scientific evidence or questionable science)
*Eyewitness Misidentification
*False Admissions
*Questionable informants
The Innocence Project also provides reforms that, if applied would limit or eliminate these improprieties from taking place.
On the heels of Troy Davis' execution many should see the work of the Innocence Project. In Davis' case a large majority of the witnesses either recanted or their testimony was in some other way compromised. All this has lead in the now widespread belief that Troy Davis was indeed innocent. The only people that truly believe he was guilty was the family of the victim and the prosecutor. Davis sat in prison for over 20 years and even though his case never caught national headlines until right before his execution, it has raised a crucial debate about the criminal justice system and capital punishment.
The Innocence Project has had many cases overturned, and the convict exonerated and very few of these cases ever made national headlines. The thought then becomes that anything which raises questions about the belief in the legal system, a belief mind you that must be there if the system is to work, is ignored or minimized. The Innocence Project's work, Troy Davis' witness recants and contradictions are just two of the things that cause great, widespread disbelief.
Despite all the efforts of the ACLU to prevent Davis' execution it still took place, despite all the efforts of the Innocence Project many men and women who are truly innocent are executed or still sit in prison, all for the sake of protecting the sanctity of a disturbingly unbalanced system.
To learn more about the Innocence Project check out their website:
http://www.innocenceproject.org
Pinochet: Capitalist Hero?
In 2006, a blogger for the Von Mises Institute (a very pro-capitalist organization) wrote a blog heralding former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for saving Chile' from their democratically elected President Salvador Allende and his impending communist state.
Allende, a Marxist and socialist won Chile's elections and began a campaign of nationalizing industry to heal Chile's ailing economy. The blogger, compared Allende's agenda to that of former Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. The coup lead by Pinochet, stormed Chile's White House. In what some call a "civil war", others refer to as a coup de grace in the end Allende killed himself and Pinochet took power. After taking power Pinochet punished Allende supporters, trade unionists, socialists etc brutal by using torture and murder.
The argument being made by the blogger is that although thousands of people were murdered, tortured and/or just plain evaporated into thin air by Pinochet's brutal regime, its a small price to pay because death tolls would have been worse under Allende, even though there is no proof to make such a claim.
The writer even goes as far as to say that had there been a Pinochet in Germany to stop Hitler the country would have been better off. Obviously this is to say Allende was Chile's Hitler, or on the road to becoming Hitler-esque leader [despite having zero proof of such]. Now why would they say this? I mean who cares? Well they do.
Pinochet was a capitalist who learned from Milton Freeman and the famed Chicago school of Economics and believed in free-markets and that he "liberated" Chile from Allende's socialism with the help of the United States Government, foreign corporations and powerful foreign economists [all capitalist economists by the way]. The sad part is that If this was a socialist website touting Che Guevara people would hit the ceiling.
To get a sense of how ridiculous this blog is this is a quote directly from the blog itself: "General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits".
You honestly want people to believe there is a such thing as a benevolent dictator?!  A dictator who limits his own powers? Yet, they willfully admit he murdered and tortured people? How utterly retarded.
Allende, a Marxist and socialist won Chile's elections and began a campaign of nationalizing industry to heal Chile's ailing economy. The blogger, compared Allende's agenda to that of former Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. The coup lead by Pinochet, stormed Chile's White House. In what some call a "civil war", others refer to as a coup de grace in the end Allende killed himself and Pinochet took power. After taking power Pinochet punished Allende supporters, trade unionists, socialists etc brutal by using torture and murder.
The argument being made by the blogger is that although thousands of people were murdered, tortured and/or just plain evaporated into thin air by Pinochet's brutal regime, its a small price to pay because death tolls would have been worse under Allende, even though there is no proof to make such a claim.
The writer even goes as far as to say that had there been a Pinochet in Germany to stop Hitler the country would have been better off. Obviously this is to say Allende was Chile's Hitler, or on the road to becoming Hitler-esque leader [despite having zero proof of such]. Now why would they say this? I mean who cares? Well they do.
Pinochet was a capitalist who learned from Milton Freeman and the famed Chicago school of Economics and believed in free-markets and that he "liberated" Chile from Allende's socialism with the help of the United States Government, foreign corporations and powerful foreign economists [all capitalist economists by the way]. The sad part is that If this was a socialist website touting Che Guevara people would hit the ceiling.
To get a sense of how ridiculous this blog is this is a quote directly from the blog itself: "General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits".
You honestly want people to believe there is a such thing as a benevolent dictator?!  A dictator who limits his own powers? Yet, they willfully admit he murdered and tortured people? How utterly retarded.
The Hit on Gaddafi
Preface--[I am not happy Gaddafi is dead, I don't know enough about him to make a judgment]
Wolf Blitzer on CNN said 2 things that stuck out to me. 1- "Are the American people going to reimbursed for their help in overthrowing Gaddafi" and 2- "Libya is a wealthy country, a very oil rich country and now they have an opportunity to do 'good things' for their people".
What this tells me is that the U.S. government will demand repayment for helping overthrow Gaddafi, effectively putting Libya in their debt [along with the inevitable puppet leader]. This also tells me to expect a raid on Libya's oil by American/"NATO" countries and corporations which will also trash the economy of Libya.
Now I don't know much about Libya but I DO know about America's government and corporations and I don't think the Libyans will like living under the thumb of Western economic colonialism.
Anyway I noticed that NATO was given credit for knocking off Gaddafi and in my personal interest looked up NATO membership.
I happened to stumble across some info about Libya's economy as I was looking to see what could come from Gaddafi's death. And this is what I found:
NATO & The EU each share 21 members. Libya is the biggest exporter to the EU. It supplies approximately 98.5% of the EU's energy. Their agreements came up to 28.8B last year. This year was supposed to be the re-negotiations of their agreements.
Now it came also to my attention that Gaddafi intended to do 2 things: 1-Unify Africa under 1 government (he was voted as leader of the African Union in 2009) and 2-begin trading oil solely for gold. Neither of which is favorable to his trade partners or the world at large. Africa is already very wealthy in gold and oil, so trading solely in precious resources works in Africa's favor.
Well considering it was time to re-negotiate with the EU on trade terms AND his oil for gold plan, it is really coincidental that Gaddafi started having "problems" that lead to the suspension of those negotiations earlier this year.
These "problems" [rebels] began being aided by NATO [the VAST majority of which are his LARGEST trade partners]. France, Italy & Britain who were the 3 major NATO nations involved (also 3 major nations in the EU) killed off their #1 exporter of energy, but for what purpose?
Its obvious right? Why negotiate when they can use force to take the whole basket? Essentially, this is Iraq pt. II and Gaddafi is the new Saddam Hussein. Was Gaddafi a dictator? Of course but so was Hosni Mubarak (former Egyptian Prime Minister) but NATO didn't get involved there. Kim Jong Ill (Prime Minister of North Korea) is a dictator nobody gets involved there. There's a civil war in Bahrain, yet NATO & the United Nations don't get involved...wonder why.
My opinion is that this is a well calculated, mafia style hit. An economic hit to be more precise. Planned by the United States, France, Italy and Britain and their oil corporations looking to take advantage of another oil rich nation that looked to use the capitalist ideology against them (Saddam tried it in the 80s and was invaded in the 90s for his efforts).
Bloodshed over oil must stop. This blog is not about absolving Gaddafi or Saddam from the evil they have done but it is about how the governments of various nations believing that the people are stupid and so complacent that we will rejoice at the death of a dictator even under false pretenses.
Wolf Blitzer on CNN said 2 things that stuck out to me. 1- "Are the American people going to reimbursed for their help in overthrowing Gaddafi" and 2- "Libya is a wealthy country, a very oil rich country and now they have an opportunity to do 'good things' for their people".
What this tells me is that the U.S. government will demand repayment for helping overthrow Gaddafi, effectively putting Libya in their debt [along with the inevitable puppet leader]. This also tells me to expect a raid on Libya's oil by American/"NATO" countries and corporations which will also trash the economy of Libya.
Now I don't know much about Libya but I DO know about America's government and corporations and I don't think the Libyans will like living under the thumb of Western economic colonialism.
Anyway I noticed that NATO was given credit for knocking off Gaddafi and in my personal interest looked up NATO membership.
I happened to stumble across some info about Libya's economy as I was looking to see what could come from Gaddafi's death. And this is what I found:
NATO & The EU each share 21 members. Libya is the biggest exporter to the EU. It supplies approximately 98.5% of the EU's energy. Their agreements came up to 28.8B last year. This year was supposed to be the re-negotiations of their agreements.
Now it came also to my attention that Gaddafi intended to do 2 things: 1-Unify Africa under 1 government (he was voted as leader of the African Union in 2009) and 2-begin trading oil solely for gold. Neither of which is favorable to his trade partners or the world at large. Africa is already very wealthy in gold and oil, so trading solely in precious resources works in Africa's favor.
Well considering it was time to re-negotiate with the EU on trade terms AND his oil for gold plan, it is really coincidental that Gaddafi started having "problems" that lead to the suspension of those negotiations earlier this year.
These "problems" [rebels] began being aided by NATO [the VAST majority of which are his LARGEST trade partners]. France, Italy & Britain who were the 3 major NATO nations involved (also 3 major nations in the EU) killed off their #1 exporter of energy, but for what purpose?
Its obvious right? Why negotiate when they can use force to take the whole basket? Essentially, this is Iraq pt. II and Gaddafi is the new Saddam Hussein. Was Gaddafi a dictator? Of course but so was Hosni Mubarak (former Egyptian Prime Minister) but NATO didn't get involved there. Kim Jong Ill (Prime Minister of North Korea) is a dictator nobody gets involved there. There's a civil war in Bahrain, yet NATO & the United Nations don't get involved...wonder why.
My opinion is that this is a well calculated, mafia style hit. An economic hit to be more precise. Planned by the United States, France, Italy and Britain and their oil corporations looking to take advantage of another oil rich nation that looked to use the capitalist ideology against them (Saddam tried it in the 80s and was invaded in the 90s for his efforts).
Bloodshed over oil must stop. This blog is not about absolving Gaddafi or Saddam from the evil they have done but it is about how the governments of various nations believing that the people are stupid and so complacent that we will rejoice at the death of a dictator even under false pretenses.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Terrorism Over Tripoli: Howard Zinn, Ronald Reagan, Lupe Fiasco & Barack Obama
"Does a Western Democracy have a better right to kill innocent people than a Middle Eastern dictatorship?"-Howard Zinn
May 2011. Controversial and talented hip-hop star Lupe Fiasco seemingly shocked the world when he called President Barack Obama a terrorist. Lupe's comments were based on current American foreign policy which has caused millions of casualties in at least 3 different nations: Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Lupe's words were quoted as: "My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
Lupe didn't just criticize foreign policy but President Obama directly with his comments saying that Obama was the “To me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America,” biggest terrorist". But the rapper didn't stop with calling the president a terrorist, he also criticized voting saying that "“I don’t vote. I don’t get involved in politics. Because it’s meaningless, to be honest." Both of which are sentiments I can agree with. Obama and the United States Government are terrorists, theres no doubt that the people of Libya and Iraq also agree, they live with the terror. The indiscriminate bombing of Libyan towns and citizens in Tripoli. One such bombing killed Qaddafi's son and his grand children these are not the acts of heroes but of murderers who now because of these "attack drones" are no better than Qaddafi himself. Lupe caught plenty of flack for his commentary specifically from the Black community that supports Obama but in a strange twist, he also catches hell from the Fox Newz crowd who despise Obama and was referred to as a "pinhead" by Bill O'Reilly (which means "you made it" and that you must have said something right).
April 1986. Libya leader Muommar Qaddafi's regime bombs a discotheque in West Berlin, only two people died--but one was an American soldier. This prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to commence bombing and other aerial strikes in Libya. The outrage that followed the strikes, forced historian Howard Zinn to pen a piece entitled "Terrorism Over Tripoli" (which this blog borrows said title). In the project Zinn blasts Reagan with the same fervor Lupe uses on Obama. Zinn also calls Reagan a terrorist and says that Reagan's terrorism far outweighs Qaddafi. But Zinn takes things a step further than Lupe in some regards.
Zinn writes "we live in a world in which we are asked to make moral choices between one kind of terrorism over another. The government, the press, the politicians, are trying to convince us that Ronald Reagan's terrorism is morally superior to Muommar Qaddafi's" (p. 64). Similar to today, where we are constantly reminded of the Lockerbie bombing, and how Qaddafi is attempting squash rebel groups in Libya with force, we miss or rather are taught to ignore how much force is used to stop Qaddafi. Zinn continues "modern technology has outdistanced the Bible. 'An eye for an eye' has become a hundred eyes for an eye, a hundred babies for a baby" (p.65). Lupe like Zinn sees that terrorism and war go in a cycle. America attacks Libya today in retaliation for Qaddafi's attacks on his own people, America attacked Libya then in retaliation for Qaddafi's attack in Berlin. But regardless of what is in retaliation for what there are always innocents left to suffer. It is these innocents and their families that become terrorists in their own right over time. The "eye for an eye" mantra on a much smaller scale and retaliation being carried out by smaller cells of peasants. At the end of the day all of the above are terrorists: Moummar Qaddafi, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They have all killed innocent people for one reason or another none of which can be excused, therefore, Lupe Fiasco was no more wrong to mention this than Howard Zinn was 25 years earlier. The "patriots" a.k.a the flag wavers can attempt to claim any moral high ground they wish but truth its truth.
Lupe Fiasco dared to dissent, he refused to be a flag waver or even to take "I like Obama because he's Black like me" road. He did the right thing and he made the statement that needed to be made and now I will close this piece with an important statement by Howard Zinn: "the most cherished element of our democracy--the pluralism of dissenting voices, the marketplace of contending ideas--seems to disappear at a time like this, when the bombs fall, the flag waves and everyone scurries" (p. 46).
May 2011. Controversial and talented hip-hop star Lupe Fiasco seemingly shocked the world when he called President Barack Obama a terrorist. Lupe's comments were based on current American foreign policy which has caused millions of casualties in at least 3 different nations: Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Lupe's words were quoted as: "My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
Lupe didn't just criticize foreign policy but President Obama directly with his comments saying that Obama was the “To me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America,” biggest terrorist". But the rapper didn't stop with calling the president a terrorist, he also criticized voting saying that "“I don’t vote. I don’t get involved in politics. Because it’s meaningless, to be honest." Both of which are sentiments I can agree with. Obama and the United States Government are terrorists, theres no doubt that the people of Libya and Iraq also agree, they live with the terror. The indiscriminate bombing of Libyan towns and citizens in Tripoli. One such bombing killed Qaddafi's son and his grand children these are not the acts of heroes but of murderers who now because of these "attack drones" are no better than Qaddafi himself. Lupe caught plenty of flack for his commentary specifically from the Black community that supports Obama but in a strange twist, he also catches hell from the Fox Newz crowd who despise Obama and was referred to as a "pinhead" by Bill O'Reilly (which means "you made it" and that you must have said something right).
April 1986. Libya leader Muommar Qaddafi's regime bombs a discotheque in West Berlin, only two people died--but one was an American soldier. This prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to commence bombing and other aerial strikes in Libya. The outrage that followed the strikes, forced historian Howard Zinn to pen a piece entitled "Terrorism Over Tripoli" (which this blog borrows said title). In the project Zinn blasts Reagan with the same fervor Lupe uses on Obama. Zinn also calls Reagan a terrorist and says that Reagan's terrorism far outweighs Qaddafi. But Zinn takes things a step further than Lupe in some regards.
Zinn writes "we live in a world in which we are asked to make moral choices between one kind of terrorism over another. The government, the press, the politicians, are trying to convince us that Ronald Reagan's terrorism is morally superior to Muommar Qaddafi's" (p. 64). Similar to today, where we are constantly reminded of the Lockerbie bombing, and how Qaddafi is attempting squash rebel groups in Libya with force, we miss or rather are taught to ignore how much force is used to stop Qaddafi. Zinn continues "modern technology has outdistanced the Bible. 'An eye for an eye' has become a hundred eyes for an eye, a hundred babies for a baby" (p.65). Lupe like Zinn sees that terrorism and war go in a cycle. America attacks Libya today in retaliation for Qaddafi's attacks on his own people, America attacked Libya then in retaliation for Qaddafi's attack in Berlin. But regardless of what is in retaliation for what there are always innocents left to suffer. It is these innocents and their families that become terrorists in their own right over time. The "eye for an eye" mantra on a much smaller scale and retaliation being carried out by smaller cells of peasants. At the end of the day all of the above are terrorists: Moummar Qaddafi, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They have all killed innocent people for one reason or another none of which can be excused, therefore, Lupe Fiasco was no more wrong to mention this than Howard Zinn was 25 years earlier. The "patriots" a.k.a the flag wavers can attempt to claim any moral high ground they wish but truth its truth.
Lupe Fiasco dared to dissent, he refused to be a flag waver or even to take "I like Obama because he's Black like me" road. He did the right thing and he made the statement that needed to be made and now I will close this piece with an important statement by Howard Zinn: "the most cherished element of our democracy--the pluralism of dissenting voices, the marketplace of contending ideas--seems to disappear at a time like this, when the bombs fall, the flag waves and everyone scurries" (p. 46).
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Orweillian-Bradburian Society
I am an avid reader, that much can be ascertained by the blogs themselves. However books that grab my attention are either non-fiction, current events, political and social in nature. Rarely do I find so much excitement in fiction as I have found in two novels I read recently George Orwell's epic 1984 and Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451. Although two different authors, two different books with two different sets of characters and premises, they have a point of synthesis and that is they are about an inept and corrupted societies. The difference is whether it comes from the state or the people.
In 1984, Winston Smith is a citizen of a totalitarian society based off of war, communism, and authorianism. The principle villain in the novel is the Government with its thought police, youth leagues, telescreens spying on you at all times, the Two Minutes Hate, the backwards thinking and the dumbing down of society with the use of Newspeak. The government controls everything from economics down to reproduction. The Party (as its called) has its hands in every pot, it decides marriages and terms for divorce, it regulates that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction ("our duty to the party"), it even regulates facial expressions (facecrime: improper expression on the face). But the most important thing the Party does is it changes history, it modifies human behavior, it manipulates through nationalism and emotional appeals.
The Party manipulates thought. First by controlling the language with Newspeak (the official language). Newspeak is nonsense to say the least but the purpose of it is to eliminate thought. By limiting words or by changing their meaning they can control what people believe and what they say. The more famous sayings in the book are "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". Notice that things are the opposite of what they really mean? This is common throughout the novel The Party even does the mind fucking when it comes to the branches of government: Ministry of Truth (which distorts the truth and blatantly changes history to fit The Party's agenda), Ministry of Peace (whose job it is to make war)< Ministry of Love (that concerns itself with law & order) and the Ministry of Plenty (economic concerns).
In the book The Party is an all powerful hero saving the people from its enemies in a perpetual state of war and fear. Fear of Eastasia, fear of Eurasia, fear of the thought police, fear of Goldstein (traitor to The Party, he dares to want freedom of speech) and The Party does thing using The Two Minutes Hate.
The Two Minutes Hate is sort of a nationwide shutdown, where all the citizens get together and watch a screen that shows their enemies attacking them. It instills fear and then shows that The Party will come to rescue them.
The worst infraction of The Party is that it changes history (Winston's actual job). The Party's motto is "WHO CONTROLS THE PAST...CONTROLS THE FUTURE". Winston's job is to edit each and every book and magazine to change words and history according to The Party's agenda at the time. The central problem is when Winston can no longer blissfully ignore that he is changing history and he seeks to find out what happened before The Party came along, before Big Brother (the head of state) and how he can escape or overthrow The Party altogether.
But BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...and this is such a haunting statement and it is plastered all over the country but the people are supposed to believe that Big Brother is watching to PROTECT and not to oppress. But Winston says: "Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or outdoors, in the bath or in the bed-no escape. Nothing was your own except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull" (26). Your thoughts and if your thoughts were made public and were against The Party...needless to say things did not end well.
Now it is time to transfer to Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury's society is much, much different than Orwell's. In Bradbury's society it is the populace that is the oppressor. In F.451 the principle figure is Guy Montag a fireman, whose job is not to put out fires but to start them. In Bradbury's society the firemen burn books, arrest readers and the burn down the homes of people that read. The purpose of this is to keep people in a constant state of happiness and the belief that reading or people that read make others around them unhappy.
Captain Beatty, the firemen chief goes on a long speech about why books are banned:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself. What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy. Isn't that it?" (59). Bradbury is white but is not talking about blacks here in fact before that statement he writes: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants..." (57). What Bradbury is saying is that censorship and mass media lead society to break down and in order to not offend anyone they stopped reading. It is a war on intellectualism that is being waged. The people are only interested in sports and television things that make people happy. Bradbury continues: "With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' became the swear word it deserved to be" (58). He goes on: "Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn It. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn It. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book." (60).The society is crumbling because pleasure has taken over. People like feeling good and readers muddy the waters. Guy decides to read, which is the conflict of the story, and puts everything in jeopardy. He learns that the society even polices itself, when people turn each other in for reading. The ignorance of the masses has forced itself on every individual in this book. The concept is sweeping, books must be burned because intellectuals upset people asking questions and forcing people to think, society must be dumbed down for mass media understanding, schools are ineffective anyway and the government doesn't care because a non-thinking, pleasure-oriented society is great for them.
The reason I chose these two novels are because I see alot of America today in them. Of course they are hyperbolic in some ways but there are glimpses of both in today's world. I believe it is important to read both of these novels to get a full understanding of what Bradbury & Orwell were thinking when they structured both of these societies but it is hard not to notice that these books are very, very relevant.
In 1984, Winston Smith is a citizen of a totalitarian society based off of war, communism, and authorianism. The principle villain in the novel is the Government with its thought police, youth leagues, telescreens spying on you at all times, the Two Minutes Hate, the backwards thinking and the dumbing down of society with the use of Newspeak. The government controls everything from economics down to reproduction. The Party (as its called) has its hands in every pot, it decides marriages and terms for divorce, it regulates that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction ("our duty to the party"), it even regulates facial expressions (facecrime: improper expression on the face). But the most important thing the Party does is it changes history, it modifies human behavior, it manipulates through nationalism and emotional appeals.
The Party manipulates thought. First by controlling the language with Newspeak (the official language). Newspeak is nonsense to say the least but the purpose of it is to eliminate thought. By limiting words or by changing their meaning they can control what people believe and what they say. The more famous sayings in the book are "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". Notice that things are the opposite of what they really mean? This is common throughout the novel The Party even does the mind fucking when it comes to the branches of government: Ministry of Truth (which distorts the truth and blatantly changes history to fit The Party's agenda), Ministry of Peace (whose job it is to make war)< Ministry of Love (that concerns itself with law & order) and the Ministry of Plenty (economic concerns).
In the book The Party is an all powerful hero saving the people from its enemies in a perpetual state of war and fear. Fear of Eastasia, fear of Eurasia, fear of the thought police, fear of Goldstein (traitor to The Party, he dares to want freedom of speech) and The Party does thing using The Two Minutes Hate.
The Two Minutes Hate is sort of a nationwide shutdown, where all the citizens get together and watch a screen that shows their enemies attacking them. It instills fear and then shows that The Party will come to rescue them.
The worst infraction of The Party is that it changes history (Winston's actual job). The Party's motto is "WHO CONTROLS THE PAST...CONTROLS THE FUTURE". Winston's job is to edit each and every book and magazine to change words and history according to The Party's agenda at the time. The central problem is when Winston can no longer blissfully ignore that he is changing history and he seeks to find out what happened before The Party came along, before Big Brother (the head of state) and how he can escape or overthrow The Party altogether.
But BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...and this is such a haunting statement and it is plastered all over the country but the people are supposed to believe that Big Brother is watching to PROTECT and not to oppress. But Winston says: "Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or outdoors, in the bath or in the bed-no escape. Nothing was your own except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull" (26). Your thoughts and if your thoughts were made public and were against The Party...needless to say things did not end well.
Now it is time to transfer to Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury's society is much, much different than Orwell's. In Bradbury's society it is the populace that is the oppressor. In F.451 the principle figure is Guy Montag a fireman, whose job is not to put out fires but to start them. In Bradbury's society the firemen burn books, arrest readers and the burn down the homes of people that read. The purpose of this is to keep people in a constant state of happiness and the belief that reading or people that read make others around them unhappy.
Captain Beatty, the firemen chief goes on a long speech about why books are banned:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself. What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy. Isn't that it?" (59). Bradbury is white but is not talking about blacks here in fact before that statement he writes: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants..." (57). What Bradbury is saying is that censorship and mass media lead society to break down and in order to not offend anyone they stopped reading. It is a war on intellectualism that is being waged. The people are only interested in sports and television things that make people happy. Bradbury continues: "With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' became the swear word it deserved to be" (58). He goes on: "Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn It. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn It. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book." (60).The society is crumbling because pleasure has taken over. People like feeling good and readers muddy the waters. Guy decides to read, which is the conflict of the story, and puts everything in jeopardy. He learns that the society even polices itself, when people turn each other in for reading. The ignorance of the masses has forced itself on every individual in this book. The concept is sweeping, books must be burned because intellectuals upset people asking questions and forcing people to think, society must be dumbed down for mass media understanding, schools are ineffective anyway and the government doesn't care because a non-thinking, pleasure-oriented society is great for them.
The reason I chose these two novels are because I see alot of America today in them. Of course they are hyperbolic in some ways but there are glimpses of both in today's world. I believe it is important to read both of these novels to get a full understanding of what Bradbury & Orwell were thinking when they structured both of these societies but it is hard not to notice that these books are very, very relevant.
Malcolm X After Death
I have always had an interest in Malcolm's life. What he thought, what he believed, what he actually said. And now after years of reading books and websites and so on about Malcolm I feel like I understand the thought and the beliefs and the change of thoughts and beliefs that occurred during his life.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Bone Thugs N' Harmony
I can remember not being a big rap fan unitl 1994 (I was 10 years old) which was the first time I heard "First of tha Month". Its a strange story I tell everyone. I didnt start out listening to Nas or Notorious B.I.G. or 2Pac but for me Bone was bigger than all of those guys. I pitched a bitch to get the tape but never got it. I pretty much gave up on it until one Christmas I got a boombox radio and 3 tapes. The 3 tapes were Bone Thugs N' Harmony "E.1999 Eternal", LL Cool J "Mr. Smith" and Blackstreet. Of those 3 tapes I burned one out completely, listened to one once and never opened the other. I will leave it to the reader to make the distinction but one thing was for sure the Bone tape barely lasted 6 months before I needed a new one. The biggest hit of their careers "The Crossroads" wasn't even out yet and my tape had the original version of the song with the same name.
I can remember the first time I played it. The darkness of the music was compelling to me. It didnt have the party atmosphere everything on the radio had. It was dark, gritty and almost scary and when my mom heard someone epeaking in tongues she almost wanted to take it back. I had no real connection to the content, meaning I didnt know what the fuck they were talking about but I knew I liked it. I could only catch some of the lyrics but what I was able to make out I never stopped repeating and I must have played Mr. Bill Collector 400 times a day, which was very hard on tapes with all the rewinding and everything but I didnt care.
I can remember when the Art of War double disc album came out. I didnt have a cd player so I had to hear it at a friend's house and bootleg it for myself when I got home. This was of the only time I paid attention to a 2Pac verse http://youtu.be/9Z9nXD8HjIAand really I wasnt impressed. However I was impressed with Bizzy and with the intensity and speed he delivered his verse it was juat phenomenal for me as a kid. I didnt like that album as much as I did E.1999 Eternal and this was without knowing what the rest of the world thought about the group at all.
Shortly after Art of War the breakup rumors started because Bizzy was releasing a solo album (Heaven'z Movie). I didnt believe it until I saw the video for his first single http://youtu.be/4YNRfboGVQQSeeing the other members in the video kinda gave me a feeling of relief. Heaven'z Movie was my favorite album for a long time (and its still one of my favorites today) but I still preferred to hear them all together as a group.
Krayzie Bone released a double disc solo album ("Thug Mentality") in 1998 (I believe) and it was the second cd I ever bought (DMX It's Dark and Hell Is Hot was the first). I skipped school and went to the record store to get it.I remember played it very loudly for at least 5 hours when I got it. I didnt like it as much as Heaven'z Movie but I still loved it and since I had finally stepped into the cd game I could play it all day wihtout worrying about rewinding and fast forwarding.
It would be a long time until the next Bone album which was in 2000, I think BTNHResurrection. Which was in my opinion a great album. I wont continue to go forward with how I felt about each release because I burned pretty much all of them out within a year.
The important thing I wanted to get to in this blog was not that I am a huge Bone mark but that my love of all music came from my love of Bone. The harmonizing, which dudes swear they hate, was started with Bone. Buddah Lova'z was almost completely sang and it was released in 1994-1995. About 7 years before swaggerjackers like Nelly and Ja Rule would be doing duets with Ashanti. About 10 years before characters like Drake would be making Teen Beat/Heartthrob hip-hop, yet Bone doesnt get any respect for it.
Granted Bone was more style than substance. Which means the delivery and cadence was more important than lyrics but the lyrics werent wack by any means. I mean no Krayzie Bone isnt Nas but hes not wack either. Bone has a style so unique that they can do songs with Phil Collins and still put together dope shit with street rappers like The Game. No other act in hip-hop history could mesh well with Mariah Carey and 2Pac but Bone.
The creativity of each individual member in itself was insane. You have Krayzie remaking Aaliyah's If They Only Knew and creating the same vibe. Let's not get started on how Krayzie alone can take an R&B song from wack folks like Ciara and make something completely new and hot.
So even though the group is feuding...again. And Krayzie has left the group a long time fan like me will still support even if the mainstream continues to ignore them and not see what they brought to the game. "Black hippys" like Curren$y, Wiz Khalifa (which the majority of his album Rolling Papers sounds like commercialized Bone album)should pay homage. Harmonizers like Chamillionaire, Drake, Lil Wayne and Nelly should bow down to the almighty Bone Thugs N Harmony.
I can remember the first time I played it. The darkness of the music was compelling to me. It didnt have the party atmosphere everything on the radio had. It was dark, gritty and almost scary and when my mom heard someone epeaking in tongues she almost wanted to take it back. I had no real connection to the content, meaning I didnt know what the fuck they were talking about but I knew I liked it. I could only catch some of the lyrics but what I was able to make out I never stopped repeating and I must have played Mr. Bill Collector 400 times a day, which was very hard on tapes with all the rewinding and everything but I didnt care.
I can remember when the Art of War double disc album came out. I didnt have a cd player so I had to hear it at a friend's house and bootleg it for myself when I got home. This was of the only time I paid attention to a 2Pac verse http://youtu.be/9Z9nXD8HjIAand really I wasnt impressed. However I was impressed with Bizzy and with the intensity and speed he delivered his verse it was juat phenomenal for me as a kid. I didnt like that album as much as I did E.1999 Eternal and this was without knowing what the rest of the world thought about the group at all.
Shortly after Art of War the breakup rumors started because Bizzy was releasing a solo album (Heaven'z Movie). I didnt believe it until I saw the video for his first single http://youtu.be/4YNRfboGVQQSeeing the other members in the video kinda gave me a feeling of relief. Heaven'z Movie was my favorite album for a long time (and its still one of my favorites today) but I still preferred to hear them all together as a group.
Krayzie Bone released a double disc solo album ("Thug Mentality") in 1998 (I believe) and it was the second cd I ever bought (DMX It's Dark and Hell Is Hot was the first). I skipped school and went to the record store to get it.I remember played it very loudly for at least 5 hours when I got it. I didnt like it as much as Heaven'z Movie but I still loved it and since I had finally stepped into the cd game I could play it all day wihtout worrying about rewinding and fast forwarding.
It would be a long time until the next Bone album which was in 2000, I think BTNHResurrection. Which was in my opinion a great album. I wont continue to go forward with how I felt about each release because I burned pretty much all of them out within a year.
The important thing I wanted to get to in this blog was not that I am a huge Bone mark but that my love of all music came from my love of Bone. The harmonizing, which dudes swear they hate, was started with Bone. Buddah Lova'z was almost completely sang and it was released in 1994-1995. About 7 years before swaggerjackers like Nelly and Ja Rule would be doing duets with Ashanti. About 10 years before characters like Drake would be making Teen Beat/Heartthrob hip-hop, yet Bone doesnt get any respect for it.
Granted Bone was more style than substance. Which means the delivery and cadence was more important than lyrics but the lyrics werent wack by any means. I mean no Krayzie Bone isnt Nas but hes not wack either. Bone has a style so unique that they can do songs with Phil Collins and still put together dope shit with street rappers like The Game. No other act in hip-hop history could mesh well with Mariah Carey and 2Pac but Bone.
The creativity of each individual member in itself was insane. You have Krayzie remaking Aaliyah's If They Only Knew and creating the same vibe. Let's not get started on how Krayzie alone can take an R&B song from wack folks like Ciara and make something completely new and hot.
So even though the group is feuding...again. And Krayzie has left the group a long time fan like me will still support even if the mainstream continues to ignore them and not see what they brought to the game. "Black hippys" like Curren$y, Wiz Khalifa (which the majority of his album Rolling Papers sounds like commercialized Bone album)should pay homage. Harmonizers like Chamillionaire, Drake, Lil Wayne and Nelly should bow down to the almighty Bone Thugs N Harmony.
Professional Hood Shit
Regular readers know I love hip-hop. It's my favorite medium of entertainment and despite the fact that I get frustrated with the content and imagery at times it will forever be my favorite. My love of hip-hop doesn't just stop at the music but it extends to battling too. Now hip-hop fans are used to the concept of battles on wax where diss records are exchanged between artists who are competing but what I am talking about is street rap battles.
Street rap battles have always taken place but with the influx of technology they are now recorded and spread throughout the web, shit there are even professional street battle rap leagues. SMACK DVD in the early 2000s, to my knowledge, began the trend of recording and selling street battles between unknown artists. The battles would be added to a dvd entitled S.M.A.C.K (Street Music Arts Culture Knowledge) that featured interviews and other interactions with well known rappers. S.M.A.C.K was used to help the careers of many of today's artists like Jae Millz, Nicki Minaj, Maino, Cory Gunz etc when they were just local New York artists. Rather they were battling or just kickin' a freestyle or just doing an interview S.M.A.C.K. gave them an outlet to get their face in the streets across the nation. Here in Detroit it was hard as hell to get S.M.A.C.K. dvds we had to wait for the hustler's from New York to come to town and even then we had to hope they had a few of the dvds to sell. It didn't take me and my friends long to become more enamored with the battles than the rest of the dvd. It was interesting to see DMX do a street interview uncensored, drunk, high and whatever else but watching those battles was the real treat. It seems that alot of people agreed and the original S.M.A.C.K dvd format was dropped to focus on the battles.
S.M.A.C.K. dvd disappeared for awhile and was restarted as URL (Ultimate Rap League). URL stages rap battles in the same way boxing events are staged. 2 guys are chosen to battle, they negitiate fees, search for venues, have a production team and the whole nine yards. Despite having better production, contractual agreements and the battles now taking place in venues URL has kept the street feel it had back when it literally took place in the streets. However URL were not the first to make that jump.
For a short time there existed another battle rap league called the Fight Klub. Fight Klub took place in venues and had rules such as time limits, that S.M.A.C.K didn't have at the time. Fight Klub was wildly popular for a time, so popular that it was picked up and given time on MTV2 as a episodic television show. Unfortunately that didn't last long and the Fight Klub ultimately folded and was taken off the air.
Street rap leagues started popping up everywhere there were multiple that popped up just in New York. Soon there were rap leagues all over the country that had the basic set up of the original S.M.A.C.K dvds. With the birth of youtube these leagues were able to stretch their talent all over the country by doing this some of the talent of those other leagues began getting spots in URL.
I like to think of URL as the WWE of battle rap leagues. Wrestling being another one of my guilty pleasures i can recognize how both were able to become huge in their respective fields. WWF raided smaller promotions and signed away the talent to exclusive contracts and the promoted the promotion as the best in the world. URL is very similar. URL does not have exclusive contracts which means that talent most known for being in URL can take their talents to smaller leagues and compete with that leagues top guys and make more money. The biggest way URL has become the WWE how street rap is because URL is considered even by competitors (and it's actually URL's tagline) "The World's Most Respected Rap League".
I will post some of my favorite URL/S.M.A.C.K. battles as well as a few from their competitors to give the reader a sense of how the street rap game has changed and evolved into a business.
Hitman Holla (St. Louis) vs Arsonal Da Rebel
(Newark) (2010) a recent example of what URL is today.
Jae Millz (Harlem) vs Murda Mook (Harlem)
great example of what URL was during the S.M.A.C.K. dvd days. I can remember waiting for these dvds to come out monthly.
Iron Solomon vs Jin Tha Emcee from the Fight Klub. This shows how popular and culturally diverse battle rapping has become. Solomon a Jewish guy versus Jin a Chinese emcee. A great battle.
Street rap battles have always taken place but with the influx of technology they are now recorded and spread throughout the web, shit there are even professional street battle rap leagues. SMACK DVD in the early 2000s, to my knowledge, began the trend of recording and selling street battles between unknown artists. The battles would be added to a dvd entitled S.M.A.C.K (Street Music Arts Culture Knowledge) that featured interviews and other interactions with well known rappers. S.M.A.C.K was used to help the careers of many of today's artists like Jae Millz, Nicki Minaj, Maino, Cory Gunz etc when they were just local New York artists. Rather they were battling or just kickin' a freestyle or just doing an interview S.M.A.C.K. gave them an outlet to get their face in the streets across the nation. Here in Detroit it was hard as hell to get S.M.A.C.K. dvds we had to wait for the hustler's from New York to come to town and even then we had to hope they had a few of the dvds to sell. It didn't take me and my friends long to become more enamored with the battles than the rest of the dvd. It was interesting to see DMX do a street interview uncensored, drunk, high and whatever else but watching those battles was the real treat. It seems that alot of people agreed and the original S.M.A.C.K dvd format was dropped to focus on the battles.
S.M.A.C.K. dvd disappeared for awhile and was restarted as URL (Ultimate Rap League). URL stages rap battles in the same way boxing events are staged. 2 guys are chosen to battle, they negitiate fees, search for venues, have a production team and the whole nine yards. Despite having better production, contractual agreements and the battles now taking place in venues URL has kept the street feel it had back when it literally took place in the streets. However URL were not the first to make that jump.
For a short time there existed another battle rap league called the Fight Klub. Fight Klub took place in venues and had rules such as time limits, that S.M.A.C.K didn't have at the time. Fight Klub was wildly popular for a time, so popular that it was picked up and given time on MTV2 as a episodic television show. Unfortunately that didn't last long and the Fight Klub ultimately folded and was taken off the air.
Street rap leagues started popping up everywhere there were multiple that popped up just in New York. Soon there were rap leagues all over the country that had the basic set up of the original S.M.A.C.K dvds. With the birth of youtube these leagues were able to stretch their talent all over the country by doing this some of the talent of those other leagues began getting spots in URL.
I like to think of URL as the WWE of battle rap leagues. Wrestling being another one of my guilty pleasures i can recognize how both were able to become huge in their respective fields. WWF raided smaller promotions and signed away the talent to exclusive contracts and the promoted the promotion as the best in the world. URL is very similar. URL does not have exclusive contracts which means that talent most known for being in URL can take their talents to smaller leagues and compete with that leagues top guys and make more money. The biggest way URL has become the WWE how street rap is because URL is considered even by competitors (and it's actually URL's tagline) "The World's Most Respected Rap League".
I will post some of my favorite URL/S.M.A.C.K. battles as well as a few from their competitors to give the reader a sense of how the street rap game has changed and evolved into a business.
Hitman Holla (St. Louis) vs Arsonal Da Rebel
(Newark) (2010) a recent example of what URL is today.
Jae Millz (Harlem) vs Murda Mook (Harlem)
great example of what URL was during the S.M.A.C.K. dvd days. I can remember waiting for these dvds to come out monthly.
Iron Solomon vs Jin Tha Emcee from the Fight Klub. This shows how popular and culturally diverse battle rapping has become. Solomon a Jewish guy versus Jin a Chinese emcee. A great battle.
A Dying Civilization
"A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization. A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization. A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization."-Aime Cesaire Discourse on Colonialism (1955)
When these words were written Cesaire was furious with the concept of Western colonialism. The French had brought "civilization" to Algeria and brought with them barbarity and oppression. In 1955, the United States did not differ from the French occupation of Algeria and Vietnam too much. Blacks in America faced similar harshness. Under constant threat of violence and injustice, Blacks in America should have sympathized with their African brothers in this regard. In the 1960's Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) in his book with Charles Hamilton entitled "Black Power", asked the question that are Blacks in America a colonized people. It is hard to answer that they weren't. Much like all colonized peoples Blacks in America were being forced into integrating with a culutre, which considered even if he was successful, inferior and all their ideas and thoughts to be of no consquence to the majority of society.
This idea of inferiority and of colonialization has expanded greatly since the question Carmichael and Hamilton asked 40 years ago. The colony expanded from Africans, to Black Americans, to now its just the poor. The poor of every race are now the most inconsquential people on Earth. It could be argued that it has always been that way from the days of this country's genesis to today and that would be true but it is at its most visible in today's America. Much like in Algeria, where the Black population greatly outnumbered the French, yet in the department of power and the ability to push and promote their social, economic and political ideals the French stood far and beyond. The small French population was able to trick the masses into thinking that what was in the French interest was ultimately in the interest of the Algeria. This idea lead to the Algerians wanting to follow in the footsteps of the French. So as Frantz Fanon stated there were Algerians who sought to speak better French than the Frenchmen, they were determined to prove their worth to the Frenchmen and it perpetuated a feeling of inferiority. Looking for approval is a sign of inferiority and this is what the Algerian attempted to do constantly but it is also what the poor attempt to do to the rich in America today.
The poor and the middle class in America are the majority yet they are constantly bombarded with literature, shows and ideas that make them feel inadequate. They allow themselves to be scapegoated when the rich make mistakes (see the 2008 economic crash) and they fully believe the concept that what is good for the rich is good for us all. This mentality leads to corporatism and what Dr. Cornel West calls "free-market fundamentalism". Free-market fundamentalism is one of the ideas West feels is a direct threat to America's democracy and is highlighted in his book "Democracy Matters". "Free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered free market...where business leaders with wealth and power are worshipped" (3). Deregulation of private sector mediums has yet to produce anything more than constriction of consumer choice and fat wallets for corporations. Business leaders such as Donald Trump believe that because they made a couple dollars at one point that they now have the ability to lead a nation. And believe me there are people who think that being a CEO makes one a top contender to be President. We see the deification of people like Trump on television all the time and it has gotten to the point where we almost accept the concept of people like him being better than the rest of us, despite people like him making mistakes that cost us jobs, homes and general well being. I will end the topic of free-market fundamentalism with a few quotes before going forward:
"The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and be distracted with stimulating amusements."-Cornel West
"Capitalist society, at its present stage, is incapable of establishing a concept of rights of all men, just as it has proved incapable of establishing a system of individual ethics."-Aime Cesaire
"You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic..you show me a capitalist and I'll show you a bloodsucker."-Malcolm X
Despite the quotes and the overall feel of the post so far I am not attempting to make an argument for socialism or communism. What I am making an argument for is in the opening quote: "A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization." America has become a decadent society. A society that creates problems by favoring the ideas of a few over the rights of the many and then refusing to acknowledge that those concepts are the very issue with society. Going back to the economic collapse of 2008, one who did some research could see that deregulation of the investment and commercial banks lead to the collapse, yet we are told that it was the poor folks who failed to pay their mortgages and some accepted that, mainly because it's what the corporate media and it's bosses has accepted as the truth.
"A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization." America is stricken. We are taught not to see the amount of unemployed people in this nation today. We are told by the corporate media that unemployment is dropping, well that may be true but there are ways of manipulating those figures, such as people no longer able to collect unemployment being dumped from the unemployment rolls and no longer counting towards the unemployment rate (they are no longer in the labor force after a certain time). We don't see that people cannot afford healthcare, instead we are taught that we have "the best healthcare in the world" and that it's the best because it's for-profit.
"A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization." America was founded as a "democracy" or so we are told. America is not and never was a democratic nation, it is a republican nation similar to Rome. In a republican government the people vote for a representative who then argues and makes decisions on behalf of his electorate. This deception is spread everyday, how can we force democracy on Iraq when we don't have one? Free-markets and capitalism a.k.a "rugged individualism" where a person makes his wealth from the sweat of his own brow and should be entitled to keep all that he earns, sounds great. Except for the fact that this country was built upon slavery, which is forced servitude, and capitalism works best when it has a significantly weaker class whether its slaves or sweatshops (which American corporations use). The concept of citizenship and voting have been so warped that corporations have "rights" that were only intended for actual human beings. Money is speech creates a concept of bribery (they call it lobbying) that the common man cannot compete with. How can a farmer or regular working man lobby his government official when his interests could directly clash with the interests of a huge corporation? America is a dying nation and it is because people have become effectively second-class citizens and have been colonized by huge multinational corporations that now have rights greater than the average citizen and government in their pockets.
When these words were written Cesaire was furious with the concept of Western colonialism. The French had brought "civilization" to Algeria and brought with them barbarity and oppression. In 1955, the United States did not differ from the French occupation of Algeria and Vietnam too much. Blacks in America faced similar harshness. Under constant threat of violence and injustice, Blacks in America should have sympathized with their African brothers in this regard. In the 1960's Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture) in his book with Charles Hamilton entitled "Black Power", asked the question that are Blacks in America a colonized people. It is hard to answer that they weren't. Much like all colonized peoples Blacks in America were being forced into integrating with a culutre, which considered even if he was successful, inferior and all their ideas and thoughts to be of no consquence to the majority of society.
This idea of inferiority and of colonialization has expanded greatly since the question Carmichael and Hamilton asked 40 years ago. The colony expanded from Africans, to Black Americans, to now its just the poor. The poor of every race are now the most inconsquential people on Earth. It could be argued that it has always been that way from the days of this country's genesis to today and that would be true but it is at its most visible in today's America. Much like in Algeria, where the Black population greatly outnumbered the French, yet in the department of power and the ability to push and promote their social, economic and political ideals the French stood far and beyond. The small French population was able to trick the masses into thinking that what was in the French interest was ultimately in the interest of the Algeria. This idea lead to the Algerians wanting to follow in the footsteps of the French. So as Frantz Fanon stated there were Algerians who sought to speak better French than the Frenchmen, they were determined to prove their worth to the Frenchmen and it perpetuated a feeling of inferiority. Looking for approval is a sign of inferiority and this is what the Algerian attempted to do constantly but it is also what the poor attempt to do to the rich in America today.
The poor and the middle class in America are the majority yet they are constantly bombarded with literature, shows and ideas that make them feel inadequate. They allow themselves to be scapegoated when the rich make mistakes (see the 2008 economic crash) and they fully believe the concept that what is good for the rich is good for us all. This mentality leads to corporatism and what Dr. Cornel West calls "free-market fundamentalism". Free-market fundamentalism is one of the ideas West feels is a direct threat to America's democracy and is highlighted in his book "Democracy Matters". "Free-market fundamentalism posits the unregulated and unfettered free market...where business leaders with wealth and power are worshipped" (3). Deregulation of private sector mediums has yet to produce anything more than constriction of consumer choice and fat wallets for corporations. Business leaders such as Donald Trump believe that because they made a couple dollars at one point that they now have the ability to lead a nation. And believe me there are people who think that being a CEO makes one a top contender to be President. We see the deification of people like Trump on television all the time and it has gotten to the point where we almost accept the concept of people like him being better than the rest of us, despite people like him making mistakes that cost us jobs, homes and general well being. I will end the topic of free-market fundamentalism with a few quotes before going forward:
"The oppressive effect of the prevailing market moralities leads to a form of sleepwalking from womb to tomb, with the majority of citizens content to focus on private careers and be distracted with stimulating amusements."-Cornel West
"Capitalist society, at its present stage, is incapable of establishing a concept of rights of all men, just as it has proved incapable of establishing a system of individual ethics."-Aime Cesaire
"You can't operate a capitalistic system unless you are vulturistic..you show me a capitalist and I'll show you a bloodsucker."-Malcolm X
Despite the quotes and the overall feel of the post so far I am not attempting to make an argument for socialism or communism. What I am making an argument for is in the opening quote: "A civiliation that proves incapable of solving the problems it creates is a decadent civilization." America has become a decadent society. A society that creates problems by favoring the ideas of a few over the rights of the many and then refusing to acknowledge that those concepts are the very issue with society. Going back to the economic collapse of 2008, one who did some research could see that deregulation of the investment and commercial banks lead to the collapse, yet we are told that it was the poor folks who failed to pay their mortgages and some accepted that, mainly because it's what the corporate media and it's bosses has accepted as the truth.
"A civilization that chooses to close its eyes to its most crucial problems is a stricken civilization." America is stricken. We are taught not to see the amount of unemployed people in this nation today. We are told by the corporate media that unemployment is dropping, well that may be true but there are ways of manipulating those figures, such as people no longer able to collect unemployment being dumped from the unemployment rolls and no longer counting towards the unemployment rate (they are no longer in the labor force after a certain time). We don't see that people cannot afford healthcare, instead we are taught that we have "the best healthcare in the world" and that it's the best because it's for-profit.
"A civilization that uses its principles for trickery and deceit is a dying civilization." America was founded as a "democracy" or so we are told. America is not and never was a democratic nation, it is a republican nation similar to Rome. In a republican government the people vote for a representative who then argues and makes decisions on behalf of his electorate. This deception is spread everyday, how can we force democracy on Iraq when we don't have one? Free-markets and capitalism a.k.a "rugged individualism" where a person makes his wealth from the sweat of his own brow and should be entitled to keep all that he earns, sounds great. Except for the fact that this country was built upon slavery, which is forced servitude, and capitalism works best when it has a significantly weaker class whether its slaves or sweatshops (which American corporations use). The concept of citizenship and voting have been so warped that corporations have "rights" that were only intended for actual human beings. Money is speech creates a concept of bribery (they call it lobbying) that the common man cannot compete with. How can a farmer or regular working man lobby his government official when his interests could directly clash with the interests of a huge corporation? America is a dying nation and it is because people have become effectively second-class citizens and have been colonized by huge multinational corporations that now have rights greater than the average citizen and government in their pockets.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Robber Barons
A robber baron is a corporate official (or I would add entity) that uses exploitation of workers (and I would add resources) to make their money. The term was coined in 1934 by Matthew Josephson to describe the rich men of his time. Over the years they have had many names ("captains of industry") but we call them "billionaires" or the "private sector" today. The purpose of this column is to highlight the robber barons of yesteryear and those of today and what they have done to earn that title. We will discuss the effects these entities have had on the public as well.
The Gilded Age is where the term robber baron came from and in that time there were many who were considered to fit the definition: Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), James J. Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Henry Ford (in later years), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), J.P. Morgan (Wall Street/Finance) etc were considered by many to fit the bill by exploiting workers and conditions for the purpose of profit. However I don't know enough about each person to say whether they were as terrible as some say they were or not. I do know that those who don't view them as robber barons have stated that the REAL robber barons where men who used government assistance to make their empires while these men did not. You see in some circles the real robber barons are called "political entrepreneurs" and these men are called "market entrepreneurs" the difference being government assistance. So I don't know how to properly judge their character.
I do know that they helped build America and changed industry in this nation in general, although I am unsure whether that was good or not. Depending of where you sit on the topic of industry and its effects on society, there are obvious positive effects such as cars, computers, mass transportation, etc but there are it's downsides too if one believes in global warming that could be one, the ruthless culture it created where people began attempting to imitate their success by less than respectable or responsible means among others. But this was the past hell some of it over 100 years old, what about today? Well today, with globalization things are undoubtedly much worse than any one of those men ever made it. Today there are sweatshops, government corruption and violence in every corner of the globe while chasing the almighty dollar.
If the real robber barons used government assistance, then we have almost nothing but robber barons today. Just about every corporation in the U.S. is subsidized by the government. This means the government gives them tax deductions or cash payments to keep them up and running. This is supposed to benefit both the corporation and the people of the community, whom the corporation hire in their shops and factories. Sounds fair enough right? Where does the "robber" come in? It seems equal, that is until you realize that government funds come from that same community. See the community pays taxes, the taxes are then sent to the corporation to pay rent on its private land so it can operate. So it seems that you pay your job to be there. In many cases, like recently, there are subsidies going to corporations that send jobs overseas. The corporation complains about government regulations (take government's money play by their rules right?) and they complain about unions (yet their subsidized by your tax dollars) so they blackmail the government to make things even better for them. That means more tax breaks, more subsidies, government help busting up unions, and lobbying to decrease funds for competition (here in Detroit the auto industry kept us from having a subway system similar to that of Chicago or New York). This is that pesky political entrepreneurship they speak of.
But it is not always government assistance, sometimes it is lack of government that makes a robber baron. I mentioned before about getting rid of unions and keeping corporations happy with tax cuts and subsidies but nothing makes them happier than cutting wages and avoiding labor laws. NAFTA was signed (under Bill Clinton) made trade with Canada and Mexico easier and in my opinion was the beginning of globalization. Corporations could now fold plants in Chicago and move them to Mexico or Canada where they can pay the workers much less and didn't have to deal with labor unions or labor laws. This led to blackmail of state and local governments to help corporations even more because now the citizens in these situations would have to surrender benefits, wages, family time, and in some cases the opportunity for legal actions (suing for injury etc) to keep their jobs. When a country has government mandated labor unions and labor laws (like the state of Michigan) it is difficult to compete against a country without those benefits. This is what I mean by the lack of government.
The lack of government also leads to sweatshop labor. Sweatshop labor is defined by The U.S. Dept of Labor as a factory or shop that violates 2 or more labor laws. Of course that definition only fits in America, it means nothing in say India or China where there are sweatshops. Sweatshops are good for business, low running costs, high production, lower cost for consumers, and better profit margins. Its a victory for all sides except the workers in the plant. In my research I have found about 7 businesses that use sweatshop labor: Target, K-Mart, Nike, Sears, Kohl's, J.C. Penny and of course Wal-Mart. The strange thing is Target, K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors who sell very similar products and looking at it from their perspective if they raise their costs by not using slave..I mean sweatshop labor then they would have to raise prices and could potentially lose business. Isn't that sad? Market share is more important than people. Well in any event these countries are to blame for the poor working conditions because their governments allow it. But it isn't all that foreign governments have allowed, some have allowed nearly complete destruction of their environment for corporate benefit.
The environment and the people of a nation mean nothing to corporations. Nigeria, the oil rich west African nation has been destroyed by the oil industry. The air, land, and water have all been polluted by Mobil Exxon (America's #1 oil corporation) and their oil drilling and occasional (but not uncommon) spilling. Here in the U.S. over the summer of 2010 we suffered an oil spill in the gulf (courtesy of British Petroleum's carelessness). The oil stretched for miles and polluted everything in its path. The citizens of the polluted areas were furious and rightfully so. However Nigeria had been having oil spills for 50 years prior to our one oil spill in 2010. Why is this happening? Well because Mobil Exxon has Nigeria's government in their pocket and although their citizens are furious too, there is nothing they can do about it. Of course one can never forget the conflict diamonds of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo where DeBeers made millions, excuse me, billions off of warlords mutiliating the people of those nations. Coca-Cola or "killer coke" as it is now being called, have been charged with sending paramilitary groups to kill union workers in Columbia, they have also been sued by citizens in India for stealing and polluting their water!
So when I think of robber barons or corporations who make money off exploitation, I don't think of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel. I think of Nike, Mobil Exxon, GM and all the other 937 political gangsters that took bailout money and is not because I think the world of Carnagie and Rockefeller, it is because whatever they did during their time has to pale in comparison to what corporations do today. Corporations today don't care about the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs only people looking to protect capitalism do. All they care about is money, and they will bribe the U.S. government, or the Nigerian government. They will blackmail, build sweatshops, and anything else that stands in their way because the bottom line is their bottom line.
The Gilded Age is where the term robber baron came from and in that time there were many who were considered to fit the definition: Andrew Carnegie (Carnegie Steel), James J. Hill (Great Northern Railroad), Henry Ford (in later years), John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil), J.P. Morgan (Wall Street/Finance) etc were considered by many to fit the bill by exploiting workers and conditions for the purpose of profit. However I don't know enough about each person to say whether they were as terrible as some say they were or not. I do know that those who don't view them as robber barons have stated that the REAL robber barons where men who used government assistance to make their empires while these men did not. You see in some circles the real robber barons are called "political entrepreneurs" and these men are called "market entrepreneurs" the difference being government assistance. So I don't know how to properly judge their character.
I do know that they helped build America and changed industry in this nation in general, although I am unsure whether that was good or not. Depending of where you sit on the topic of industry and its effects on society, there are obvious positive effects such as cars, computers, mass transportation, etc but there are it's downsides too if one believes in global warming that could be one, the ruthless culture it created where people began attempting to imitate their success by less than respectable or responsible means among others. But this was the past hell some of it over 100 years old, what about today? Well today, with globalization things are undoubtedly much worse than any one of those men ever made it. Today there are sweatshops, government corruption and violence in every corner of the globe while chasing the almighty dollar.
If the real robber barons used government assistance, then we have almost nothing but robber barons today. Just about every corporation in the U.S. is subsidized by the government. This means the government gives them tax deductions or cash payments to keep them up and running. This is supposed to benefit both the corporation and the people of the community, whom the corporation hire in their shops and factories. Sounds fair enough right? Where does the "robber" come in? It seems equal, that is until you realize that government funds come from that same community. See the community pays taxes, the taxes are then sent to the corporation to pay rent on its private land so it can operate. So it seems that you pay your job to be there. In many cases, like recently, there are subsidies going to corporations that send jobs overseas. The corporation complains about government regulations (take government's money play by their rules right?) and they complain about unions (yet their subsidized by your tax dollars) so they blackmail the government to make things even better for them. That means more tax breaks, more subsidies, government help busting up unions, and lobbying to decrease funds for competition (here in Detroit the auto industry kept us from having a subway system similar to that of Chicago or New York). This is that pesky political entrepreneurship they speak of.
But it is not always government assistance, sometimes it is lack of government that makes a robber baron. I mentioned before about getting rid of unions and keeping corporations happy with tax cuts and subsidies but nothing makes them happier than cutting wages and avoiding labor laws. NAFTA was signed (under Bill Clinton) made trade with Canada and Mexico easier and in my opinion was the beginning of globalization. Corporations could now fold plants in Chicago and move them to Mexico or Canada where they can pay the workers much less and didn't have to deal with labor unions or labor laws. This led to blackmail of state and local governments to help corporations even more because now the citizens in these situations would have to surrender benefits, wages, family time, and in some cases the opportunity for legal actions (suing for injury etc) to keep their jobs. When a country has government mandated labor unions and labor laws (like the state of Michigan) it is difficult to compete against a country without those benefits. This is what I mean by the lack of government.
The lack of government also leads to sweatshop labor. Sweatshop labor is defined by The U.S. Dept of Labor as a factory or shop that violates 2 or more labor laws. Of course that definition only fits in America, it means nothing in say India or China where there are sweatshops. Sweatshops are good for business, low running costs, high production, lower cost for consumers, and better profit margins. Its a victory for all sides except the workers in the plant. In my research I have found about 7 businesses that use sweatshop labor: Target, K-Mart, Nike, Sears, Kohl's, J.C. Penny and of course Wal-Mart. The strange thing is Target, K-Mart and Wal-Mart are competitors who sell very similar products and looking at it from their perspective if they raise their costs by not using slave..I mean sweatshop labor then they would have to raise prices and could potentially lose business. Isn't that sad? Market share is more important than people. Well in any event these countries are to blame for the poor working conditions because their governments allow it. But it isn't all that foreign governments have allowed, some have allowed nearly complete destruction of their environment for corporate benefit.
The environment and the people of a nation mean nothing to corporations. Nigeria, the oil rich west African nation has been destroyed by the oil industry. The air, land, and water have all been polluted by Mobil Exxon (America's #1 oil corporation) and their oil drilling and occasional (but not uncommon) spilling. Here in the U.S. over the summer of 2010 we suffered an oil spill in the gulf (courtesy of British Petroleum's carelessness). The oil stretched for miles and polluted everything in its path. The citizens of the polluted areas were furious and rightfully so. However Nigeria had been having oil spills for 50 years prior to our one oil spill in 2010. Why is this happening? Well because Mobil Exxon has Nigeria's government in their pocket and although their citizens are furious too, there is nothing they can do about it. Of course one can never forget the conflict diamonds of Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo where DeBeers made millions, excuse me, billions off of warlords mutiliating the people of those nations. Coca-Cola or "killer coke" as it is now being called, have been charged with sending paramilitary groups to kill union workers in Columbia, they have also been sued by citizens in India for stealing and polluting their water!
So when I think of robber barons or corporations who make money off exploitation, I don't think of Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel. I think of Nike, Mobil Exxon, GM and all the other 937 political gangsters that took bailout money and is not because I think the world of Carnagie and Rockefeller, it is because whatever they did during their time has to pale in comparison to what corporations do today. Corporations today don't care about the difference between market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs only people looking to protect capitalism do. All they care about is money, and they will bribe the U.S. government, or the Nigerian government. They will blackmail, build sweatshops, and anything else that stands in their way because the bottom line is their bottom line.
Rappers: Faking It Til They're Making It
The hip hop culture is one often filled the message of debauchery, genocide, hedonism, and materialism. I love the culture and the music but that is the truth of the matter unfortunately. In any good rap song is one of the major components. It is either a song about sex, killing, hustling or money (not all but I'm talking commercial hip-hop right now). Right now I wish to discuss the materialism in hip-hop culture, simply because I feel as though it is the most widespread and the most visible. It is rather easy to ignore the imaginary murders rappers commit simply because the average gangsta rapper spits as though they are Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers and we know that not to be true. The sexual appetites of artists are personal and we only know very small amounts about that besides this is not a gossip column. Materialism is flooded in the media already, we know this, the Fortune 500 lists Jay-Z, Sean "sometime P-Diddy other times Puffy" Combs made or what have you. We see money not just in hip-hop but in other forms of media, and because it has seeped into the minds of the public at large it has also flooded the airwaves. Rappers have made it their business to let the world know of their success or coming success, but there are times where the rappers have unfortunately decided to fake said success. And that is the topic we are going to discuss today. There are far too many examples of artists going too far to push an image of success but I have chosen only three for this column because these are the most pervasive in the industry. Borrowing jewelry, cars and designer clothing for video shoots is commonplace, very commonplace and the most important when discussing the false lifestyle that artists portray in videos to the youth.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Getting busted with jewelry that doesn't belong to was once a big deal in hip-hop. It was a "dissable" offense (meaning you got dissed for wearing borrowed or fake jewelry) and perhaps it still is. One of my favorite artists Jadakiss got caught with jewelry that wasnt his. He borrowed the jewelry for a video he was doing with Mariah Carey back in 2004-2005. Now as I mentioned this is commonplace so there really isn't an issue of Jada being the broke ass rapper who can't afford the fly bling he wants to use for a video, alot of people (labels) do it. Jadakiss is not really a rapper that wears a lot of jewelry anyway, but it was $400,000 worth of jewelry, that is a pretty steep price but the image attached to having it is worth way more to people in the industry. Kiss was busted and he did get dissed by 50 Cent for it, but was it really worth it? Is the need to portray this image that necessary? For alot of rappers the answer is a resounding..yes.
Wearing jewelry that is not yours is one thing but wearing designer clothes the manufacturer doesn't even know exists is another. Rapper Rick Ross was busted sporting fake Louis Vuitton shades on the cover of XXL magazine. How did he get busted? Well once Ross wore those false shades on the cover it garnered a hell of alot of attention and requests for the shades came pouring into Louis Vuitton. Upon a quick search it was found that those sunglasses are not made by LV and that those particular frames were fake. A spokesperson from the company had this to say:
"...the sunglasses Mr. Ross is wearing were not made by Louis Vuitton and, in fact, are counterfeit. Louis Vuitton did not grant permission to Mr. Ross or to whoever did make the sunglasses to use our trademarks. The second is that no affiliation, sponsorship or association exists between Rick Ross or XXL and Louis Vuitton. The third is that counterfeiting is illegal."
To the rapper's defense a customizer nicknamed "The Sunglasses Pimp" stated he customized Ross' LV Millionaire shades and that tricking out sunglasses is the same as tricking out a car. I say that may be true but Ross was attempting to portray an image and that image is the "boss" character he has decided to play in the hip-hop game. Why do I say that? Well because an aforementioned "boss" Jay-Z debuted some authentic Louis Vuitton Millionaire shades on a different XXL magazine cover. Why the falsehood? Perhaps he wanted for people to believe he was on Jay-Z's level as far as money and power, unfortunately that turned out not to be the case a very embarrassing lesson learned.
We have just discessed rappers borrowing jewels for video shoots, wearing borrowed or fake clothing for photo shoots and those things are small compared to the most gaudy objects such as luxury cars. Neo-rap princess Nicki Minaj was driving a hot-pink Lamborghini for one of her music videos, the problem was the car wasn't hers and she damaged it by driving off-road.Strangely enough the damage she caused to the car was far more than it cost for her to rent the vehicle in the first place. Once again we see artists attempting to push an image of success and in doing so instead showed their lack thereof. To Nicki's defense it was her first solo video and maybe she didn't have the practice handling other people's property that some other artists do. What made me think of this case was recently, I saw a woman with a hot-pink corvette with the word "Barbie" (which is one of Nicki's gimmicks, even if it was ripped off from Lil Kim). And that got me to thinking about the cultural impact stunts like this have on people. Now it is impossible for me to know that the random woman painted her car pink because of Nicki Minaj, but I can say I never saw a hot-pink sports car until now and if I am wrong in saying one has something to do with the other so be it, but its a strong correlation.
Throughout the hip-hop industry we are blasted with imagery. Images of poverty stricken ghettoes, images of flashy husters, images of wild sex, images of lavish lifestyles including luxury cars and million dollar homes and the wise person realizes just how much of a facade most of it really is. Granted an argument can be made that the artist's record label is the ones paying for the fake jewelry and rented cars but some responsibility needs to be taken by the artists who indulge. I am sure it feels good to be able to drive a lambourgini but like my mama would say "if you ain't got lambourgini money keeps your ass out of it", amazing how simple a message that is right? However it is sad that the label and the artist feel that they need to portray these images of success and wealth to make an artist successful and wealthy. One can only hope that one day we can move past the small minded materialism we have as a nation, maybe then hip-hop can move past it too.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
The Three Classes of Intellects
Nicolo Machiavelli in his oft-followed and imitated work The Prince, stated that there were three classes of intellects. Using those three classes we can tell what kind of thinker a person is and in using that we can come to an understanding of whether the person speaking or writing is worth listening to.
The Three Classes of Intellects are:
"One which comprehends by itself.
The other appreciates, what another comprehends.
And the last doesn't comprehend by itself nor by the showing of others."
The first is said to be the best and rightfully so. If one can truly read or listen and understand without further explanation should he not be considered an intellectual? Now I believe that in order to fully understand many ideas such deep theories stemming from the scientific, mathematic or otherwise, it requires much study and much explanation. So then this first class is not saying that one has to pick up on an ideology or theory and understand it with perfection in a short time but that one dedicates themselves to understanding it on their own to the point where they can comprehend the concept on their own because they are familiar with it.
One such example of this first class would be a college professor. A professor that lectures on a topic, has done the necessary research on the topic, they have become fluid on the topic, the have mastered it. Now there are "student-professors" meaning professors who don't have the paper diploma necessary to prove their mastery but if they are given an opportunity to teach then surely they have some mastery over the information.
The first class, as far as I am concerned, is the most interesting. The reason being it is the class that all people strive, it is their plan to master a position, a craft and be considered a leader in that field. That term, "leader" is exactly what Machiavelli is writing about. He is writing a manual on leadership and what an effective leader needs. Surely an effective leader needs to be able to comprehend situations and make the best decisions possible on their own. They need to have an intellect on a higher plane so than those they lead or they cannot truly call themselves a leader. A leader that has mastery over information and can understand and problem-solve on their own will eventually gain the favor of many followers, in the same way all the good professors have full classes.
The second class is considered by Machiavelli to be only "good". I consider it a useful skill. Knowing that you cannot fully comprehend a situation or understand a problem is useful because it doesn't create a false sense of self. This is one thing people do all the time as well. We quote people (as I am doing with Machiavelli) because we understand that they know more than we do. We come to grips with our own limitations but we know who does have the knowledge that is needed to solve this problem.
Have you ever encountered an issue and needed to ask someone else for clarification? Of course you have and there is intelligence in not knowing how to solve an issue because you do know who to turn to.
I liken this class to being an understudy or a tutor to keep with the academic theme. A tutor has some of the answers and can help a lot if your low on understanding but they know their weaknesses. If an issue arises where they become perplexed they know where to go (and I don't mean simply going to the professor) they could be familiar with a higher level writer or thinker they can look to for advice or clarification. Remember many tutors are still students themselves but they have the experience to point you in the right direction. A tutor or an understudy definitely appreciates one who has mastery on a subject.
Going back to Machiavelli's book which, like I mentioned before, is on leadership, leaders also need to have an understanding of their own limitations. A leader needs to have full control over their flaws as they do their strengths, it is a requirement. If you have followers or employees that need to understand when they are over their heads on an issue and need to contact someone with more experience, you should be able to do that as well. So Machiavelli is perhaps saying that there is strength in understanding your own weaknesses.
The last class of intellect is said to be "useless" by Machiavelli and I fully agree. These are possibly the stubborn, prideful folks who know they don't have the knowledge but refuse to seek someone who does out of their own selfishness but it is not just those people.
As the class is written it looks to say that it is a person that cannot grasp the answers on their own or with the help of others. And that is somewhat true, "by the showing of others" is saying that they have been shown, the answers have been explained yet they still cannot grasp it. This happens a lot too. In academia we all face a course where no matter how simplistic it is, no matter the tutors, the amount of time studying we just don't get it (for me it was Geology..ugh).
What do you do then? While you have noticed your own weakness and have asked for help and after the help you still don't understand frustration usually kicks in. The more frustrated you become the more you would want to quit and just do something else. However I would say, that if you don't quit and you keep trying then you don't belong in this class after all. Think about it you are able to appreciate what another knows still, even if you still can't comprehend it yourself.
I have discussed here Machiavelli's three classes of intellects as written in his book The Prince. The first class, the "excellent" class are of masters and strong leaders who have the knowledge and problem-solving skills within themselves necessary to be effective. The second class, the "good/useful" class are the ones who may not hold full mastery but have a good handle on it and know where to find helpful information when the problem is beyond their skill set. The final, "useless", class are a mixture of the stubborn, selfish and the somewhat hapless. They can't get it. No matter how many times they try they can't get a handle on it. However by continuously trying they perhaps can jump to the second class.
Of course all these classes would vary depending on the field. The aforementioned professor is a master of his field, not all fields. A tutor may only be useful for a particular course. So perhaps in reality we are all apart of all three classes at some point in time because we are fallible and we can't possibly know everything, even those with high levels of knowledge (mastery) can't know it all. But when it comes to the concept of leadership the first two classes are the best and that's what Machiavelli was putting out there.
The Three Classes of Intellects are:
"One which comprehends by itself.
The other appreciates, what another comprehends.
And the last doesn't comprehend by itself nor by the showing of others."
The first is said to be the best and rightfully so. If one can truly read or listen and understand without further explanation should he not be considered an intellectual? Now I believe that in order to fully understand many ideas such deep theories stemming from the scientific, mathematic or otherwise, it requires much study and much explanation. So then this first class is not saying that one has to pick up on an ideology or theory and understand it with perfection in a short time but that one dedicates themselves to understanding it on their own to the point where they can comprehend the concept on their own because they are familiar with it.
One such example of this first class would be a college professor. A professor that lectures on a topic, has done the necessary research on the topic, they have become fluid on the topic, the have mastered it. Now there are "student-professors" meaning professors who don't have the paper diploma necessary to prove their mastery but if they are given an opportunity to teach then surely they have some mastery over the information.
The first class, as far as I am concerned, is the most interesting. The reason being it is the class that all people strive, it is their plan to master a position, a craft and be considered a leader in that field. That term, "leader" is exactly what Machiavelli is writing about. He is writing a manual on leadership and what an effective leader needs. Surely an effective leader needs to be able to comprehend situations and make the best decisions possible on their own. They need to have an intellect on a higher plane so than those they lead or they cannot truly call themselves a leader. A leader that has mastery over information and can understand and problem-solve on their own will eventually gain the favor of many followers, in the same way all the good professors have full classes.
The second class is considered by Machiavelli to be only "good". I consider it a useful skill. Knowing that you cannot fully comprehend a situation or understand a problem is useful because it doesn't create a false sense of self. This is one thing people do all the time as well. We quote people (as I am doing with Machiavelli) because we understand that they know more than we do. We come to grips with our own limitations but we know who does have the knowledge that is needed to solve this problem.
Have you ever encountered an issue and needed to ask someone else for clarification? Of course you have and there is intelligence in not knowing how to solve an issue because you do know who to turn to.
I liken this class to being an understudy or a tutor to keep with the academic theme. A tutor has some of the answers and can help a lot if your low on understanding but they know their weaknesses. If an issue arises where they become perplexed they know where to go (and I don't mean simply going to the professor) they could be familiar with a higher level writer or thinker they can look to for advice or clarification. Remember many tutors are still students themselves but they have the experience to point you in the right direction. A tutor or an understudy definitely appreciates one who has mastery on a subject.
Going back to Machiavelli's book which, like I mentioned before, is on leadership, leaders also need to have an understanding of their own limitations. A leader needs to have full control over their flaws as they do their strengths, it is a requirement. If you have followers or employees that need to understand when they are over their heads on an issue and need to contact someone with more experience, you should be able to do that as well. So Machiavelli is perhaps saying that there is strength in understanding your own weaknesses.
The last class of intellect is said to be "useless" by Machiavelli and I fully agree. These are possibly the stubborn, prideful folks who know they don't have the knowledge but refuse to seek someone who does out of their own selfishness but it is not just those people.
As the class is written it looks to say that it is a person that cannot grasp the answers on their own or with the help of others. And that is somewhat true, "by the showing of others" is saying that they have been shown, the answers have been explained yet they still cannot grasp it. This happens a lot too. In academia we all face a course where no matter how simplistic it is, no matter the tutors, the amount of time studying we just don't get it (for me it was Geology..ugh).
What do you do then? While you have noticed your own weakness and have asked for help and after the help you still don't understand frustration usually kicks in. The more frustrated you become the more you would want to quit and just do something else. However I would say, that if you don't quit and you keep trying then you don't belong in this class after all. Think about it you are able to appreciate what another knows still, even if you still can't comprehend it yourself.
I have discussed here Machiavelli's three classes of intellects as written in his book The Prince. The first class, the "excellent" class are of masters and strong leaders who have the knowledge and problem-solving skills within themselves necessary to be effective. The second class, the "good/useful" class are the ones who may not hold full mastery but have a good handle on it and know where to find helpful information when the problem is beyond their skill set. The final, "useless", class are a mixture of the stubborn, selfish and the somewhat hapless. They can't get it. No matter how many times they try they can't get a handle on it. However by continuously trying they perhaps can jump to the second class.
Of course all these classes would vary depending on the field. The aforementioned professor is a master of his field, not all fields. A tutor may only be useful for a particular course. So perhaps in reality we are all apart of all three classes at some point in time because we are fallible and we can't possibly know everything, even those with high levels of knowledge (mastery) can't know it all. But when it comes to the concept of leadership the first two classes are the best and that's what Machiavelli was putting out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
