Tears of a Clown: Keith Ellison’s Manhood Goes on Sale

A Crocodile Weeps. ++see below

Remember back when John F. Kennedy swore that the Pope didn’t make his decisions for him? (On September 12, 1960, he said, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me.”)* He was promising to do what’s best as a representative of ALL the people.

I understand that that was the kind of scrutiny non-Protestants lived with. It was a sorry affair persecuting people based on their religious beliefs when they ran for office. However, I’m sure those comments reassured those who considered voting for Mr. Kennedy.

A Public Servant to Whom?

Today, we have folks who seem to define themselves solely by their religious ideology. Apparently, it precedes gender, race, nationality, dignity, and common sense. It really does not matter to me what people do, or believe in, or swear fealty to, except when this trait is exhibited by a politician. Why doesn’t Representative Keith Ellison serve in a religious temple somewhere? Is he aware that he’s supposed to represent his district, atheists included, and not just his coreligionists?

OOps. I guess he cannot be criticized for that oversight though. It might make him cry. Or something.

It’s Political Theater

I’m generally cynical about politicians. Representatives go through two year election cycles. I believe fruit flies live longer. Congressional hearings are show trials. With the “tears of a clown” display, the lead entertainer (Ellison) wants to pretend that he’s doing something! This is a fund raising ploy. But hey, pimping ain’t easy.

Oh, you mean he might be sincere? I doubt it.

He’s not crying, because most of the victims of homocide are black males, decimating the African American population. Or that most victims of domestic violence, rape and murder are black girls / women, further decimating the African American population. Or that a large number of foreclosures are putting single black mothers into the streets, generating a devastating economic setback to the backbone of the African American population. Or that black people are suffering the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Oh, no. Ellison is cynically blubbering over one incident regarding one deceased individual that happened a decade ago. He’s not even crying over all the victims of 9/11.

I could have believed Ellison sincere, if he announced he was upset at something like this picture:

African boy gets "questioned" by Libyan "rebels" with a finger on the right and a pistol on the left.

I have relatives that look like this kid.

My sympathy for the Libyans have evaporated. Then again, I never had much to begin with. These people are literally picking on the darkest people they see. This is a child they are terrorizing. They think he’s an “African mercenary”. The whole country is after these people. Poor child looks too frightened to be anything nefarious. Many central Africans came to Libya to work (in the oil fields), because Qadhafi invited them there. There are also many other groups and nationalities fleeing Libya.

I tried to find out what happened to this kid from news reports, but because the media is so much on the side of the “rebels” or “freedom fighters” they’ve pretended not to know.

It pissed me off.

Hey, I get it that this isn’t something for Ellison to weep over. There’s no money it in. However, since he’s playing the role of a sensitive politician, couldn’t he expand his interests a bit?

Just asking.

“Manhood for Sale”

Sometimes, I think some black males aren’t aware that they’re always looking for a new “master” to tell them what to do, how to think, and how to be. They are released from one yoke, only to take on another.

How much do you think that single tear will get Ellison from fund raising? A hundred thou? Maybe half a mil? That money wont be coming from us though, will it?

* Wikipedia: John F. Kennedy profile.

++ Ellison was sobbing at a Congressional hearing on the radicalization of American followers of Islam.

Note: I’ve been remiss in the past not crediting who the photos belong to. Sorry. These two are from Reuters.


News Update:

NY Times: American Muslim Salafi Movement – Why Do They Even Come Here?


Rant: To People Who Compare Every Politically Incorrect Expression or Treatment to "the Blacks"

Stop it right now.

Stop those trite, irritating, and annoying expressions of “Well, it is like doing X against the blacks,” or “Well, it is like using the N-word to describe group Y,” or the all time favorite, “Group Z going through this discrimination is like doing this to the blacks.”

For real though, those declarations do not make any sense at all. If the offense is that serious, then the blacks do not need to be dragged into the discussion.

The history of black people(s) in the diaspora is not short, simple, and it is not a convenient, slick, back of the envelope example of discrimination and suffering for other groups to use.

We are not a trick bag of goodies for others to use and (mis)appropriate when convenient.

Some folks may not mind, but I do. My suggestion: Use your own damn history. Compile and relate your own pertinent examples of discrimination, suffering, and intolerance. People will understand. People will respect you for it. People will be able to picture your complaints and take them seriously.

Right now, whenever I hear “the blacks“, whatever support I may have had for your position(s) gets negated to zip, zero, and zilch. It drops down into “I could not care less” category.

It Is Not Logical

Using “the blacks” to exemplify discrimination will not work, because it is not a correct logical construct to compare it to using the word “retarded”, being a woman, blind, deaf, dumb, alcoholic, mentally disabled, physically disabled, a drug addict, a fat ugly white woman, a senior citizen, a homosexual, lesbian, or whatever group feels they have a problem.

You know why the comparisons do not make any sense? Aside from the coalition of fat ugly white women, black people are also women, senior citizens, mentally disabled, blind, deaf dumb, etc.

Default Normalcy

Saying “the blacks” is deliberately erasing our complexity and humanity. When the slaves were emancipated, and freedmen got the vote, only black men could vote (in theory, since Jim Crow closed that door). Yet, all the time, I see idiots, especially in the media, saying “the blacks” got the vote when slavery ended. Black women could not vote until all women, excepting Native Americans at the time, were granted suffrage.

Some of you assume everyone’s default for man is a white man. Some of you assume everyone’s default for woman is a white woman. This thinking is about seeing whiteness as normal, and blackness as abnormal. It is so automatic, no one stops to think why they do it. It makes as much sense as this sentence: women and minorities. Translation: white women and others. Are minorities not women too?

That is why some of you folks love to associate every group that might be outcast, abnormal, dysfunctional, disrespected, or whatever as “the blacks.”

Get it clear, not all of us has a world view where we are a minority, secondary, subordinate, a permanent victim group, or inferior to anyone

So, shut up already.

Next time you find yourself in a search of a short hand narrative, leave “the blacks” out of it.

Put the trick bag of missappropriating black people’s culture, history, gender, and identity down. Go free ride on the back of some other group.


African History: The Perfect Armor

I love museums. I try to visit a few every year. Even when I am seeing the same exhibits I can’t get enough of them.

Europeans and Africans

I’m always looking for slices of African history in Western Civilization. I also like to see evidence of black people being in Europe, even before Columbus sailed off to find India and “discovered” the “New World.”

Referring to the following image: the date of this slave trade does not mean that Africans were new to Europe. Historical forces came together in a “perfect storm”, which meant Africans would be sourced as the new (more durable?) labor pool for Europeans to use.

Why? Europe was going through periods of depopulation due to the Black Death. Its countries were always at war, sophisticated mercantile commerce was taking hold, and naval competition for dominance of trading routes was growing. These bold explorations and territorial expansions required bodies.

Armors and Guns

I love love love looking at armored suits. I like that whole ancient European guns, swords, and ancient castle living kinda stuff. I wish someone would make a lightweight, superhuman strong exo-skeleton, bulletproof (bomb proof?) armored suit for today. Now, wouldn’t that be awesome!?! Weird, right? Yet, I bloody love the idea. It makes me think of RoboCop for some reason.

Tell me these armor suits don’t look hot? The black one screams, bad ass! I saw one in the UK that the Japanese had given the British. Aw, I should have taken a picture of that. You talk about nice.

The one thing I do note about all of these outfits, people back then were tiny: 5’2″-5’4″. I think most of the armor weighed upwards of 100lbs, which has yet to include the swords, blades, guns, and other equipment they had to carry.

Check out the guns these folks had back then.

Use your imagination: slave traders with guns, breastplate armor, cannons on ships, versus dark skinned natives who had what? Arrows, poison darts, spears, and diseases to hold off the pale skinned invaders.

Starting in 1420, the Europeans begin to scatter African peoples around Europe, and then the “New World.”

Four hundred years later, around 1865, they followed up by colonizing Africa.

And yet, people still talk today as though black and white people, or if you prefer, African and European descendants just met.

I have to read this book Guns, Germs and Steel at some point, maybe see if I can get an audio version and/or watch the PBS program.