For those who don’t know, I embody many roles within the context of The Situation: a researcher, a campaigner, a theorist, a consultant, a commentator, and yet, the most important facet of my person is that I am serious. This means and entails many things; most importantly, it means that I am more serious about dignity than I am offspring – and that comes from a fan of children. In fact, I am often asked when I will have children. If only, I wonder, they were more concerned with dignity than they were progeny. I myself cannot see the logic in wanting to bring children into an environment that is not only hostile, but one that I do not possess. It is not only an embarrassment that so many Bakala ask and entertain this thought of “little ones”, it is a sign of sickness surfacing. Let us not forget that these are people who are routinely accustomed to labelling others – especially myself – as “mad”, and yet, in spite of their incoherent thought patterns and disjointed thinking structures, they still afford themselves the luxury of imagining they are of right mind?
It is no surprise; within the confines of this zoo, such ridiculousness and absurdities are to be expected. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that this ridiculous situation could exist, and persist, if the bakala people could think properly and authentically operate. Much rather, they must be programmed with and function from a base of ill-logic, and a fragmented paradigm. Most recently, amongst these “confused” (conquered) people, a thought has re-emerged. Kanye West seems to be a key proponent of this thought that suggests that “class” is the issue and not “race”. In fact, this blik finds support from those who claim that we are in a post-racial place; that those who still “dwell” on colour are stuck (lost), and that, as Jack Saturday might say, “the world has changed.” If only they knew. In the first place, as we have already discussed elsewhere, as a part of this total system thought framework, race is simply rule. Moreover, those who talk about “race” can rarely give the term a definition, and as for the part about, “colour”, I am still waiting for the day that someone can show me a “white” person.
Although people might conflate terms and identify with the label “white”, it is more to do with position and role, than anything else. In fact, we go further to say that the term white, might be best explained as “someone empowered with mobility and authority.” In outdated terms, we might even say that anyone that identifies themselves as white – and is identified as such – is racist (only, that term, is rather meaningless.) To identify as white is to equate oneself with the very rule which is a regime of domination that involves relational structures and agreements between peoples. To be white is to operate from, benefit from, and essentially be an advocate of that/these arrangements. In short, since race is rule, white is domination. When we say that, for obvious reasons, we are apprehended by those most trained by domination: those who are disciplined, domesticated and docile, if not dedicated. They say that nonwhites, or bakala, can be “racist.”
Many say that those who talk the truth about power are “radical” and “segregationist”, or they see us as living in past-time’s parrowdice. It does not occur to them, however, hwow many of their “white friends” are playing and participating in the game of domination-seduction, fragmentation violence. They fail to see their “peers” and “contemporaries” and fellow “human beings” as Terry Silver’s. Maybe they have yet to see the Usual Suspects, maybe because it is always them in the line-ups. It is likely then that those bakala who see whites as being spiritually inept, still have faith, and hope, in better days, and ghetto heavens. It does not occur to them that at best, the prisoners ought to harbour hostility towards those who hold them in captivity, and that, their resentment does little to alter the relations between the servants and the masters because at best, the nonwhites are reactionaries, reacting to the domination.
Minister Malcolm highlighted this upon his return from Mecca, even if the likes of James Farmer would have liked to have – us, or he himself – imagine otherwise. During an interview on the Open Mind, Farmer claimed that there were two versions of the Minister. Apparently the “moderator”, Heffner asked “[Malcolm lived] long enough for him to [seemingly] have shifted his own orientation in the sense of separatism, which he was expressing at our programme together. Which Malcolm, which civil rights movements [are we] going to remember: separatists or integrationists.” Walker corrected this notion of “separatism” by admitting the campaigners were “more de-segregationists than integrationists.” He explained “there were a large cadre of us who were not concerned about being with white people to give any affirmation to ourselves but to be sure that we as American citizens had access to things all other Americans had access to, but the verbiage of the media at the time in a sense brainwashed people’s opinion.” Farmer, however, seemed to subtly object.
For Farmer, “we had the thesis, we had the antithesis and we now have synthesis. Malcolm moved closer toward the civil rights movement after his return from Mecca, and the civil rights movement moved closer to Malcolm with black identity becoming a part of the civil rights struggle, so the mainstream …is part integrationist and part black identity and afro centrism.” Later in the programme, Farmer added, “one of the things about Malcolm [is that] in his pre Mecca days, he believed that white racism was genetic; in other words, they had it, god, Allah, he would say, gave it to them, and there was nothing you could do about it. After Mecca, he saw that that was not true. He in Mecca saw white Muslims worshipping Allah, kneeling beside him and he was convinced then that racism as he had witnessed it in America, was learned and not genetic, and if it was learned, I repeat, it can be unlearned.” This latter part, of course, was his personal view.
This idea is not uncommon, for there is a popular idea that, as Farmer added “the funny thing is, he [Malcolm] began to change his position.” Convinced Malcolm underwent a radical transformation, and a second chapter, Farmer pontificated that there was a “second Malcolm, from the time of his visit to Mecca”, who would agree that we – we, who – could solve the problem of “racism” in the body politic of the nation. It was however, somewhat ironic that sitting next to him, Walker gave credit to the living Malcolm when he conceded “most of us were more optimistic about the possibility of change in American society than we needed to be and I confess that …Malcolm was more accurate in his assessment about where America was on race than we were at that point in time.” Walker also noted that the rise in identity “pride” had confused the situation, which was elaborated upon by Farmer in his visit to the Open Mind, during episode 421.
Upon his return, Farmer stated that “more than a cult, he is being made a god, he is being deified”, whilst offering a critique of Malcolm: “He was lucky then [during uprisings] that he didn’t have to put up or shut up when he talked violence. This is one criticism that I had of Malcolm in the sixties…that is that he talked and he didn’t do anything because the things that he talked about doing would have been self defeating if he attempted to do them …guns can be no solution when talking about a minority that has no guns to compare to that of their adversaries.” We appreciate, here, Farmers insight, and also his commentary which reveals the many nuances of todays topics, for we agree that “leadership is easy when the issues are simple.” His analysis also explains much of the confusion that is so prevalent today.
Explaining the differences and difficulties confronting those attempting to challenge and oppose domination, Farmer argued that “we are dealing with reverse discrimination and affirmative action…Issues of the 1960s…were so simple… but [Bakke, 1978], we had to make a decision based on which right was more in keeping with the requirements of public policy at that particular time …In the 60s we were right and we knew it and those who opposed our right to sit on the front of the bus …were wrong… we cannot be as dogmatic today on many of the issues, as we could be in the 1960s…what we are going to do [therefore] is to develop more wisdom, for one thing. We’ve got to find out which side is more in keeping with the demands of public policy and work with it. Now it’s harder to organise a movement and to get motion… when you don’t have a clear devil to point to.”
Although much of his reflections are useful, we do challenge Farmers rhetoric on Minister Malcolm, for it does not seem to be an accurate picture, especially when he espouses there were two Malcolm’s: “the first Malcolm …was the Malcolm of hate; hating whites and believing that whites were evil. Most of the young blacks are not aware that there was a Malcolm subsequent to that; that Malcolm changed his views when in Mecca, he saw blue eyed blondes worshipping Allah along with him and indeed kneeling beside him and he came to the conclusion, as he said to me [personally]….that Islam was [not purely] the blacks man’s religion and that white people could [in fact] get close to Mecca …he said that lead him to do researching, rethinking and soul searching and he came to the conclusion that anybody who will fight along with us, not for us…was his brother.”
Indeed, in his acclaimed Biography, we find the Ministers word match up with Farmer’s assessment that “he had had very little formal education…and he believed what he had been told by his [former] leader, Elijah Muhammad” however, his message at the New York City, Militant Labor Forum, (January 7th, 1965), talking on “The Prospects for Freedom”, goes contrary to the picture painted by Farmer. In this speech, to use his words, Malcolm stated explicitly,” how in the world can a white man expect a black man to change before he has changed; how can you expect us to change when you haven’t changed; how can you expect us to change when the cause, that make us as we are, has not been removed. Why, it’s infantile, immature, [and] adolescent, on your part, to expect us to change, to expect us to be dumb enough to change, when you have not yet gone to the cause of the conditions that makes us act as we do.” SNM
Many years ago Boesk dealt with this issue of whiteness when he effectively advocated the position that white people were to be judged within the context of this present set of arrangements. He claimed that the failing of previous selfhood theorists was that they seemed to ascribe to whites flaws in their moral make-up. They seemed to believe that whites were inherently demonic rather than seeing that their privileged positions within a criminal context afforded advantages which dictated their conduct. In his analysis, these misguided theorists were focussing on moral characteristics so much, they did not engage in the discussion about power, and that whites did what they did, relating and operating as they did, because power enabled them to do so. It meant then that the key to dignity was transforming this relation.
It is important to note, however, that in our reading, Boesk’s view is incomplete, and somewhat invalidated by Ani, who seems to imply that whites operate as they do the other peoples because they function from a different moral world. Whilst this does take us away from talk of demons and devils, it is useful in as much as it encourages us to focus on how those that rule, rule. Examining this, a caller to radio broadcast, The COWS asked, “is deception and trickery intelligence…don’t you think it’s easy to trick a group of people when your operating off a different moral compass from them?”, to which the host responded, that this was exactly what white people had done: “they have tricked us into thinking that yes, we’re all one, human family, democracy, all in this together, we all have the same morals and ethics” In fact, this was not true at all for they have a totally different moral compass.
In reality whites have a moral compass which dictates they view the world, and place themselves in opposition to everybody that is not white. Ani then, has much credibility to her claim that white thought patterns and structures compel them to create these complex relational systems which maintain them in positions of domination and power. Furthermore, we ought to also suspect more is taking place when, as one theorist reminds us, all over the world, as highlighted by global domination in multiple areas of the world, whites seem to miraculously or magically know that they are supposed to be in charge. We see, and saw then, Mandela being given shorts in prison to designate that he was a boy; the Indians being made to bow to Dyer’s troops; the American Bakala being referred to as “boy”, and the like, which are reflect rule. These are master-servant relations recreated repeatedly, and that is beyond coincidence. It’s almost as if they are a team and each, like a German squad, know their role, and perform it.
Often the claim is made that all white people are individual, and therefore we cannot group all of them together and yet, the face of American hostility was white: it was French, Canadian, Hungarian, German, Polish, Irish, you name it but all these national entities gave way to the aim and goal of crushing the “spirit” of the Bakala. For the sake of domination, these nationhood constructs merged and dissolved only to again surface when it was convenient. This, however, is of little importance; for they will then say that “Jews” fought alongside the Bakala, going on to add that Jon Brown offered the most radical challenge to white domination. They will not, however, refer to John Booth who told those in Nyasaland that none of the whites were to be trusted. They fail to mention, as Clarke adds, that Brown’s generals were just as important as he was. They leave out that Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner were but three bodies discovered by the pale FBI, that seemed largely indifferent prior.
For those that say we should avoid “generalising”, I ask, when we walk by these white females and they clutch their purposes, are they seeing us as individuals? When we encounter the same problem of being followed around shops, is that generalising? When we are told we “speak well” or are “intelligent” or “articulate” – for negroes – is that generalising? Or when we are grouped together with strangers we happen to be close to but resemble in image, is that generalising? Again, we ask, and wonder, why it is that we, the bakala are “corrected” on these habits when the people that should be “checked” are those who injure us daily? It is as if those who attempt to “moralise” do so because they are akin to missionaries who evangelise to us, so as to sedate us before the raw conquerors finish the job. They are security forces, and stewards, there to appease us, so we remain confused, never focussed on the target. Sadly, we cannot continue to remain at first base and so, irrespective of their intentions, they must be ignored.
There are then those who say, routinely, that some of the most helpful people they have encountered have been whites, and again, we are not surprised. They can afford this luxury just as James Goldsmith could afford the luxury of taking a moral stance against GATT once he had lived lavishly and clobbered competition. It is important then to draw upon the inspiration of Amos Wilson who reminds some, and informs many that individual choice is a product of group actions. From here, I argue that it is not difficult to give prisoners an extra few moments of “social” if ultimately, they will return to their cells. In fact, if you give them enough, they may even forget they are in prisons, and come to take favour with you, seeking more of your approval, as they seek to make the days go by quicker. More importantly, I do not mind giving you charity if your impoverishment was caused by my family robbing you in the first place.
As for those who claim that their people – whoever these people are – have been most hostile, it makes sense that those who have been injured, and insulted, daily, will have such enmity. Animals in their cages have reasons for rages. For them, there is no holiday, just horror. In terms of niceties then, the chances are that we will not be as courteous towards, and amongst each other because we have little to offer each other, creating the scenario The Joker mocked when he claimed morality is a joke: “their morals, their code, it’s a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be [but] when the chips are down, these civilised people, they’d eat each other.” Without any standard of conduct governing our behaviour, we seem resigned to death, and with that, bitterness. Conquered, we go on conquering. Let’s admit then, that those who focus on the black side of chess board tend to do so to escape a confrontation with those who seem to be winning the game.
There are many bakala who want to avoid this confrontation because they are defeated. They want to be liked, seeing that as the limit of their reality. They seem convinced that “we cannot govern ourselves…we are unworthy of genuine independence and… foreign tutelage is the only remedy for our wild, war like and primitive ways… if they are to be saved from their richly aggressive instinct.” They are settled; the whites will always be in control and there is nothing we can do about it and so we better have children, partners, cars, houses, properties, businesses, etc, in trying to avoid being at the bottom of the ladder, or left to drown in the water, as opposed to be safe on the big ship. It is also logical to want to avoid this fate because those that challenge that enormous force of whites do not seem to have many victories.
Although there are those of us who have been genuinely duped by the lies of the whites, we can do better if we have a quick way to identify who these people are and so I ask, can you exist without ever seeing another white person again? Kamau 301, however, gives us three other (better) questions to ask which quickly establish who is serious about controlling their reality, when he lists three questions? He asks, do you believe that American foreign policy can be changed; that we need to get whites to live up to their ideals and that the system works, but needs reforming. If so, the chances are that such a person will not be of immediate value in this ongoing effort. They want to only “suffer peacefully” or go about their business experiencing less hostility. They are not actually bothered by white domination; and have few problems with whites owning the distribution of wealth, so long as they can have jobs.
In closing, we need to be on guard against both the whites and the “blacks”, who are but whites in disguise. Even if police violence (State Attacks) were to cease, the fact that we are not in control would still remain a problem. If we were housed, had jobs and access to healthcare, but whites remained in charge, for those of us who are serious, that would be defeat, which bring us to a final few points about confrontation. George Subira was correct in observing that whites have no problem with us so long as we tolerate them, and they accommodate us, and yet, if we refuse to be silent, there is trouble. Minister Malcolm’s return from Mecca highlights reality of white domination which is a death wish; when they asked if he changed they were gauging if he had been duped (assimilated) to which he affirmed, he wasn’t, and yet, those who try to “freeze frame” Malcolm want to confuse us with this myth.
It is paramount that we the bakala realise just how many whites are invested in this situation, The Situation, and spot them. They are those who are uneasy when we talk about “rule,” which is “whiteness.” They are those who talk about the abstract supremacy whiteness without talking about how they directly participate in it. They talk about “racism” without definition, and say “things are getting better” without offering any comparisons, or leaving it there to simply imply, as Herblock did, that we should show gratitude that whites are contemplating changing their behaviours. They want us to believe that the images of white terror in America was examples of the “racism” that died rather than telling us that what we saw then was “barbarism”, whilst simultaneously, they refuse to revisit any of the footage from South Africa for “fair” it might show too much of their hand.
We will remain as clowns until we are able to think in context and operate with proper perspective. At present, we cannot even read reality, and so, when we hear of “monkey chants” in sporting stadiums, we see this as the “racism” of a few “bad apples” rather than the “appreciation” of those “breaking rank” that can no longer lie to themselves and pretend they are there to watch “human beings.” Aside from those excessively aroused, impulsive types who spew these “slurs”, we should be on guard against those who disrupt and sabotage teh Blue-eyes Brown-eyes experiment claiming they refuse to do it to their fellow human beings, under the righteous pretext, of course. Much rather, when it comes to whites, we must realise that we are dealing with characters like Yung (The Perfect Weapon, 1991), Verbal Kint (The Usual Suspects, 1995), Terry Silver (Karate Kid III, 1989) Aaron Stampler (Primal Fear, 1996) Timmy York (Identity, 2003) Jack Doyle (Gone Baby Gone, 2007).
For all this talk about “class”, “robber barons” and “the establishment”, the fact is, we can never collaborate, especially because we sit on separate sides of the fence. We are merely cannon fodder, jump offs that the white collective are not true to. They play the game, and we buy it. In closing, we leave you with the immortal words of Renegade who urges us to be ever vigilant in dealing with those who have mastered deception: “If you can fool someone…particularly if the people know that you have a tendency to be deceptive, and you can still fool them, I have to concede that this person is very smart about doing what they want to do because they can do this and some of us even seem to know that these people can lie a lot but we still fall for it, we’re still in bed with them, [and] we still do not acknowledge, they’re on the other side of the chessboard.”