What If and the World War II Generation

Lately, I've been down and out by what I see from the Baby Boomer Generation and from my own generation, Generation X. Collectively, we are the most selfish, self-serving, self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing people the world has ever known.

As the grandchild of a World War II veteran, I have nothing but love and respect for my grandfather's generation, the World War II generation (The Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation combined). They endured the Great Depression before travelling thousands of miles overseas to fight evil in segregated units before returning home to Jim Crowism down South and redlining and Gerrymandering up North. Having seen the horrors of war, they faced lynching and death at home in order to agitate for better housing and education for their children, sparking the modern day Civil Rights Movement as we know it.

They elected the last Republican to balance the budget, Dwight Eisenhower, invested in infrastructure, and sent their children into the lion's mouth in order to desegregate schools. The World War II generation gave us Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Fannie Lou Hamer, and Ralph Abernathy. They endured much, sometimes sacrificing their lives, and they did it all without asking for thanks and praise. They also produced the Baby Boomer Generation, one of the most selfish group of people the world has ever seen. The Baby Boomers in turn gave us Generations X and Y: the high tech, spoiled, disrespectful, microwave generations who seem to care nothing for the world around them.

As a member of Generation X, I definitely have a legitimate beef with the Baby Boomer generation. Not with everyone, but as a collective. Here's my beef: Baby Boomers offer us legitimate criticism, but no teaching. My grandfather was a harsh old man. He called us variations of the word fool that I still haven't figured out yet (what does "starnated" mean anyway). But after his anger subsided, he always showed us a better way. Though he only had an eighth grade education, he was an excellent teacher. He used parables, every day situations, stories, and riddles (sometimes his belt, too) to get his point across.

As for our parents, the Baby Boomer generation, most of them were too busy breaking the glass ceiling for teaching. Yes, like my grandfather's generation before them, there was criticism abound, but no follow-up. So, we got called "starnated fools" by our parents as well, but many of us were not taught. Whereas my grandfather listened to our little crappy kid complaints and offered advice, the Baby Boomer generation ignored us. They were always too busy, and our problems were never big enough for them to be concerned about.

Now, these same Baby Boomers are still ignoring the now 30+ Generation X'ers. Many of us have careers, graduate degrees, families, and problems of our own. But who cares, asks the Baby Boomers? We ain't been through Jim Crow or had to help out with the share cropping or never had to use an outhouse, so what are we whining about? Even as they call us a "Lost Generation," they selfishly chase away the few of us in church and in higher education who are trying damn hard not to be lost. What? Let some young fool come in and steal their position of authority or their moments of shine. What? Retire and go home and be old and become irrelevant? Hell No! Not the Baby Boomers. Forever youthful, they're still working (some have to because they simply cannot afford to retire. Others simply don't want to be old). They are now in charge. They run our dilapidated schools, our broken government, and our inadequate social programs.

They failed to teach, but trained us to be consumers. They wanted us to have careers, but taught us to devalue life. What's a baby but another mouth to feed? They traveled half-way across the country, and literally built Detroit, Chicago, Oakland, and St. Louis with their labor and buying power. They taught their children that their's no place worst than the South, especially Mississippi, and therefore to be ashamed of humble beginnings. In short, our current, spoiled-rotten, ignorant generation is the product of the selfish Baby Boomers and their failure to teach.

One day, in my anger, I got to thinking. What if the World War II generation had done the Baby Boomers the same way they did/do us?

1. What if the World War II generation had come home, and said, "I want my child to have everything I didn't have growing up," and instead of agitating for better schools and adequate housing, they simply bought their children more clothes, more toys, and more "stuff," and thought that would suffice or "fix" everything? What if? That's what happened to us. Our parents truly spoiled us. With entrance to corporate America and access to better-paying jobs, our Baby Boomer parents decided, "I want my children to have all of the things I didn't have. I don't want them to come up the way I did." Well, when did "things" ever solve any problems?

2. What if the World War II generation looked at the Baby Boomers, with their large Afros, stack shoes, loud colors, Motown sound, and mini-skirts and said, "This is just a lost generation"? What if they'd written off their rebellious children and asked, "Why are we trying to fight for these ungrateful bastards" and then ceased the fight for Civil Rights?

3. What if the World War II generation looked at children as if they are simply roadblocks to economic success, and recommended abortion for "unwanted" children?

4. What if the World War II generation turned church into a money-making industry?

5. What if the World War II generation never taught their children the value of a dollar, but continued to give their children material things as if that would make life problem-free?

6. Last, what if the World War II generation told the Baby Boomer generation, "You can't tell me nothing. You don't know nothing. You ain't been through nothing. You ain't got no testimony. You ain't been through the Cold War where we had to practice ducking from an atomic bomb. You ain't been through the Great Depression where 1932 was so hard that we was eating dandelion greens. You ain't been through World War II in a segregated army and had to come home and get beat and lynched just because you had on a uniform. You ain't got not testimony."

7. What if the World War II generation hardly ever went to church or took their children to church? What if the World War II "showed how the Lord done blessed them" by going to church only to show off their new clothes?

8. What if the World War II generation never purchased any land to pass on to their children, but bought clothes and jewelry instead? Some Baby Boomers are still living on their parents' land and fighting over their deceased parents estates. Where are the Boomers' land and houses? What will they leave to their children of value?

9. What if the World War II generation, as a collective whole, had created an entire culture in which material goods, but only material goods created by somebody else, are everything, and their children actually became ashamed that their parents owned a sewing machine?

10. What if the World War II generation was satisfied to raise their children in the projects on government handouts, and didn't encourage them to at least get out in this world and try?

Where would the world be if the World War II generation had behaved like the Baby Boomers? Where will the world be if Generations X and Y continue to live as if tomorrow won't come?

Media Personalities Allow Minority Faces to be the Mascots of Vicious Political Rhetoric

Let me be clear: I'm a nobody. In the grand scheme of things, I'm not even on the totem pole. I'm a woodshaving trying to get onto the totem pole. As a part-time English instructor at a community college in the South with absolutely no publications behind my name, nobody gives a damn about me or my opinion. Hell, I'll bet not even two people read this blog. And, you know, that's fine by me. My job is to teach and educate. While being a public intellectual must have its perks, such as coveted paid positions as an analyst on one of the cable news network stations, that is not my calling. My purpose is empowerment and uplift through education and information access.

Though I am a nobody, it doesn't feel good to be ignored on an issue that I think is pivotal to the upcoming election year. On my Twitter account, I mentioned every media personality that I follow with a simple request: ask any conservative and/or Republican politicians that they may interview, "What, actually, is the definition for _______?" You may fill in the blank with any conservative code word that relates to economics: "socialism," "wealth redistribution," "fascism." The truth is, the American public, including the very people who are using these terms, don't know what the Hell they are talking about. They kind-of-sort-of know. Mention socialism or fascism and they picture Hitler or some European country where upward economic/social mobility is almost impossible. Mention wealth redistribution and they think Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution. In this sense, Republicans/conservatives expertly exploit the racist notions and ignorance of their constituents. It is one major way, outside of social/moral/religious issues that most Republicans/conservatives continue to get poor people to vote against their own interests by electing them to office.

Since I am a teacher by trade (an underpaid state worker with no healthcare benefits or a salary that would support my family should I suddenly find myself single), I'm going to take a moment and teach here. Maybe the two or three people who read this blog can spread the word. Webster's Dictionary online, as well the paperback copy has several definitions for socialism. Many people think they are hearing the first two major definitions which concerns a system where private property is eradicated, and the government controls all major industries. It basically exists as a transition from capitalism to communism (I'm using a lower-case "c" here because communism varies from people to people). However, there is a third definition listed by Webster's: a system in which exists as a transition between communism and capitalism, characterized by UNEQUAL PAY AND UNEVEN DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH ACCORDING TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED. According to that definition, I must ask, are we living in a socialist state here in the proclaimed capitalist meritocracy of the United States of America? From a worker's standpoint, wages have been frozen for the past decade. I could cite over 100 viable sources which point out that workers have seen their wages drop while the ones at the top, the people who benefit from the workers' production such as the Koch brothers, have done remarkably well.

While many people think of redistribution of wealth as taking from the rich, or taking private property and giving it to the state, it has actually played a reversal role here in the United States. Truthfully, George W. Bush presided over the largest redistribution of wealth in the country. The huge, tax-payer funded bail-out of private banks is just one manifestation of this redistribution. These companies got bail-outs, which were funded on the backs of the middle and working class here in America, and simultaneously distributed some of the largest salaries and bonuses to their executives the world has ever seen. The Republican regime of the 2000s did it all while smiling and yelling, "Country first." Anybody who questioned their policies were seen as "un-American." Again, according to Webster's, this is a textbook example of fascism.

The public's ignorance about the differences between their idea of these terms and the reality of it is partly due to a false belief in the upward economic mobility of the American Dream, centuries-old race baiting, and lack of concern shown by media figures of color here. When most Americans think "socialism" or "wealth redistribution," they think single Black women on welfare riding around in a Cadillac. This is due in part to Ronald Reagan's phantom Black welfare queen and the conservative media circus. However, I cannot let liberal or Black media figures off the hook for this. They, we (even though I don't consider myself a media figure at all) let this happen, too. We allow Black and Latino female faces continue to be the mascot for words and ideas that most Americans don't truly understand. They just know that these things are bad. To be clear, I'm not advocating that communism or socialism is good. What I'm talking about is how my Black female face could easily be grafted onto these ideas, and used to promote racist, wealth redistributing policies that continue to hurt ALL poor, working class, and middle class people.

And to think, some of this could be avoided if one damn newscaster or television/radio personality would ask a Congressman like Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor one simple question, "Could you please, for the sake of clarity, define socialism or wealth redistribution for the American public..." Even though I watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, I have yet to hear even the very liberal Lawrence O'Donnell (I can't say Maddow, since they dare not appear on her show), Ed Schultz, or Al Sharpton do so.

A Certain Segment of White People Have Already Seceeded from the Union

On July 25, 2011, a Monday night, President Obama stood at a podium to talk about the stalemate in Washington concerning the debt ceiling. Immediately following him was Speaker of the House, John Boehner, standing at a podium talking about why he cannot possibly pass a bill that includes any sort of revenue increases (tax hikes). He would not give the president a blank check. At first, I could not believe what I was seeing. John Boehner's platform looked so much more presidential than the actual president's. There was a podium, an American flag in the background, and the corner of a very expensive-looking mahogany desk. If I were to simply glance at the screen, I would've thought that John Boehner were the President addressing the nation from his Oval Office.

When I woke on July 26, 2011, I got it: John Boehner is the unofficial President for a certain segment of white people. Yes, white people have already seceded from the country socially; therefore, they feel no need to cooperate politically. John Boehner is the last hope for a group of white people who are afraid and confused, and who feel that their world is topsy-turvy. With people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who make a living by race-baiting, the fear is real. The fear is tangible. Americans generally live by a fixed-pie mentality: there is only so much wealth to go around, and we must hoard it for ourselves in the name of self-preservation. Beck and Limbaugh get onto the radio and scream, "The ________ folk are coming." You may fill in the blank with your choice of minority group: women, African Americans, Latinos and Hispanics, or homosexual. Whichever low-hanging ethnic fruit is fashionable, they use it to scare white people.

And for the most part, their strategy is as effective as it is old. I can give you a perfect example. After school desegregation, there were many op-eds in local papers which said that school integration would only lead to race-mixing. Throughout the South, after enforcement of school desegregation laws began, white people began to withdraw their children from public schools, and they established Christian Academies. White people also moved away from the city limits and city politics, and into the counties, scarcely even showing their faces in town to vote or purchase groceries. In short, they seceded from their Southern towns socially, and refused to participate politically. Sometimes, they did not support the towns economically, choosing instead to purchase their goods in small cities such as Natchez, McComb, Baton Rouge, or Vicksburg rather than buy from their local grocers where Black people also shopped.

What we're seeing from the Tea Party and their irrational ideological stances, is the secession of white people from American society. Tea Party members are the only people that stand between a world which makes sense, and what a certain segment of scared whites must certainly see as a viable "planet of the apes" (Is there any wonder that the movie is making a resurgence at this exact moment?). In less than a decade, this country will be a majority minority country: combined, there will be more minorities here than white people. By refusing to cooperate politically, and hoping to destroy the country economically, Tea Party members are making the last stand for a certain segment of isolated Americans: the scared white constituents who elected them to keep the fate of the free world out of the hands of a Black man. I have the sneaking suspicion that "big government," to the Tea Party is synonymous with "Black government." When John Boehner and other conservatives say they will not hand over a "blank check" to President Obama, they mean that they're not willing to hand over the government to a Black man, or any other person of color for that matter. One way or the other, they're letting their constituents know who's really in charge: the white man is still in control. Their strategy: crash the economy and put the country back into the hands of a white man. Their rationale: though we may all suffer if the economy defaults and President Obama loses the 2012 election, at least we'll be suffering in a world where white person is in charge, and therefore makes sense.

The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Affair: A Symptom

This is not a stinging indictment of Black men. This is not an insidious attack on Black women. Rather, it is a warning: both Black men and Black women must free ourselves of Euro-American patriarchal thinking. If not, Thomas has shown us how we pay at the structural level. Black male-on-Black male crime shows us how we pay at the individual, daily level.

As a people, African Americans, since slavery, have been very bold and somewhat successful in forcing Euro-Americans to practice the words they wrote both in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Despite conscious decisions by the authors of those documents to strike any reference to slavery out of the declaration, and to list Black people as only three-fifth human in the Constitution, African Americans knew the power and the meaning behind the words, "freedom," and "liberty." They, too, as builders of the world's global capitalist economy which freed Europe from a system of oppressive feudalism, wanted the ability to live in "pursuit of happiness." From David Walker to Frederick Douglass to Harriet Jacobs to Langston Hughes to Richard Wright to June Jordan to Eldridge Cleaver to Ernest J. Gaines to Martin Luther King, Jr. to Anne Moody to Malcolm X, Black Americans have cried out against tyranny of white racism and the oppression of white greed.

However, since the times of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, something has been seething within the Black community that we have NEVER adequately addressed. We have always been so watchful of the forces which are suppress us from without. Yet, we have not even attempted to remedy what is tearing us apart from within: Black people's internalization of Euro-American patriarchal thought. It is the acceptance of gender inequality, notions of masculine superiority and feminine inferiority, which threaten to destroy our communities. Young, Black men are dying on the streets every day due not only to poverty and violence, but also to how we define ourselves as gendered people.

As a Black woman, I could not be more proud of my literary ancestor, Harriet Jacobs, when she would stop telling her story in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl to say (I'm paraphrasing here), "Reader, do not judge by a white woman's standards. I am not a white woman. I have not had the life of a white woman, so do not impose society's standards of behavior and dress for white women on this Black woman's body." This stands in stark contrast to the writings of Frederick Douglass and David Walker which seem to say to their Puritanical audiences, "Yes, I too, can be a patriarch. I deserve to be given the same opportunities and judged by the same standards as a white man." So, Black women have at least attempted since slavery, to define themselves outside of Euro-American standards (Though I'm not sure if we continue to do so during modern times). It seems, though, Black men have always embraced them. One of the most poignant criticisms of this attitude came from Ruth in Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. She patiently listens to her husband, Walter, talk about his humiliating job as a chauffeur for a white man, Mr. Arnold, then replies, "So you'd rather be Mr. Arnold than work for him." It would seem so. Walter never considers that his mother and wife work equally humiliating jobs as domestics. How might they feel? He never asks. He simply wants to be the patriarch of the family....in charge of things... in charge of his own person and his family's direction. What about his wife's dreams and desires? Does Ruth want to be anything other than a domestic? Who is she as an individual? We don't know.

Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth had public, sometimes heated, exchanges. Douglass had a disdain for Black women that we seldom learn about. Douglass essentially felt that Black women, by their refusal to simply absorb Euro-American standards of behavior, were the millstone around the neck of Black male progress. Many Black women of the time purposefully refused to become literate. Right or wrong, they felt that absorption of literature outside of the the Bible would lead to absorption of Euro-American standards, and Black women rebelled against this. Though many did stay away from public life, Sojourner Truth openly spoke in public and would challenge Black men like Frederick Douglass for their acceptance of white standards of masculinity.

As a people, we protested the system without making fundamental changes to this "system." We criticized "The Man," but simply changed the color of his face. Clarence Thomas, a Black man, was chosen when a white one would have sufficed. I honestly believe that Dr. Hill knew he'd be "The Man" in blackface, and tried to prevent that. But her quest led to something more. The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair was one of those rare times when we did see Black gender differences play out nationally. It was also a prime opportunity for us to do the hard work of redefining ourselves outside of Euro-American patriarchal standards.

But, we blew it! The lashing out against Anita Hill was shameful and irrational, considering the "system" which benefited from her demise. Clarence Thomas's behavior was well-documented and the President who appointed him was a notorious conservative from a "Zero-Population Growth" family. Black man or white, Clarence Thomas is the keeper of the door of white conservatism and economic elitism: the status quo, the "system" which Black people so vehemently fought against.

From barber shop philosophers to Ivy-League academics such as Orlando Patterson, we once again blamed a Black woman for impeding the progress of Black men. Just like E. Franklin Frazier. Just like W.E.B. DuBois. Just like Frederick Douglass. Dr. Hill became a public representation of Black women who many Black males such as Richard Wright, felt were complicit with white men in psychologically/economically castrating Black men. Over 20 years after the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill affair, I can say that psychological/economic Black male castration was not Dr. Hill's intention. And after 20 years, with Black males leading for the charge for the dismissal of Shirley Sherrod, I can say that we haven't learned a damn thing from our ignorance.

The appointment of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice, largely with the support of Black people, has cost us dearly: the weakening of affirmative action, the 2000 election of one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, and the weakening of the ability to bring class action law suits which would curtail system-wide discrimination in huge corporations. When will we, as African Americans, learn to dialogue about gender without attacking one another? When will we begin to teach Ida B. Wells-Barnett, Maria W. Stewart, Anna Julia Cooper, and Anne Moody alongside DuBois, Wright, Malcolm X, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.? Lord knows, I do not want another The Color Purple, which turns Black men into the boogey man. I don't believe the patriarchy should be replaced by a matriarchy. What I believe is that Black men should fundamentally embrace a new definition of masculinity in the United States, because the status quo is killing us.

Black America Owes Anita Hill a Long Overdue Apology

When Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas interrupted my Saturday morning cartoons, I was angry. A little snot-nosed brat at the time, I could not understand the huge ramifications of what was happening around me. As a nine-year-old, this is all I remember of the affair: a Black man, a Black woman, and a pubic hair on a Coke can.

And yes, I remember the conversations surrounding Anita Hill. People hated her. "Why would this dumb bitch try to hold the man back?" "See, that's why Black folk can't get nowhere, we always acting like crabs in a barrel." "Now this the first Black man since Thurgood Marshall to be nominated. Where the white folk dig this bitch up at?" These were just a few of the insidious comments made about Professor Anita Hill around my head. People wanted to kill her. People would throw things at the television when her face came onto the screen.

Oh. My. Lord. If Black people knew then what we know now....Black America owes Dr. Anita Hill a long-overdue apology. In our haste to elevate a Black man to one of the most prestigious, respected, and powerful positions in the land, we didn't even stop to look at who nominated Clarence Thomas: a socially conservative, Republican President from a zero population growth family. Professor Hill was trying to save us, but she couldn't save us from our scornful selves. And over twenty years later, we are paying the price.

When Democratic presidents nominate Supreme Court justices, Republicans always yell about "activist judges." They understand that no people in the country have as much power to change the landscape and culture of the country as those individuals who sit on the Supreme Court. Unlike other policy makers, Supreme Court justices don't have term limits.

Whereas conservative lawmakers yell this phrase out to instill fear in their constituents about liberal-leaning judges, no Supreme Court justices have been more politically active than Scalia and Thomas. However, they tend to vote AGAINST poor folk and minorities. On all things that may help minorities and poor folk, Scalia and Thomas have both voted overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the unfair and unbalanced status quo. For an alphabetical listing of Thomas's rulings as well as concurrences, please see http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas.

Thomas, having benefited from affirmative action, ruled it unconstitutional. Thomas, having been appointed by his father, ruled in favor of George Bush II becoming president when he stole the election in 2000. Thomas, whose wife is an active Tea Party member which is in turn funded by corporations, made a remarkable ruling in favor of corporations recently: he made it very difficult for people to bring class action law suits against huge companies like Wal-Mart. Sigh...

Anita Hill, even though I was entirely too young to know what was going on, from the bottom of my ignorant heart, I'm sorry. I wish I could have supported you. I wish we could have foreseen how you tried to save us from this activist, conservative judge whose only duty on the bench seems to be to do the bidding of his corporate-funded masters. I know that for the good of the country, this apology is much too late, but please accept it. You were right all along....

I will post again on Anita Hill in about two weeks. Anita Hill is a prime example of how Black men have routinely not supported Black women or trusted their leadership and judgement. You'd think we would've learned our lesson, but the Shirley Sherrod fiasco proves that we are still struggling to think of Black women as leaders, and that we are still embarrassed by Black women when we should be supporting them.

The Other Double Standard

Rather than write a long rant about what's wrong with our current political system, I just have a few questions about a double standard:

1. What if a Black man showed up to a presidential event with a gun strapped to his back and a sign that read, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants?"

2. What if a Black man got on a nationally syndicated radio show, such as Glenn Beck's, and advised people to go out and purchase guns...to be armed and dangerous?

3. What if a Black man had spat on a Congressman?

4. What if a group of Black men had beat up a small, white female protester in Kentucky?


5. Why haven't there been any Congressional hearings for White Supremacist groups? Why haven't they been summoned to the Hill?

I think we know the answer to these questions...People often conclude that Black people in America are too sensitive and play the race card when race isn't even in the game. But anybody reading these questions, regardless of color, knows the answer.

Think I'm just spouting conspiracy theories here? Replace the word "Black" with "Mexican." The answers would still be the same.

Unacknowledged Debt and Phallic Distractions

I have not posted in a long time. I normally take my posts directly from the nightly news. However, I feel that the news has gone on a constant political sideshow for the past three weeks; between Palin and Weiner's picture of a package, there has not been much substance behind the reporting.

The coverage of the false arguments about the debt ceiling has been rather scant. Instead of focusing on Weiner's package, our outlets should have been focusing on the false connections made between employment and the debt ceiling. I am appalled at the way Republicans and conservatives misuse the press by repeatedly making rhetorical/argumentative errors that we learn to avoid in any debate or composition II class. And since these people have all had some sort of higher learning, I want to say that they do this by design. And since journalists have also gone to college, I want to say that they are not calling the culprits on their error by design. Why kill this argument and kill the ratings? Better yet, why have this argument and kill the ratings when Palin's stupidity and Weiner's penis are much more interesting to viewers?

Here is the false argument that the Right and Republicans repeatedly make: the debt ceiling has absolutely nothing to do with employment, or economic growth. The debt ceiling is simply an acknowledgement of the bills we have to pay. That's it: to raise the debt ceiling is to acknowledge the nation's bills so that they may be paid. To constantly conflate the debt ceiling with economic growth or the need to decrease taxes on the rich or the need to cut social spending programs is to commit several non sequitur fallacies. One thing has almost nothing to do with the other, but may appear that way. It is like saying: "if we hold firm on the debt ceiling, the economy will bounce back." Anyone with a healthy understanding of composition II, economics, or simply running a household budget knows this is a lie. For example, we have a light bill, but we do not acknowledge the light bill. Yes, we will have more money in our pockets, but we won't have any electricity...which in the end, will cost us more money. We'd lose our food because the freezer will not run without electricity, for instance.

To the average viewer, this is a pretty boring conversation to have. It rests upon logical fallacies and economic talk. Neither of these things are ratings gold for liberal or conservative media. It is just more fun to focus on a beautiful, silly half-governor from Alaska and a senator's penis.

But my question is this: what will our love of people's personal lives -these national distractions -cost us in the future?