| Author |
Message |
    
Stephgirl
Regular Poster
Username: Stephgirl
Post Number: 82
Registered: 09-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 02:06 pm: | 
|
ABM would like this essay written by Steven Barnes. Here it is in its entirety:
Clarifying Yang and Yin stuff
By Steven Barnes
Some took offence at my suggestion that the civil rights movement was “feminine” in nature. I don’t say this lightly, and I mean no offense to the courageous men and women who took part in it. I am referring to the fact that they really had no choice but to take the high road. Direct action, direct violence in response to the violence offered their marchers, vote registrars, sit-ins, etc, would have led to extermination. The beautiful and brilliant answer was to remind America of her higher nature, Christian values, and to shame the U.S. on the world stage through provoking unmeasured response. There was no other way to work it.
But…my wife’s family was seriously involved in the Civil Rights movement, and I’ve heard many, many stories that don’t get talked about on the nightly news. And of course, some that did. On fact was that women and even children were placed front and center during marches, because men would have drawn too much fire. They literally would have been taken away and lynched. Men had to repress their urge to strike back, to retaliate. No one who could not repress this urge was allowed to march. And decades later, I’ve seen the result: men who still hunch their shoulders, can’t stand up straight, repressed rage eating away the core of marriages and lives,
NOTE: I’m not saying “women must behave X, men must behave Y.” But one of the problems I perceive in typical Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberals tend toward believing that there are no intrinsic roles or differentiation, and Conservatives tend to think that roles are graven in stone. I don’t know how much of this stuff is genetic—although it is inarguable that testosterone increases aggression. And I don’t know how much is social: after all, most female animals can defend themselves and their young just fine. But I do know that in human societies, I know of no documented instances where the females do the protecting and the males stay home with the kids.
If a man CHOOSES to be gentle and nurturing, avoiding violence and conflict, good for him. I have friends like this, and they are good people. But there is a real difference between choosing this for moral reasons, and choosing it because they are afraid of confrontation, afraid that they CANNOT cope with violence. My highest respect goes for the men and women who are capable of both sides of the equation.
You know what? I’d bet that if you did a study of blacks who fought in the Civil War, you’d find their descendants were healthier and better adjusted than the average descendant of slaves who were never free until the war ended.
Look at this comparison of “Male” and “Female” as “Yang” and “Yin” if you want. Fine. I’m just using the words to point out a phenomenon. It’s a wave, not a particle. I’m not talking about some immutable thing. But when you listen to Rap music and hear the hyper-male posturing, this is, in my mind, the result of 400 years of having to keep their heads down. When, in “In The Heat Of The Night” in 1967, Sidney Poitier struck a white man who slapped him, it sent shock-waves through America. I had never, in 15 years of watching movies and television, seen a black man stand up for himself in such a fashion. Black male audiences cheered. Isn’t that pitiful? You bet. But it is completely predictable, given human social evolution. And also as predictable that what any slave master must do is destroy the crazy chaotic male energy that says: “Live Free or Die.”
You cannot have it. So any blacks who exhibited such characteristics were broken, or killed. And post-slavery, the entire weight of social convention in the South struggled to keep blacks in their place—more killing of men and raping of women. And then during the 20th Century, when the walls started breaking down, these images of helplessness were reinforced in the media. To this day, you can see traces of it in shows like “The Unit” (one of my favorites) where, while Dennis Haysbert is the star, and quite virile, he and his wife are the only overweight folks on the show, while all the whites are lean and sexy. You still can’t quite get the full package past the guard-dogs.
##
So…I understand that my attitudes aren’t politically correct. But neither do they limit male or female behaviors. And I consider those who can operate within both modes: direct and indirect action—to be the most balanced human beings. But when you deny women the OPTION of being nurturing, or men the OPTION of direct confrontation and protecting their families with force…I think you have taken something precious. There is a reason why so many male hero figures are warriors, throughout all of history. And a warrior isn’t just someone willing to die—that is a corruption of the term. A warrior is also willing and able to kill. A warrior says: “I’m willing to die, and I’m willing to take you with me.”
A person who says only “I’m willing to die” is a martyr. Don’t confuse the terms. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 5077
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Stephgirl, of course ABM can speak for himself but if this article has anything to do with the comments he made the other day, trust me, they're not what they seemed. His words were directed at me, he wasn't making a statement. They came across cruel perhaps, but they weren’t, they were just his way of getting a message to me surreptitiously. It took awhile for me to get them but I do understand what he meant, he was concerned. Again, if this article is in relation to that incident, there was a misunderstanding. |
Stephgirl
Regular Poster
Username: Stephgirl
Post Number: 85
Registered: 09-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 03:31 pm: |
|
Tonya,
But lately, he has made a lot of cruel comments at the sistas. I called on him for defending white women even when wrong while criticizing sistas for every single thing. He thinks that Black men had it worse than Black women in America. That's why he's harsh toward us sistas of late.
Maybe he and Dar Kush can hook up soon.
Stephanie |
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9114
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 03:57 pm: |
|
Stephgirl,
Though we're both subject to racism/colorism, sex-gender does influence the manner and degree to which certain elements of hatred will manifest.
But, ultimately, it's pointless to try to argue whether Black men or women have had the worse of it.
Much of the subjugation of Black men stem from the fear that we will even attempt to reap retribution for past and still many current offenses committed against us by Whites. But there's never been an significant overtures in that regard.
Perhaps we've been to afraid and/or see the futility of such. Feared our families and (scant) property being wiped out. And, perhaps, we've believe enuff in America and/or in White foks being able to become worthy of our belief that we'll eventually be viewed and accepted as equals, even though there's SCANT historical proof that such is likely or even possible.
PS: I feel no need or desire to alter how I express myself here. So if you must believe I'm being cruel to sistas and indulgent of White women, then you go right on with doing that, chile.
Tonya,
I don't know which of my prior comments to you are referring to. But I'm happy that YOU (unlike Stephgirl) appear to have understood and benefited from them. |
Tonya
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Tonya
Post Number: 5080
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 07:49 pm: |
|
I understood it ALL. But I was specifically referring to the part SG may have found offensive.
|
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 4023
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 12:17 pm: |
|
There was plenty of violence Steve apparently don't know about. Shootouts with cops--and not just the Panthers, but regular brothers. There was an open war for months in Cairo Illinois. The Deacons for Defense. Fist fights. Impromptu riots.
Speaking of riots what did he think all them were about? Almost everyone of them started after an incident of police brutality.
The Panthers, The Deacons for Defense, The Nation of Islam, the Black P Stones, we had several groups--Warlords and Black Disciples in East St. Louis, Black Patriot Party, Black Liberators, Zulu 1200s, Association of Black Collegians over here in St. Louis. Some came forth in peace and others came forth as to war. |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 8141
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 01:06 pm: |
|
Here I gooo again, Folks. But in my home town back in the early 40s, it was an unwritten agreement that all blacks lived in the same area something they convinced themselves they were doing by choice. Well, there was this big Policy King in Chicago, a black mobster who controlled the numbers racket. He decided he wanted to settle in the quiet quaint little village where I lived, and promptly purchased a big fine house in an all-white neighborhood, much to the chagrin of some of its residents. Anyhoo, to make a long story short, this crazy nigga hired guys to sit on his porch at night with shotguns in full view, daring anybody to tresspass on his property. How he got away with it, I don't know but nobody ever challenged his actions, and it was this bad-assed gangster who led the way to opening up the neighborhoods. This was before Rosa Parks did her thing, officially setting the civil rights movement in motion. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 4029
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 01:57 pm: |
|
Cynique:
Small unsung acts like this were just as responsible for the changes.
The high school I went to was in a tough blue collar white neighborhood. For a couple of years before it opened up I was going to a gradeschool there. It was rough. The white guys had gangs (they called them ACs or Athletic Clubs) of switchblade toting greasers who used to descend on us and make our lives hell. By the way they used to war on each other and with the Water Tower AC's down in the city when we weren't around.
Well, when the high school opened up we got some older black guys in the mix.
First dance they had six people got stabbed. No more problem with the white gangs after that. |
Yvettep
Veteran Poster
Username: Yvettep
Post Number: 1843
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Why is the Black Civil Rights Movement so often characterized as "non-violent"? It was extremely violent. No, the folks doing the "movement-ing" weren't the ones typically inflicting the violence. But the contrast of their humanity, moral high ground, etc depended upon violence being inflicted upon them. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 4030
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 02:13 pm: |
|
Yvettep:
That is a good point. I remember the other day somebody was talking about how Dr. King was a man of Peace and Love--and I remembered how all the marchers were getting hoses turned on them and beat up and killed and put in jail and how they beat him, stabbed him hit him upside the head with bricks and finally blew his brains out.
Yes indeed there was a lot of violence involved and one could say that he incited a lot of it--
Then again, I suppose there was no call for them white folks to do all that to peaceful marchers--
In fact all his tactics more or less counted on the authorities and vigilantes reacting violently and when they didn't he wasn't very effective-- |
Schakspir
Veteran Poster
Username: Schakspir
Post Number: 945
Registered: 12-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 02:50 pm: |
|
--because every political tactician of any worth has known that it's violence that institutes political change. Without violence, nothing happens. Frantz Fanon was right. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 4032
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 03:00 pm: |
|
You can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs--
But who is the egg to be broken? |
Yukio
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 10:41 pm: |
|
Barnes's revisionist history misrepresents the movement, particularly its class element. It wasn't that men were excluded, it was the working class men AND women. Thus, it wasn't a matter of it being “feminine” in nature, but an attempt to put forth a respectable veneer.
Right Chris Hayden: Part of the problem is that people have limited the Civil Rights Movement to the South, or they have created the assumption that the South was non-violent when as you have indicated, the Deacons of Defense, and before them brutha Robert Williams.
Schakspir: Malcolm X made a similar comments...he said that only the "Negro Revolution" didn't fight for land, but all the other Revolutions for land and by what means...bloodshed!
But of course, things are relative, and when people can see significant difference from what they thought would be a permanent situation, this present we have can seem like "The Promise Land"!
|
Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm
Post Number: 9119
Registered: 04-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 10:28 am: |
|
Chris,
Indeed there have been plenty of violent squirmishes between Blacks and Whites. And there have been many Black nationalist-type groups who've advocated some type of insurrection. But have any of them ever significantly moved the masses of African Americans into violent rebellion against Whites? |
Cynique
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Cynique
Post Number: 8145
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 01:54 pm: |
|
The FBI took the violent rhetoric of the civil rights renegades very seriously. What made the Black Panthers so effective was that they made revolution seem like a possibilty, and this shook up J. Edgar Hoover who feared these vigilantes could wreak havoc by adopting the terrorist tactics of guerilla warfare. |
Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden
Post Number: 4039
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 03:10 pm: |
|
But have any of them ever significantly moved the masses of African Americans into violent rebellion against Whites?
(You don't need the masses moved into violent rebellion. You only need an act here and there to let the greasers and hoosiers know they can't use muscle on you with impunity. |
Yukio
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Yukio
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 - 09:04 pm: |
|
And there have been many Black nationalist-type groups who've advocated some type of insurrection.
This should be qualified. Generally, black organizations, the Panthers for example, advocated self-defense. There was an off-shoot of the Panthers who, if I remember correctly, instigated conflict with the police, but I am not certain.
But have any of them ever significantly moved the masses of African Americans into violent rebellion against Whites?
I would agree with ChrisHayden if the issue is preventing potential physical assault. But if we are talkin about Fanon, then we are talkin about violence as a legitimate means for revolutionary change. |
|
Email This Page