BlackMan Time

Sixty-Four year old retired school teacher Robert Davis, Black man of good standing, is captured by a CNN camera crew being violently kicked, punched and assaulted by a group of four white New Orleans policemen. He sustains a broken nose, bruised arm and the loss of cupfuls of blood.

Yet he is confident two days after the incident to tell the media that the unprovoked attack by police on him was not racially motivated.

I believe Davis, God bless his cotton socks, must have also suffered from knocked head, shock or some kind of humble pie eating disorder! The following points to me show that the police action was racist. Robert Davis:-

1. Was not drunk and has not drank alcohol for over 25 years
2. Was not breathalysed to establish that he was in fact drunk
3. Was not read his rights as a citizen
4. Did not provoke the situation by throwing any punches let alone the first one at the mob-minded arresting officers
5. Is 64 and posed no threat to anyone.

There is no other explanation that covers their action on him other than racism!

Quite simply the white officer who initiated this senseless attack was somehow ‘affronted’ when a confident Black man told him to mind his own business as he talked to a black policeman on horseback. Imagine the effing cheek of it: “this ni**er telling me to get lost! I should kick his ass…” and that is precisely what he proceeded to do.

Regardless of how much anyone wants to nice up the circumstances, twist the evidence, turn the other cheek, eat humble pie and recite “why can’t we all get along,” race played a central part in this. When was the last time you saw a video of white policemen beating up white people in the same way? Exactly!

While you’re still scratching your head, acceptance of the reality race played a big part, will go a long way into understanding the mindset of people in positions of American power, and you can number President George W. Bush among them, and why they only see Black people one way: subservient.

There are some people who want to pretend this is not so and that is up to them. But denial is not a river running through Africa and if they continue to sing that song the race river will continue to run red with blood, the blood of innocent black people.

The internet is driven by businesses and individuals who need to find stuff. This means it is technologically driven and sites which make or develop the programs that sustain this infrastructure are laughing all the way to the bank.

Microsoft is one such company.

But there are many others including Yahoo, Google, Amazon, Fastclick and Ebay. Within the top 100 many search engines and/or directories, entertainment sites offering anything from gambling opportunities to interactive sports and of course a myriad of sex sites.

From my own research I would say the most popular sites fall into the following main categories:-

Technology (software, hardware, business, free downloads)
Sex (everything from the deprave to the curious)
News (exclusives, unusual, controversy, graphic images e.g. beheadings, etc.)
Entertainment (e.g. gambling, ringtones, sports, competitions)
Music (MP3s, MPGs, etc.)
Politics (especially around election time)
Humour (great for viral marketing purposes)

Where does a website specializing in hardcore Black topics fit in? Believe it or not we are still trying to define that space. What we do know is that historically Black publishers have not taken up the opportunity offered by the internet.

Of those that do many are of the cultural variety, with others caught halfway between commercial and community (usually non-commercial) focus. Yet there are others who desperately want to be popular.

If popularity is the main aim then it’s simple what any budding publisher has to do: focus on sex, technology and news! Of course there is no formula for success, but that’s another story!

Whichever approach one takes what is clear is that there seems to be a rise in the number of Black sites popping up offering niche products to users.

If this trend continues then maybe the internet will have lived up to its “true democratising medium” title, as it continue to enable even the most humble of ambitions to reach great heights and many people.

Take that big business!

The renkest thing about how Jamaica is handling this homosexuality thing is that it seem to be bowing (bending over backward) to the wishes of the gay brigade from within and outside of Jamaica. Take a bow Human Rights Watch and Outrage, two pro-gay organisations that have previously labelled Jamaica and its people homophobic and suggesting that the Jamaica government is helping to spread AIDS/HIV by not repealing its anti-sodomy law.

This so-called debate on homosexuality and prostitution is a smokescreen for what they have already decided: to decriminlise homosexuality. They are using the excuse that the current constitutionally elected situation where homosexuality is illegal in Jamaica, is somehow preventing gay people from getting treatment for AIDS/HIV. Figures of 1.5% (or 22,000 people) of Jamaica’s 2.6 million, have been produced to show that Jamaica is somehow slipping into some sexual depravity abyss.

This lie is not only barefaced and deceitful: it is also immoral. The two main political parties have several key homosexuals within their ranks. To aficionado well familiar with underground Jamaica, it is well known that two things run the country: the cocaine (or drugs) business and the “battyman” (homosexual) business. This is practised through corruption and enforced via gun-toting violence when necessary.

Jamaica’s Bigger Problems

Jamaica has bigger problems than worrying about homosexuality, yet this is paraded like its such an urgent that has to be addressed or the country will crumble under the weight of its activity. Health Minister John Junor likening the situation to a hurricane is regrettable, laughable and shallow.

His words comes across as the cry of a pro-homosexuality campaigner trying to convince or appease some unseen or unknown paymaster as to why s/he should finance the initiative to get Jamaica debating about homosexuality. Jamaica does not need to debate anything which it has already agreed constitutionally, culturally and morally that it is against. Forcing this issue down people’s throats will only harden their resolve against it.

If the government bow to external (or internal pressure) and somehow change the law and decriminalises homosexuality, they will have done what government minister senator Burchell Whiteman said Jamaica would never do: bow to outside pressures.

“We as the duly elected representatives of the people feel that it is the people who must set our agenda in respect of the legislation which we pass or the repeal of any existing laws,” senator Whiteman said in a statement in November 2004. “We are certainly not about to respond to any organisation, external to the country, which may want to dictate to us how and when to deal with the laws of our land.”

I guess that was then but no matter what pro-homosexual laws are implemented, especially without the consent of the majority population, if the people of Jamaica disagree with it then it will never get its support.

Homosexuality Massacre

Homosexuality is one such subject and practice that has consistently shown it will never be supported by a Jamaican majority any time soon. If it is not being opposed by devout religious Rastafarians, Christians and Muslims it is being massacred by macho street toughs, entertainers and others who simply abhor the subject and practice.

If after all of this the Jamaican government still want to decriminalise homosexuality and thrust the practice of same sex relations on its people, then it can expect a very big uproar indeed. This is not a reactionary tale, but a realistic one.

If the aim is to have a real debate about the subject to gauge how relaxing the laws could affect the infected’s take up of AIDS/HIV treatment, then it remains to be seen what the outcome will be. If John Junor and others have already decided the outcome ahead of such a debate then obviously they will be in for a very rough ride over the issue, once such a revelation breaks. All hell would most certainly breaks loose.

It is not far-fetched to imagine teams of people protesting the issue, burning down things and venting their anger against anything that support an introduction of legal homosexuality into Jamaica.

It would take a rather brave (or stupid) government to go against the Jamaican people when they are in this mood.

Yesterday’s shooting of an innocent man by London police who mistook him for a terrorist, tells a great deal about British police’s so-called intelligence. It means they got none.

Intelligence in this sense means prior knowledge about what was going to happen. But, intelligence as in having sense and sensibity could also be appropriate here too.

The reason is simple: it is apparent that the police are now going about their business with a shoot-to-kill policy in place. And, anyone of an Asian, Black or dark complexion are most likely to be targetted as suspects. Surely, this is simply not acceptable.

It is tragic that London should be the target of a terrorist bombing campaign. But it is doubly wrong for the police to kill innocent people in pursuit of the perpetrators. And it is totally criminal to look to innocent people of colour as scapegoats to kill. Simply issuing words of apology after you’ve murdered people under these circumstances is not good enough.

Using the excuse that they thought this particular man’s clothes and suspicious manner marked him out as a potential terrorist, is weak beyond sense.

Fearing that he may have had a bomb under his clothes is reasonable but after subduing him, including a number of police sitting on top of him and then shooting him while he is on the ground, comes across as desperation beyond comprehension.

We all acknowledge that these are trying times for the London police, but they need to understand that they are not the only ones who have to temper common sense with common decency. A shoot first, apologise later policy is just as terroist as a bomb now and repent later one.

I don’t know about you but the latest Live8 concerts to raise awareness about African poverty, has got me thinking. My thoughts occupy the fact that so many white people are willing to pay lip service to Africa. What has happened to the idea of us helping ourselves?

Black Power, as far as I can see, is the best route for us to do so. Black Power describes the aspiration of many Africans/Black people, whether they be in Africa or abroad, to national self-determination of their own fate or course of action without compulsion.

Black Power also describes positive common conciousness amongst all Black people. It calls for Black people to identify themselves as a group, to place emphasis on and pursue a historical understanding of Black Culture, and for Black people to work collectively towards the progression of their race in whatever society they live in.

As such no white-led initiatives, however well meaning, heartfelt or humanitarian, can be trusted to deliver equality and justice to Black people. We have to recognise that the only people who can help us, is us.

We beg neither charity nor handouts from anyone and if we choose to collaborate with anyone such collaborations must not come at a price where we get the worse end of the bargain.

We will (and should!) be forever working towards the goal where we are masters of our own destiny.

Selah.

I wish Live 8/BandAid organiser Bob Geldof would shut the eff up! He keeps making statements like “President George W. Bush has done more for Africa than any other U.S. president…” and it’s really getting on my nerves.

He has just given an interview to Time magazine, in which he admitted recently defending Bush in France on that score. Why is he defending Bush? What, exactly has Bush done to help Africa so much?

His Irish counterpart Bono, lead singer with the group U2 who also participated in the interview, said Bush could still show more commitment to Africa. “He feels he’s already doubled and tripled aid to Africa, which he has,” said Bono. “But he started from far too low a place.”

Bono sounds like he’s more down-to-earth when lavishing praise on Bush or the “good cop” in this Irishman world police force!

We actually applaud Geldof’s efforts but we still question certain aspects of his involvement and defintely his support for Bush, a man we see as evil incarnate trying to pass for normal while hiding the suit of respectibility.

Live 8 is intended to build public support for debt forgiveness and other aid for Africa by the world’s major economic powers.

The minute you get involved in any Black-focused project, you have to deal with (or consider) a number of colour specific and cultural issues. One of the most pressing is the issue of whether to accept white participation and input.

Another is whether to encourage others whose views, lifestyle or opinions we either do not respect or endorse in our personal lives.

We have had to deal with both of these issues on BlackMag.

Believe it or not there are many Blacks (this side of Michael Jackson!) who are still uncomfortable with their colour. These kinds are generally nervous about anything critical of the white race. Some may even side with similarly nervous whites who see any criticism of them as prejudice, even if they call it racism.

Share Space

Then there are those who hate having to share the same space as white people in any shape or form. When examined closely they may even display the same dislike for whites as some racist whites show Blacks.

We try our best to accommodate all viewpoints but feel some people have unrealistic expectations of our motives, even after we have outlined our objectives several times. Sometimes it is necessary to state (and restate) the fact that we do not fight against differing opinions but that our focus is strictly on Black.

I do not personally believe our cause is strengthened by seeking to exclude white people, based on their colour and race alone. What’s the difference between this viewpoint and that of racist whites who discriminate against Blacks with the same kind of bigotry?

Simultaneously I do not feel we should endorse and/or embrace white involvement without first ascertaining their motive. In the end I feel it is only respect of people’s differences that will allow us to function as one entity without enmity. But it takes respect in every aspect for things to work.

Is this too much to expect?

The morning after the Michael Jackson is innocent child molestation verdict and these are some of the facts, legally and/or otherwise true, that we know. Michael Jackson:-

• Is or was not “let off”
• Did not “get away”
• Is not a guilty person who has somehow evaded justice
• Is not a paedophile
• Is not a proven child molester
• Is not a white person
• Has severely underestimated public opinion in his love of children
• Has been shocked by the greed of people within his employ
• Is too naive and innocent for his own good
• Is/was the victim of a media lynching
• Is/was the victim of a money extortion and blackmail attempt
• Almost was the victim of a miscarriage of justice
• Is a Black person with a troubled past
• Is a big lover and supporter of children
• Is a big charity giver and supporter
• Makes the world’s biggest selling records of all time

The question is will the media, people and public opinion allow this so-called justice to reign or will they continue to treat an innocent man like he's some kind of criminal?