‘4th time being attacked in and around the NWU Campus’
View original post 981 more words
View original post 981 more words
In burning through the old forests of assimilationist ideas, Malcolm X paved the way for antiracist ideas. He paved the way for Black is beautiful then, and Black lives matter today, for being conscious then, for being woke today. He paved the antiracist way, extending the trail blazed by Zora Neale Hurston, Marcus Garvey, and other scorchers of assimilationist ideas.
Malcolm X is regularly positioned as the separatist or Black nationalist counterpoint to Black integrationists, or the self-defensive counterpoint to non-violence, or the radical counterpoint to liberals. But how often is Malcolm’s positioned as the antiracist counterpoint to Black assimilationists? How often do we put Malcolm’s antiracist philosophy on the walls of his legacy?
It is this legacy that should position him as one of the greatest exposers and challengers of assimilationist ideas in America history. Malcolm boldly challenged those assimilationist ideas in American minds that standardized White people, their bodies, their cultures, their philosophies—ideas that compelled Black assimilationists to strive to be like White people.
“Now you’re not satisfied unless you can talk like white folks, unless you can walk like white folks, unless you eat and sleep like white folks. You are a White-Black man. White on the inside and Black on the outside. You’re not this and you’re not that. And don’t nobody want you because you don’t want yourself,” Malcolm thundered in quite possibly his clearest attack on assimilationist ideas.
They won’t let you be White and you don’t want to be Black. You don’t want to be African and you can’t be an American. So you run around here like a nut on a log, sitting on the fence. You in bad shape.”
It was these assimilationist ideas in Black folk that Malcolm seemed to most despise, that he seemed to spend most of his time challenging, even in himself. In one of the more moving passages in his autobiography, he shares when his friend Shorty gave him his first conk (short for the hair straitening recipe known as congolene) in 1941 or 1942.
“We both were grinning and sweating,” Malcolm remembered. “And on top of my head was this thick, smooth sheen of shining red hair—real red—as straight as any white man’s.” Malcolm stood there, looking in the mirror, “lost in admiration of my hair now looking ‘white.’” He “vowed that I’d never again be without a conk, and I never was for many years.”
To be clear, assimilationist ideas were at play when and if Black men conked their hair to look like White men, even as those same conks signified “a culture of opposition among black, mostly male, youth” in the 1940s, as historian Robin D. G. Kelley essayed in “Riddle of the Zoot Suit.”
Malcolm X, at age 15, sporting a conk and a zoot suit.
Sidestepping the resistance of the conk, Malcolm was utterly harsh on his first conk, as he was utterly harsh on his own assimilationist ideas. He described it as my “first really big step toward self-degradation: when I endured all of that pain, literally burning my flesh to have it look like a white man’s hair. I had joined that multitude of Negro men and women in America who are brainwashed into believing that the black people are ‘inferior’—and white people ‘superior’—that they will even violate and mutilate their God-created bodies to try to look ‘pretty’ by white standards.”
Malcolm had joined the multitude of Black people who had consumed assimilationist ideas. But by the end of his life, he had profoundly urged the multitude of Black people to rid themselves of their assimilationist ideas.
If Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his
Reading full article on Author’so site at
“We’ve met many times before actually…Do you just not see black guys?”
“What???” I said and he had to repeat it over and over again. Maybe I didn’t want to hear him. But I kept hearing “Do you just see with Blank Eyes?”. I kept hearing both questions at the same time and I couldn’t figure out which one was real and which one was in my head. I had to turn to my friend for clarity. “Black guys” she said. And he continued, “Maybe guys like us don’t exist to you, maybe….”
And I thought, those two questions, they’re synonymous. My people must have blank eyes. Like, mass murderer blank, like sociopath blank. We have to have blank eyes to just not see someone’s existence, right?
I opened my mouth to explain myself, to apologize, to try and lighten the moment, anything – “no, no, I’m so terrible with…
View original post 511 more words
Re-blogged from Atlanta Black Star
“…Since some people continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that indicates ancient Egypt was built, ruled, and populated by dark-skinned African people, Atlanta Blackstar will highlight 10 of the ways Diop proved the ancient Egyptians were Black.
Physical Anthropology Evidence
Based on his review of scientific literature, Diop concluded that most of the skeletons and skulls of the ancient Egyptians clearly indicate they were Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and East Africa. He called attention to studies that included examinations of skulls from the predynastic period (6000 B.C.) that showed a greater percentage of Black characteristics than any other type.
From this information, Diop reasoned that a Black race existed in Egypt at that time and did not migrate at a later stage as some previous theories had suggested.
Melanin Dosage Test
Diop invented a method for determining the level of melanin in the skin of human beings. Melanin is the chemical responsible for skin pigmentation and it is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.
Diop conducted the melanin test on Egyptian mummies at the Museum of Man in Paris, and determined the levels found in the dermis and epidermis of a small sample would classify all ancient Egyptians as “unquestionably among the Black races.”
According to Diop, osteological measurements (analysis of bones) are perhaps the least misleading of the criteria accepted in physical anthropology for classifying the races of men. A first study of this kind was completed by a German archeologist Karl Richard Lepsius at the end of the 19th century. The Lepsius canon, which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial groups, categories the “ideal Egyptian” as “short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type.”
Evidence From Blood Types
Diop found that even after hundreds of years of intermixing with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the “same group B as the populations of Western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding.”
“As Black History Month approaches,we face the typical avalanche of Black firsts, Black trivia facts, and a roll-call of all-too-familiar heroes and sheroes. Based on where you are in knowledge of self, these things have their place. I already wrote one article on the topic of using Black History Month (and all other months) much more fully than we currently do. This article constitutes the second part to that article.
As suggested in my first article, I hope BHM becomes a time when we do more analysis of our condition and focus on learning and applying those lessons on the ground rather than in strictly theoretical ways. Imagine with me how beneficial it would be if BHM involved:
1. re-examining our understanding of key people like Malcolm X, Dr. King and others whose work and significance are routinely oversimplified and misinterpreted.
2. Discussing the concept of self-determination for Black people and how to implement this concept responsibly. Far too many people (including those of color) STILL insist on telling us what issues to address, how to address them, and how to be more inclusive, without doing that same work in their own communities.
3. Exploring historical attempts to protect Black life (beyond proclamations that our lives matter) from state-sponsored AND self-inflicted brutality.
4. Developing our people’s capacity to identify and prioritize issues, articulate them effectively, and engage in effective activism, organizing and INSTITUTION–BUILDING (the work of SNCC and Ella Baker are good models). This would include offering valid critiques of traditional organization and activism models and possibly creating alternatives or modifications to already existing models.
5. Studying government efforts to disrupt, spy on and destroy our organizations/movements and developing ways to neutralize these efforts
6. Finding ways to involve class and gender along with racial analysis in ways that make our political ideology/organizing more accurate, effective, and inclusive.
7. Determining how, when, and with whom to form alliances and to do so in ways that don’t compromise or dismiss our own needs/interests as we strive to accommodate others.
8. Identifying and studying unsung and obscured Black people, plans, experiences and organizations that might offer direction and remedies to problems we face today
9. Exploring ways to develop non-exploiting financial literacy and wealth-generating institutions to empower our communities to be more self-sufficient
10. Creating curricula in conjunction with a network of schools and extracurricular programs that make our children culturally, academically, financially, politically and spiritually literate and competent
11. Deconstructing and expanding our view of “activism” in addition to our understanding of who our “enemies” are. While others dominate and exploit us in every way imaginable, some of us hold on to outdated and rigid ideas of what “real activism” is. Technology and emerging issues and new forms of domination require expanded and more diverse views of organizing and activism. We also cannot afford to see our enemies as simply “the white man,” as corporate power and repressive policies/actions transcend simplified notions of racial affiliation. Nor can we fool ourselves into thinking that activism only consists of the “boots-on-the-ground” variety.
In addition, our concept of booking speakers must radically change. Churches, community centers and colleges have meager funds in these days of austerity. In light of this, speakers must make their fees more reasonable. Groups should not exhaust all or the majority of their budget to hire one speaker.
Not just the fee, but the content of speeches must change as well. Students, activists and members of the larger community need specific information and skills more than ever. The old Black History Month speech template included references to our ancient greatness, calls for Black unity and activism, bold statements against the U.S. government, references to great ( and often male) Black leaders, and a focus on attacking white society while inspiring Black folks.
This template and formula are not sufficient today. Today’s speakers must help audiences understand how oppression works, provide specific tools/information in a relevant area of expertise, and provide materials we can reference once they depart for their next speech. Speakers should consult with the group hiring them to determine their specific needs, so they can provide relevant and useful information rather than generic, one-size-fits-all presentations. We must move forward, refine, and progress as a people, constantly working on improving and becoming more effective.
Agyei Tyehimba is an educator, activist and author from Harlem, N.Y. Agyei is a former NYC public schoolteacher, co-founder of KAPPA Middle School 215 in the Bronx, NY, and co-author of the Essence Bestselling book, Game Over: The Rise and Transformation of a Harlem Hustler, published in 2007 by Simon & Schuster. In April of 2014, he released Truth for our Youth: A Self-Empowerment Book for Teens. Agyei has appeared on C-Span, NY1 News, and most recently on the A&E documentary, “The Mayor of Harlem: Alberto ‘Alpo’ Martinez.”
Agyei earned his Bachelor’s Degree in sociology from Syracuse University, his Master’s Degree in Africana Studies from Cornell University, and his Master’s Degree in Afro-American Studies from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
If you are interested in bringing Agyei to speak or provide consultation for your organization, please contact him at email@example.com.
mytruesense | January 29, 2015 at 2:57 pm | Tags: Agyei Tyehimba, Blac
“It’s been over half-a-century since most African countries severed the chains of European colonialism and officially gained their independence, and during the intermediate years between then and now the academic community has largely come to the point of acknowledging, albeit kicking and screaming, that humanity and much of civilization as we know it have their roots in Africa. But while science firmly places humanity’s origins inside the continent, Hollywood has apparently changed very little since the world supposedly did away with its colonial racist past. Two major studio films will be released this year – The Gods of Egypt,(directed by Alex Proyas) and Exodus: Gods and Kings (directed by Ridley Scott) – which will attempt to portray historically-based events that occurred in Ancient Africa, but with all-white actors being cast in the lead roles. Adding insult to injury is the fact the only roles in which people of color have been cast, at least in the latter film, are those of guards, assassins, “lower class civilians”, thieves, and oh yea… servants. Never mind the reality that during the historical period in which these movies are supposed to have taken place, virtually no white person had yet even stepped foot anywhere in Africa, particularly not in Egypt…
HERE ARE THE FAKE “RAMSES II” MONUMENTS THAT APPEAR IN RIDLEY SCOTT’S EXODUS FILM:
THESE ARE THE ACTUAL MONUMENTS LOCATED AT ABU-SIMBEL IN EGYPT RIGHT NEXT TO THE BORDER WITH SUDAN:
For the full Article read more on the Author’s website by clicking here
A further excerpt:
“…Why then does the average Egyptian dwelling in the modern Arab Republic of Egypt look significantly different from the original inhabitants of the Nile Valley? The answer lies in the many successive invasions and occupations that began taking place during the latter half of the 1st millennium B.C. Prior to about 1700 B.C., there were virtually no white people anywhere in Kemet aside from maybe a few Asiatic servants who trickled into the Delta. The first foreigners to appear on record came in very small numbers at first and were a group of Semitic people known simply as the Hyksos, which translates to ‘rulers of foreign lands’. (It was long believed that hyksos meant ‘shepherd kings’, but this has proved inaccurate.) At first their presence was welcomed in the kingdom, but as chaos and unrest spread throughout Kemet at the close of the 14th dynasty, the Hyksos were able to take advantage of the situation by usurping the throne of Lower Kemet and establishing themselves as rulers of an area which extended from the Mediterranean in the north to just below the city of Memphis in the south. Depending on which historian one relies on, the Hyksos rule in Lower Kemet lasted either 200 or 500 years in what’s been designated the Second Intermediate Period in Egyptian history. Whatever the case, the majority of Egypt was still governed by the native Egyptian population. By the time the Hyksos were driven out entirely by the last rulers of the 17th dynasty circa 1500 B.C., all of the greatest monuments for which Egypt is best-known for – the largest of the pyramids and Heremakhet (best known as the ‘Sphinx of Giza’) were at least as old as 1,000 years already. Ancient Egypt really began its decline, at least as far as its native history is concerned, with a wave of successive invasions and conquests that would eventually change the racial makeup of the people of the land and even the culture. The Assyrians conquered for seven years beginning in 656 B.C. Then came the first of what would amount to three different conquests by the Persians in 525 B.C. (the final was in 629 A.D.), followed by the conquest of Alexander the “Great” of Macedonia (Greece) in 334 B.C. and the beginning of the 300-year rule of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. Greek occupation was brought to an end by the all-powerful Roman Empire in 30 B.C. Egypt was essentially reduced to a vassal of the vast Roman empire during its 700-year occupation, but with the rise of Islam as a serious competitor to Christianity as a world religion, a small army of Arabs was able to conquer Egypt in 639 A.D. A major influx of Arabs into Egypt occurred in the next four years and by 643 A.D. Egypt was a largely Arab country. Aside from a later influx of Turks during the medieval rule of the Mameluks, the population has since remained majority Arab. But, as Professor Molefi Kete Asante points out, “The presence of Arabs today in Egypt should not be read as an ancient presence just as White presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America.”
Let us not forget that the science of modern Egyptology is itself rooted in the 19th century era in which scientific and academic racism flourished, when Europeans did everything in their power to colonize not just land and people, but the various fields of academia to promote their “scientific” theories of white racial superiority. It should come as no surprise then that the earliest European explorers found ways of attributing everything extraordinary they found in the continent as the creation of white people. They even designated the Black people inhabiting East Africa (perhaps because they saw in them a strong physical similarity to Ancient Egyptians as they were described in the Greek texts) as “Hamites” or “black-skinned caucasians”. This is the double-standard white Egyptologists and anthropologists subjected people of color to. When it came to the study of the most glorious civilizations of antiquity, the Black people who were at the root of it suddenly became “caucasian” or at the very least classified as “non-negroid”. But when it came to deciding the rights of the people who shared these same characteristics in countries under white colonial rule, these “black-skinned Caucasians” suddenly became “Negroes” again in the eyes of the law. The archaeologists who garnered the highest respect from the academic community were usually the ones whose conclusions were the most racist. German Egyptologist Richard Karl Lepsius declared confidently that even Ancient ‘Nubia’ – located in modern-day Sudan – was a civilization that “belonged to the Caucasian race”. The British Egyptologist Richard A. Reisner echoed Lepsius’s sentiment without a single bit of evidence to bolster his claim other than his own white supremacist ideology. “Nubia’s leaders, including Piye,” wrote Reisner, “were light-skinned Egypto-Libyans who ruled over the primitive Africans.” Reisner’s racism was so insistent that, despite all of his “respectability”, he reconciled the unanimous testimony of the ancient Greek writers who described the Egyptians and Ethiopians as Black by saying that they were only referring to “the inert mass of the black races of Africa” who he says were a subjugated caste that “had never developed either its trade or any industry worthy of mention.” A doctor by the name of Joseph Maes wrote in a 1924 article that ancient megaliths located in West Africa could “not have been executed by the black race” because the megaliths “require a considerable amount of effort… without any relationship to the natural functions of eating and copulating which alone interest the black man.” (Maes also described himself as an expert in “Black psychology”.) And finally there’s James Breasted, America’s foremost Egyptologist during his lifetime and the founder of the Oriental Institute in Chicago, who once famously wrote in 1926, “The evolution of civilization has been the achievement of this Great White Race.” The “negroid” and “mongoloid” races, he proclaimed, were “geographically so remote” that they “had no direct connection with the main stream of civilized development of which we of the west are a part.” (**) Breasted of course failed to realize that during the prehistoric era in which civilization began to emerge in Africa followed by Asia, his “Great White Race” as he calls them was largely confined to the caves of Europe where extremely icy weather prevented them from leaving.
And yet, even as European colonialism and imperialism flourished, there were some European specialists who did in fact recognize Kemet for the indigenous African creation that it was. They were entirely shunned by the larger academic community, however, or at the very least conveniently ignored. Foremost among them was Gerald Massey, the author of Ancient Egypt: the light of the world. Others included A. H. L. Herren and Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, the latter writing in his late 19th century book about Egypt: “The pre-historic native of Egypt, both in the old and in the new Stone Ages, was African and there is every reason for saying that the earliest settlers came from the South.” Eugen Georg in his 1931 book, The Adventure of Mankind, reached the same conclusion as Massey and Budge, holding that “Blacks were the first to plow the mud of the Nile; they were the dark-skinned, curly-haired Kushites.” In the latter half of the 20th century a whole field of Africans and people of African descent who specialized in every major field of science made the cause of restoring Africa’s proper place in world history their own, producing irrefutable evidence that Africa was both the cradle of humanity and civilization itself. Some of the most prominent names of this African-centered, or Afrocentric, approach were the late Senegalese scholar Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop, Dr. Ivan Van Sertima, Dr. John G. Jackson, Dr. George G.M. James and Dr. Molefi Kete Asante just to name a few. Together they struck at the heart of white supremacy in higher education like nothing ever had before or since. The reaction of the traditional Eurocentric academia was hysterical, and many right-wing traditionalists still openly mock and deride Afrocentrist curriculum because of what it represents. They feel threatened by African and African Diaspora people studying and interpreting their own history on their own terms, instead of terms drawn up and favored by the white establishment.
Why then has the larger European and Euro-American academic community sought to thwart, undermine, erase, downplay and bury the earliest evidence that the origins of classical civilization are firmly rooted in Africa? The British journalist Flora Shaw, writing 100 years ago under the name of ‘Lady Lugard’, seems as if she might have known the answer:
“If this should prove the case and the civilized world be forced to recognize in a black people the fount of its original enlightenment, it may happen that we shall have to revise entirely our view of the black races, and regard those who now exist as the decadent representatives of an almost forgotten era, rather than as the embryonic possibility of an era yet to come.” [quoted from Christianity Before Christ. Jackson, John G. (1985). Page 177]
Heremakhet, better known as the “Sphinx of Giza”.
To put it another way, to acknowledge this would be to acknowledge the extent of the crime that’s been committed against the African men and women of the world, and it would undermine the entire racist logic underpinning the brutal systems of capitalism and imperialism. Count comte de Volney of France recalled in 1787 the revelation that came to him as he beheld the only face of its size to have truly withstood the test of time. Gazing at the gigantic ‘Sphinx’ of Giza, he began to gain a sense of the magnitude of what was being done to the c3Africans. It was then that it dawned on him
“…that this race of blacks who nowadays are slaves and the object of our scorn is the very one to which we owe our arts, our sciences and even the use of spoken word; and finally recollect that it is in the midst of the peoples claiming to be the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that the most barbarous of enslavements has been sanctioned and the question raised whether black men have brains of the same quality as those of white men!”
That the roles of these historically Black and Brown characters are still being reserved for only the palest of faces speaks volumes about the continuing racism against African people. It sends a message that just about anyone is allowed to take credit for and bask in the glow of African civilizations except for African people themselves! But if there’s one thing Europeans and people of European descent should remember, it’s that just because some might perceive themselves as being the present-day masters of the globe, it doesn’t mean this was always the case, nor is it guaranteed they shall remain so in the future. Empires in history rise and fall; even the United States will prove no exception…”; Read full article on USHyprocisy.com
Follow the author @cal3bg on Twitter
re-blogged from US Hypocrisy
Author: Caleb Gee
“…Despite his 2008 pledge “to quash fear and promote dignity” among nations as opposed to the belligerency of the Bush years, the administration of President Barack Obama has seen the U.S. empire’s sanctions regimes continue unabated, and in some cases even expand…”; read more on Author’s website
follow Caleb on Twitter: @cal3bg
“In his 1963 “Message to the Grassroots” speech, Brother Malcolm X warned, “If some of you understood what a revolution really is, you wouldn’t use the word. Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution destroys everything in its way.” I have reason to believe that many politically minded college students, hip-hop artists, and other members of our community, mistakenly refer to themselves as “revolutionary.”
One problem we face in discussing anything revolutionary, is that the term and its implications are confused. Naturally, this society’s elite benefits from our confusion in this regard as they have no interest in losing their power or prestige.Language, which provides us with definition, clarity, and therefore direction, is a key tool used to misdirect our energy. Many of us in the Hip Hop community facilitate our own confusion when we take words and change them to suit our interests.
For example, our word “gangsta” evolves from the word “gangster.” A gangster is a thug who uses any means necessary to enrich himself. A gangster by definition is selfish and territorial; they do what they do for themselves, their turf, and their “gang.” A gangster’s actions or interests often go against those of the community. Why? Because gangsters exist not to advance and advocate for the larger community, but to empower and enrich themselves.
Interestingly, gangsters (and wannabees) portray themselves as anti-establishment, but in reality, they mirror the values of our governing bodies. Self-serving violence, monetary greed, repression of dissenting voices/ideas, and control of territory are key qualities of our government. In similar fashion, gangsters control territory, suppress freedom of expression, and use violence to impose their will upon people who are weaker than themselves. Contrary to popular opinion, gangsters do not oppose the status quo; they actually support it. The only difference is that they do so without “legitimate” or legal protection and support.
What is it then that we common folk find so attractive about gangsters? Certainly their general disregard for the law, law enforcement agencies, and societal norms fascinates us; they do things most of us are too fearful or powerless to do. A member of La Cosa Nostra enacts his/her own form of retribution against violators, rather than trusting the flawed court system to do so. The Bloods or Crips don’t write grants to federal and private agencies for money to secure their needs (they couldn’t if they wanted to). They don’t sell candy, have bake sales or perform songs and dances for money…they steal it from others or sell drugs to procure it. Street gangs don’t petition the police department to protect their territory, they use force to do it themselves.
Their proactive stances, level of organization, willingness and ability to protect and provide for their own, and refusal to place trust in societal institutions is, well, attractive. This explains the continuing romance the American public has with gangster movies and the tendency for so many rap artists name themselves after iconic gangsters (or in Jim Jones’ case, psychotic cult leaders).
Some Black organizations astutely recognized the political potential existent within local criminal elements and attempted to recruit, reform and absorb them (the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party come to mind). And in some cases, this strategy worked. Typically though, the gangster element continued their criminal activities as members or allies of the recruiting organization. For example, the “ Philadelphia Black Mafia” continued to distribute heroin, perform murders for hire, and extort other drug dealers in the 1970s, even as official members in Nation of Islam Temple #12. The Black Panthers in Chicago attempted to form an alliances with the Blackstone Rangers – also known as the Black P. Stone Nation or El Rukns – a politically minded street organization with criminal elements. The Rangers were heavily influenced by the Panthers, Islam and the Moorish Science Temple, but became dismantled due to CointelPro, leadership rivalry and continued criminal activity.
Whatever our romance with the gangster lifestyle may be, the fact remains that living an illegal lifestyle alone and becoming rich and powerful from it, does not make one a revolutionary, unless their motivation and actions are intended to benefit the people and to challenge their collective oppression. And while all human beings are capable of redemption or political transformation (as we saw with Malcolm X or more recently with our outstanding Detroit-based organizer Yusef Bunchy Shakur) reforming the gangster element is far more difficult and developmental than we realize.
I say all of this to say that we cannot confuse being “gangsta” with being revolutionary. Perhaps we need a redefinition of terms. A revolutionary seeks total liberation of the people from all forms of ignorance, and oppression. A revolutionary seeks humane treatment of his/her people and has no tolerance for discrimination on any basis. A revolutionary seeks to expose and discard elitist and brutal authorities.
When we approach the conversation from this perspective, we realize that gangstas are not revolutionary, but reactionary. They have internalized the false teachings of their masters, leading them to hate themselves, devalue and abuse women, disregard family responsibilities, and personify in every conceivable way the white supremacist roles and perceptions of Black people.
A reactionary will read and quote Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, then go out and sell drugs in their community, justifying it as “a way to survive.” This contradiction is magnified …Read more on Author’s site
“The following videos contain testimony from former American soldiers who served in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, but have now turned against them. They tell of horrors they’ve witnessed, as well as horrors they themselves have at times participated in. Today they are saying, “No more!” They won’t be the puppets of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum any longer.” via @cal3bg
Ever wondered what Rev. Jeremiah Wright meant when he said “terrorism begets terrorism” and “hatred begets hatred”? Watch the following:…”
From a Nu-Afrikan perspective, Red For The Blood That We Have Shed In The Freedom Struggle Black Is For Our People & The Origin Of All Things In The Universe Green Is For Mother Afrika & The Rebirth Of Life And For Our Children
Educating the community to educate themselves
Where Learning Is A Life Long Process
Wissenschaft, Politik, Kunst und Literatur
Interested. Informed. Individual.
A Site Dedicated to Counter-Racism Economics, Education, and Liberation
Just a regular guy searching for the meaning of it all.
I ♥ my blog