Nadir Omowale
Artist – Producer – Creative Strategist
“Way before we started arguing about who should play Batman in the next trilogy, the ancient Maya worshipped Camazotz, a demon-turned-god with the body of a man and the head of a bat.”
DISCLAIMER: Some of my friends reported this video to Facebook. Apparently, American history is violent and graphic, but most of all, politically divisive. In other words, this is the United States, and this is history. The accuracy of the words has not been questioned.
WHITE FOLKS: If you view this video, you should be prepared to be all up in your feelings with FEAR and FRAGILITY about how a TRUE depiction of the Democratic Party’s racist past will affect everyone EXCEPT you and other white folks. You may find yourself caught up in the current neo-McCarthyist Russian scare mongering where you believe that any negative information about the United States is the work of former KGB agents bent on destroying YOUR country.
PEOPLE OF COLOR: If you view this video, you will be reminded that the current White House occupant is NOT the first racist president of the United States. In fact, you will be reminded that at times past, the Democratic Party may have been far worse.
While SOME people FEAR this may reinforce any desire you have to stay home and not participate in US electoral politics, you may find that it is MORE likely to inspire you to get out and VOTE for the record number of people of color and women running in primaries and in the mid-term elections this season. This video may very well remind you that you have a chance RIGHT NOW to begin changing the complexion of the Democratic Party FOREVER.
EVERYONE REMEMBER: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. FEAR NOT the violent, racist history of the United States. MARCH BOLDLY FORWARD determined NOT to maintain the status quo and the tacit acceptance of white supremacy.
WE determine from here forward what type of nation we will be. Will you sit back and let the US remain weak and divided, lashing out like a bully whose only strength is superior firepower? Or will you DO THE WORK to make TRUE those shiny words in the parchment of this nation’s founding documents, that ALL HUMAN BEINGS are created equal; that hence we should ALL be afforded the SAME rights regardless of skin color or zip code or where and how your ancestors arrived on these shores?
This video is our collective history. We cannot change it. But THE FUTURE is entirely in our hands. Will you walk forward with knowledge, or continue to blindly follow the echoes of the past? The choice is yours.
Although our family celebrates African and African American history and culture (also known as “history and culture”) 365 days a year, I believe that African American History Month should officially begin on January 15, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday.
It’s clear that Dr. King’s crusade for equality and justice for all human beings is not over. If anything, the 45th presidential administration represents a backlash against the gains obtained as a result of the civil rights and black power movements.
And as much as King championed civil and human rights for African Americans, he also fought to end poverty and income inequality for everyone. The video above includes excerpts from speeches that demonstrate his activism far beyond the dream of racial equality. With the GOP set to execute another reverse Robin Hood heist from the middle and working classes to fuel the filthy rich with tax cuts, King’s voice belongs front and center in contemporary conversations. We need to hear quite a bit from him in the weeks to come.
What do you think about this article from The Raw Story:
Hundreds of liberal organizers and anti-war activists have signed a petition pledging to oppose President Barack Obama’s renomination in 2012 unless he reverses course in Afghanistan and pushes for significant cuts to military spending.
“We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them,” the pledge reads.
Veteran activist and lobbyist David Swanson “…added that there’s something ‘incredibly dishonest’ about criticizing President George W. Bush’s war and military policies without applying those same standards to Obama.”
Many of these same activists supported Obama’s 2008 presidential bid even though candidate Barack made it very clear that his intention was to shift the focus of war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The argument then was we couldn’t afford another four years of Bush, and that McCain would be a continuation of the same failed policies.
While Obama is different from Bush, and isn’t as bad as Republicans make him out to be, the president’s continuation of Bush era policies – continued domestic spying, no closure of Guantanamo, the sanctioning of torture, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Wall Street bailouts and pandering to corporate America – are indefensible.
But is this a wise move? Certainly there are other candidates who would be more acceptable to liberals (Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are mentioned), but could they gain the political (and financial) capital needed to mount a credible opposition?
What about the ever present Green Party? Could they make a serious push in 2012 with backing from big name liberals who oppose Obama’s wars?
Is this struggle for the soul of America worth the risk of a President Romney or President Gingrich or a President Palin?
At what point do you sacrifice “standing on your principles” and “doing the right thing” for “political pragmatism and expediency?” Well, ok. Liberals have been doing that for years with support of the Democratic party. When will it stop? If not now, when?
The Raw Story: Hundreds of liberal activists pledge to oppose Obama in 2012
What do you think about this article from The Raw Story:
Hundreds of liberal organizers and anti-war activists have signed a petition pledging to oppose President Barack Obama’s renomination in 2012 unless he reverses course in Afghanistan and pushes for significant cuts to military spending.
“We vow not to support President Barack Obama for renomination for another term in office, and to actively seek to impede his war policies unless and until he reverses them,” the pledge reads.
Veteran activist and lobbyist David Swanson “…added that there’s something ‘incredibly dishonest’ about criticizing President George W. Bush’s war and military policies without applying those same standards to Obama.”
Many of these same activists supported Obama’s 2008 presidential bid even though candidate Barack made it very clear that his intention was to shift the focus of war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The argument then was we couldn’t afford another four years of Bush, and that McCain would be a continuation of the same failed policies.
While Obama is different from Bush, and isn’t as bad as Republicans make him out to be, the president’s continuation of Bush era policies – continued domestic spying, no closure of Guantanamo, the sanctioning of torture, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Wall Street bailouts and pandering to corporate America – are indefensible.
But is this a wise move? Certainly there are other candidates who would be more acceptable to liberals (Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold are mentioned), but could they gain the political (and financial) capital needed to mount a credible opposition?
What about the ever present Green Party? Could they make a serious push in 2012 with backing from big name liberals who oppose Obama’s wars?
Is this struggle for the soul of America worth the risk of a President Romney or President Gingrich or a President Palin?
At what point do you sacrifice “standing on your principles” and “doing the right thing” for “political pragmatism and expediency?” Well, ok. Liberals have been doing that for years with support of the Democratic party. When will it stop? If not now, when?
The Raw Story: Hundreds of liberal activists pledge to oppose Obama in 2012
Chinese president Hu Jintao has almost completed his 4-day hang in DC with President Barack Obama. The two of them inked a snazzy little $45 billion trade agreement that won’t do much for working Americans, but will help both leaders improve their image with US consumers and job seekers.
Here’s a great post by former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, that explains exactly why this big deal isn’t a very big deal. Read the whole thing when you get a chance, but here is the part that resonated most with me.
China has a national economic strategy designed to make it, and its people, the economic powerhouse of the future. They’re intent on learning as much as they can from us and then going beyond us (as they already are in solar and electric-battery technologies). They’re pouring money into basic research and education at all levels. In the last 12 years they’ve built twenty universities, each designed to be the equivalent of MIT.
Their goal is to make China Number one in power and prestige, and in high-wage jobs.
The United States doesn’t have a national economic strategy. Instead, we have global corporations that happen to be headquartered here. Their goal is to maximize profits, wherever they can make the most money. They’ll make things in America for export to China when that’s most profitable; they’ll make it in China and give the Chinese their know-how when that’s the best way to boost the bottom line. They’ll utilize research and development wherever around the world it will deliver the biggest bang for the dollar.
Meanwhile, Republicans and deficit hawks are cutting publicly-supported R&D. And cash-starved states are cutting K-12 education, and slashing the budgets of their great public research universities, such as the one I teach at.
The bottom line? China has a national economic strategy that is based in the understanding that education will make them the economic powerhouse of the present and future. The US has no national economic strategy, and is cutting investments in education to the detriment of its middle and working classes.
When are we going to learn that investment in education is our best ticket out of this economic quagmire? Never if we keep closing schools and cutting higher ed spending.
Chinese president Hu Jintao has almost completed his 4-day hang in DC with President Barack Obama. The two of them inked a snazzy little $45 billion trade agreement that won’t do much for working Americans, but will help both leaders improve their image with US consumers and job seekers.
Here’s a great post by former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, that explains exactly why this big deal isn’t a very big deal. Read the whole thing when you get a chance, but here is the part that resonated most with me.
China has a national economic strategy designed to make it, and its people, the economic powerhouse of the future. They’re intent on learning as much as they can from us and then going beyond us (as they already are in solar and electric-battery technologies). They’re pouring money into basic research and education at all levels. In the last 12 years they’ve built twenty universities, each designed to be the equivalent of MIT.
Their goal is to make China Number one in power and prestige, and in high-wage jobs.
The United States doesn’t have a national economic strategy. Instead, we have global corporations that happen to be headquartered here. Their goal is to maximize profits, wherever they can make the most money. They’ll make things in America for export to China when that’s most profitable; they’ll make it in China and give the Chinese their know-how when that’s the best way to boost the bottom line. They’ll utilize research and development wherever around the world it will deliver the biggest bang for the dollar.
Meanwhile, Republicans and deficit hawks are cutting publicly-supported R&D. And cash-starved states are cutting K-12 education, and slashing the budgets of their great public research universities, such as the one I teach at.
The bottom line? China has a national economic strategy that is based in the understanding that education will make them the economic powerhouse of the present and future. The US has no national economic strategy, and is cutting investments in education to the detriment of its middle and working classes.
When are we going to learn that investment in education is our best ticket out of this economic quagmire? Never if we keep closing schools and cutting higher ed spending.
The Republican-led 112th Congress is now in session. GOP gains during the 2010 election were fueled largely by the inability of the punk Democrats to mobilize their own base.
Logic would suggest that this is a good time to recruit young blacks to the Republican fold. But, as this video demonstrates, being a black Republican isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
The Republican-led 112th Congress is now in session. GOP gains during the 2010 election were fueled largely by the inability of the punk Democrats to mobilize their own base.
Logic would suggest that this is a good time to recruit young blacks to the Republican fold. But, as this video demonstrates, being a black Republican isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
What former Tennessee Vol QB Heath Shuler (D-NC) and his fellow Democrats in the House of Representatives don’t realize is that they didn’t lose this last election big because they aren’t “moderate” enough. The Democrats simply didn’t get enough done for the American people in the last two years.
They championed Wall Street over Main Street, big insurance companies over patients, war over peace. They lost because they didn’t do enough to excite the Democratic base after their history-making victory in 2008. If anything, they should have been MORE liberal, MORE different from the GOP.
I agree that Pelosi should step aside, but not for a more moderate minority leader. She should step aside for a BETTER leader – someone who can GET THINGS DONE for the American people. And if his decision-making as a Washington Redskin and his failure to understand the will of the electorate are any indication, Heath Shuler isn’t that leader either.
Huffington Post: Heath Shuler: If Nancy Pelosi Runs I’ll Challenge Her, And Lose
