sucker punch or punching a sucker? sport and the influence of racial perspective

•September 5, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Oregon University running back LeGarrette Blount has earned a name for himself in the media these days, but not for his rushing prowess.  Many have already seen the video clip of Blount punching Boise State’s Byron Hout in the face at the end of Oregon’s defeat, but many have not seen what precipitated Blount’s so-called “sucker punch”.  The cable news networks have repeatedly shown the punch, but have utterly failed to show why the punch happened in the first place.  Take a look at this full video clip and listen closely to the commentary provided by the ESPN analysts.

If you watch what led up to Blount’s punch, it should be clear to any observer that Boise State’s Hout ran up to Blount as he was walking away, said something to him and laid his hands on Blount’s shoulder pads.  Hout turns away from Blount and Blount lays him out with a right jab to the chin.  Now, it goes without saying that it would have been preferable that Blount didn’t react the way he did to the taunting (and it has cost him the rest of the season), but what is striking is how Hout’s unsportsman-like taunting was completely excused and/or ignored by the white-dominated news media and sports establishment!  This is where the race of the players comes in as a big factor (Blount is Black, Hout is white), even though, as usual, many white people will deny race plays a part at all in the perception of what happened.

In the white supremacist paradigm, the Black male is immediately perceived by most whites as being out of control, animalistic, irrational, and most importantly, guilty regardless of the situation; this case is no exception.  The fact that none of the cable news networks deemed it important to show what precipitated Blount’s punch shows that in the eyes of many white folk, Hout’s provocation was irrelevant.  In a world based on white supremacy, there is never any justification for any Black male punching a white guy.

There also has been no talk of punishing Hout for his horrible post-game sportsmanship because in a white supremacist society, white men are rarely ever seen as guilty of anything if a Black male is involved.  Hout’s “punishment”:  Boise State’s coach plans to spend time with Hout this week to discuss what he learned from this incident!  Time and time again, we see white males let off the hook and excuses made for their bad behavior while the book is typically thrown at Black males.

Even though Hout is getting off with no punishment, I hope he enjoys the fact that hundreds of thousands of people have seen him getting knocked the fuck out – as far as I’m concerned, he deserved it.

the next “9/11″ is…

•June 4, 2009 • 1 Comment

…very likely being planned presently by the people who brought us the first one.  People who have access to the wheels of federal governments around the world, and the militaries those governments employ to carry out their wishes.  Right now, I think we are being “set-up”, primed for the next big “terrorist” attack.  Here’s why I feel this way.

President Obama is currently touring the Middle East.  Lo and behold!  None other than  Osama bin Laden materializes from the realm of the dead to promote his latest audio recording.  How utterly convenient the timing for Mr. Obama, especially since he is giving a speech in Cairo aimed at assuring the Arab Muslim world that the US government is not acting militarily in their part of the world out of pure malice, racism, or greed. 

I wonder just how many people in the US actually believe Osama bin Laden is still alive?  It should be apparent to anyone that there are a group of powerful people playing us for fools.  The most recent bin Laden videos haven’t even looked like bin Laden (and you don’t have to be a forensics expert to see the obvious), yet no one stops and says “Hey, something’s fishy here?”  How can we, the American people, actually verify the authenticity of the government’s claims?  We can’t.  We are told to accept what they say is true and be happy with it.  Dr. David Ray Griffin has just written a new book looking at the evidence that bin Laden is dead, and why media pundits and journalists are overlooking the obvious.

In addition to the convenient appearance of another bin Laden exclusive, we were recently warned by the dutiful traditional media that the federal government “accidently” released information on the web detailing nuclear sites.  Since we were warned that anyone (think “terrorists”) could have had access to this information during the time it was online, we shouldn’t be surprised if a terrorist took this information to help carry out a nuclear terrorist attack on the US.  After having spent the last three years delving into all the work around the globe investigating discrepancies about 9/11 and the extent to which our elected leaders will go to achieve their goals, I, and many people, have begun to notice certain things repeating themselves.  I feel we are being primed psychologically for the next “attack”.

Show that 9/11 couldn’t have realistically happened the way the government told us it did, and the whole house of cards topples.  The main rationale for everything the US government has done to the people (and in their names around the world) will topple as well.  This thought is scary for most Americans (those who feel anger when a fellow citizen questions the validity of the official account of 9/11), and they draw back in fear of what it implies.  But there are those of us who believe in the righteousness and correctness of justice, the idea that criminals should always be prosecuted for their crimes, that we have questions about 9/11 that haven’t been answered (mostly ignored or ridiculed).

Every day we set aside these questions adds to the damage done to our society.  It diminishes and cheapens the words of the famous documents we profess belief in, making us appear dishonest, incorrigible, and obstinate in the eyes of the rest of the world.  Maybe enough of us will give up our fear of radical change and begin asking some tough questions of our elected officials…

zinn and chomsky, birds of a feather

•November 22, 2008 • Leave a Comment

I’ve always been a fan of historian Howard Zinn and have enjoyed reading his classic opus “A People’s History of the United States” many times.  He and fellow scholar Noam Chomsky have spent literal decades exposing the inner workings of the powerful elite in this country and the mayhem these elite have projected domestically and abroad.  Both deserve a place in the pantheon of leftist scholars, yet I’ve found out the Zinn (like Chomsky), seems to believe that finding those really responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 is of no concern, that people like myself should just “move on”.

They are entirely entitled to their own opinion on the subject, but their blindness to 9/11 truth’s import is disappointing to say the least.  I’ve always imagined these two as representative of Americans who question everything, never taking anything at face value, but it seems even they have their limitations.  My guess at the reasons behind their reluctance to take seriously the questions raised by the 9/11 truth community are few, but I think most of it arises from an obstinate refusal to entertain a narrative that may damage the paradigm they’ve spent their careers pondering.  It seems that in their minds, the elite are more than willing to exert violence to further their aims, but false-flag terrorism is farther than even the ruthless elite dare go (despite evidence to the contrary).

To suggest that the murderers of nearly 3,000 people should be allowed to go free simply because it’s “in the past” is silly.  Witness the long-delayed trials of white supremacists who avoided justice in the sixties only to finally be held accountable.  Is justice not important, Mr. Zinn?  Shouldn’t we seek answers and learn from them so that we may be vigilante against the treacherous pursuit of power at any cost? 

Exposing the real perpetrators behind 9/11 will shine the light on the powerful elite, their shadowy establishments, secret meetings, and their ultimate goals for control of the earth and its people.  It’s boggles my mind why astute men such as Zinn and Chomsky fail to grasp this at all.  Maybe it’s generational…

domestic terrorists (why are they still here?)

•November 10, 2008 • Leave a Comment

No one should be particularly surprised that Barack Obama’s electoral victory has sparked somewhat of a panic amongst the knuckle-dragging white supremacist cliques in the United States.  It was also not surprising that an alleged plot to assassinate the President-elect has already occurred.

Two young boneheads (Daniel Cowart, 20 and Paul Schlesselman, 18) have been apprehended for plotting to murder 88 Black people and decapitate 14 more, based on some numerological significance of those numbers in white supremacist circles.bonehead  After the Bush regime instituted a so-called “war on terror”, it was obvious that this war did not include the numerous white Christian terrorist groups who have murdered and intimidated people of color and sympathetic whites in this country for centuries.  After the bombing of the Murray building in Oklahoma in 1995, I’d foolishly assumed that the federal government would actually began work to put these thugs out of business for good.  How foolish I was.

The white supremacists are hoping to use Obama’s election as a recruitment tool, and judging from the surge in the sales of weapons, they may find some sympathizers amongst those white people who can’t come to grips with the idea of a Black president.  While Obama has repeatedly stressed his support of second amendment gun rights, those running out to buy weapons at this point have used the excuse that they are afraid Obama is going to confiscate their guns (or make them harder to obtain).  We know better than that.  These guns and bullets are meant for Black people and anyone else who supports Obama’s presidency should something calamitous befall Obama.

How long is this country going to go on allowing these violent groups exist to terrorize and threaten the American public and what sort of justification can be offered for government inaction?  “Terrorism” is a tactic, not a  particular group of people or their religion.  Hopefully Obama will see the need to begin with domestic terrorists if he intends to carry on with a “war on terror”.

whoopi completely frustrates elizabeth…

•July 19, 2008 • Leave a Comment


Every white person old enough to form words has said the word “nigger” at least once (and not necessarily to someone); let’s just get that out of the way. Hasselbeck started crying only because her thought process became utterly disrupted and thrown off track. She feared she had upset Whoopi while discussing a very touchy topic; a topic many white folk like Hasselbeck naturally struggle with. I think most whites consciously attempt to make sure that they don’t say something offensive when talking about race with non-whites, and this conscious self-editing can lead to frustration and tears.

The remedy for this unsettling condition? Listening and understanding, which is exactly what Whoopi was trying to tell Hasselbeck. Every time Whoopi tried to speak, Hasselbeck would try to interrupt her as if what Whoopi was saying simply didn’t matter and didn’t deserve to even be considered. I’m sure Whoopi and I are not the only Black people in America who may feel that conversation with some of our white brothers and sisters is sometimes an exercise in futility and an unwelcome waste of breath; Hasselbeck’s interruptions demonstrated this observation perfectly.

Hasselbeck’s reaction, of course, is to shed tears and play the role of the white child being admonished by a Black motherly figure, then we’re supposed to automatically follow the dictates of our conditioning and feel sorry for poor lil’ ‘Lizabeth. The overly aggressive, angry Black woman made the sweet little white girl cry, shame of her!
More on The View
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

just a few rotten apples

•June 22, 2008 • Leave a Comment

The way the white-dominated media handles situations like the high-school pregnancy pact by some female students in Massachusetts is always very instructive and eye-opening, especially when it involves some particularly anti-social behavior normally ascribed to people of color.  The white supremacist worldview maintains that the “teen mom” phenomenon is something confined to Black and Brown communities, that this and other social problems are not problems at all within white communities. 

When the illusion of white innocence is disturbed by cases such as the high-school pregnancy pact, white American quickly seeks out psychologists and other professionals to explain it, with the assumption being that this type of behavior is not normal for whites (yet normal for people of color).

The most obvious target of parental blame has fallen on the media, especially movies that seem to add glamour to teen pregnancy.  While this may have an impact on impressionable youth, the media ignores such influences when it comes to dealing with anti-social behavior on the part of youth of color.  Rarely is the psychology behind non-white anti-social behavior discussed when the situation arises, and this tendency to explain away white pathology while allowing non-white pathology to go unexamined has always had a tremendously negative on the psyches of people of color and their self-images.

Those in the media would probably be befuddled as to why the way they fashion their questions and pursue answers to them could be blatantly white supremacist, but such is the nature of racial thinking in the world and the persistence of deep-seated racial biases against people of color that have existed since before the US was founded.

 

 

nothing left to say…

•June 17, 2008 • Leave a Comment

Here is a biting perfomance by Immortal Technique concerning the truth of what really happened on 9/11.  It doesn’t get any plainer than this, my friends.

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.