Mon, 24 May 2010 18:48:44 -0800WeeblyWed, 27 Jan 2010 06:04:43 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/19/post/2010/01/racial-politics-boom-or-bust.html Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 2:39am Racial Politics: Boom or Bust?


Is the time for racial politics over? This question may seem like lunacy when being asked in one of the most segregated cities in America: Chicago. This question, which has been on my mind and in my mind for some time, came roaring to the forefront of my consciousness after reading an article titled “Blacks Try to Retain Power as Board Race Splits Community”. The article was published by the Chicago News Cooperative and was written by DON TERRY.

I have been accused of being overly analytic, and probably rightfully so, but lets parse the title of the article to discover two premises that may be at the root of ineffective political participation by African Americans. The notion that “Blacks Try to Retain Power” implies that blacks have power on the Cook County Board of Commissioners. The second assertion is that the democratic primary election will not only threaten “Blacks Power” but it will also split the “Black Community”. These two assertions are probably held as fact by many but upon examination they are but wisps of smoke that blind the eye to a truer course.

Maybe a definition of political power needs to be established before we can rightly discard the notion that Blacks are attempting to retain it. “Political power: is a type of power held by a group in a society which allows administration of some or all of public resources, including labor and wealth”. Do Blacks in the county of Cook have this sort of power? Nope.

“Political scientists have frequently defined power as "the ability to influence the behavior of others" with or without resistance.” Do Blacks weld this definition of political power? Naaaaaa!

Perhaps the political power that Blacks are trying to retain can be defined by these 3 dimensions of power which are most frequently considered defining aspects of political power by political researchers.

1. Robert Dahl, a prominent American political scientist, first ascribed to political power the trait of decision-making as the source and main indicator of power.

2. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz describe a second dimension of political power as described as agenda-setting by elites who worked in the backrooms and away from public scrutiny in order to exert their power upon society.

3. British academic Steven Lukes added a third dimension he describes as preference-shaping; which entails theoretical views similar to notions of cultural hegemony .

So can it be said that blacks have enjoyed any form of political power as described by the aforementioned definitions. The answer must be a resounding no. It must be said that Blacks have not enjoyed any real measure of political influence since the 60’s. This fundamental misunderstanding of political power adds to feelings of impotency and isolation of Blacks concerning the machinations of political life.

It also appears that Blacks have been sold a bill of good when it comes to representation. It is my belief that many Blacks equate an elected Black official as “Black Power” and influence in government. This idea that a Black elected official will always adequately represent black concerns merely because he is Black does not hold water. Politicians tend to be politicians. Race, gender and sexual orientation come in a distant second when it comes to who the politician serves. Politicians serve concentrations of power. This declaration of the obvious leads us to our next erroneous assumption about concentration of power or concerns.

The second premise asserted in the article’s title was “Board race splits community”. Once again I think it important to define terms. The definition of terms is essential in examining the possible incongruence’s between expectations and realities. If terms used to describe apparatus and reflect thinking essential to the political acquisition process are not congruent then the acquisition/development of desired goals (resources, opportunities, environments) can not be realized.

The term community is a very slippery one with various definitions. There is no universal consensus on the definition of the term; In fact “there were ninety-four discrete definitions of the term by the mid-1950s. Traditionally a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household “. It might also be helpful to look at three categories of community to pin point the Black Community in terms of solidarity toward political power.

Geographic communities: range from the local neighborhood, suburb, village, town or city, region, nation or even the planet as a whole. These refer to communities of location.

Communities of culture: range from the local clique, sub-culture, ethnic group, religious, multicultural or pluralistic civilization, or the global community cultures of today. They may be included as communities of need or identity, such as disabled persons, or frail aged people.

Community organizations: range from informal family or kinship networks, to more formal incorporated associations, political decision making structures, economic enterprises, or professional associations at a small, national or international scale.

It becomes increasingly more difficult to identify the Black community. The Black Community is not a monolithic block. Blacks in America are very diverse lot. A community can not be defined merely by prejudices or identifiers ascribed to that group by the dominant group. There has to be consent of membership to be a part of a community or for community to exist. To some these distinctions may seem academic and have no place in the day to day realities of people. It is my belief that the whole notion of a black community is fading in terms of Blacks being a community based on ascriptions by the dominant culture, cultural behaviors, shared ancestry, and skin color. Consumerism, education, income, varied spiritual beliefs and mobility now serves as strong glue to bind community in an altogether different configuration.

College educated Backs who are firmly entrenched in the middle – class probably have more in common and at stake with their White, Latino and or Asian neighbors then they might have with other Blacks in impoverished neighborhoods.Those who need affordable housing, decent wages, and safe neighborhoods transcend race and should pull together as natural allies.

Social ills strike minorities at a higher rate then that of the dominant culture. It is a fact that a tradition of institutional and systemic racism is at the heart of the higher rates of social dysfunction. It is not a fact; however, that social dysfunction is synonymous with minorities (race). This point is important in defining community. The community of like needs and coalition makes more political since then politics of race. Politics of race tend to define community incorrectly. It can erroneously identify members of that community based on superficial characteristics and pit natural community members against each other based on that very same superficial identifier.

An increased political astuteness is needed by the electorate as a whole in order to have their needs and desires advocated for. Those who feel most impotent, when facing the complexities of the economy, domestic and foreign policy, are those who need to find their strength in numbers. Racial politics are divisive and diminish numbers. Communities for political power must be constructed on commonality. Legislators serve concentrations of power. This is a fact. The identification of needs, groups with similar needs, and representatives that articulate understanding of those needs is paramount to the meeting
those needs. A clear plan with clear bench marks is also mandatory.]]>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:52:14 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/19/post/2010/01/open-letter-to-eugene-robinson-regarding-his-many-assumptions-about-tiger.html Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 9:51pm
Let me preface this message by saying I have no dog in this controversy what so ever. I am neither a golf fan nor a Tiger fan although I can appreciate what it takes to be both. I have the same feeling about you as a journalist. I must say that I am only aware of you because of your appearances on “Count Down ". You are a Pulitzer Prize Winner; yes? Here's my real question: Was it your intention to reveal your own feelings about miscegenation.

The crux of your piece focuses on the type of women that tiger has chosen to cheat on his wife with. I guess in today's environment of tabloid journalism this topic is a can't miss. I am always leery when a sentence begins with "No offense to anyone who actually .....". Those words usually scream "get ready to be offended!" Mr. Robinson the rest of your article reaffirmed my expectations..

"Here's my real question, though: What's with the whole Barbie thing?"

This piece is an attempt to convict Tiger Wood of self-loathing by identifying and characterizing his various tryst partners. The development of the Barbie stereotype seems to be the lynch pin that holds the self-loathing theory together. Mr. Robinson, your invocation of and subsequent projection of the Barbie image on to the women involved in this article serves more to devalue women then it does to indict Tiger. You have in essence said that these particular women are soulless, plastic, toys. You have not distinguished Tiger’s wife from this group; so like you, I most make assumptions. In your attempt to reduce Tiger to a Freudian character you have actually revealed something about how you perceive certain women as devoid of worth because....?

"This may be the most interesting aspect of the whole Tiger Woods story -- and one of the most disappointing He seems to have been bent on proving to himself that he could have any woman he wanted. But from the evidence, his aim wasn't variety but some kind of validation.'

The most disappointing thing to you, Mr. Robinson, is not that he hurt his wife, not that many of his fans may feel some sort of deflation for their fallen idol, not that once again a great sports figure has been all to human, the greatest disappointment in your eyes, Mr. Robinson, is the type of women he broke his marital vows with.

"I'm making a big assumption here that the attraction for Woods was mostly physical, but there's no evidence thus far that he had a lot of time for deep conversation. If adultery is really about the power and satisfaction of conquest, Woods's self-esteem was apparently only boosted by bedding the kind of woman he thought other men lusted after -- the "Playmate of the Month" type that Hugh Hefner turned into the American gold standard."

This assumption that you make about tiger could be made about many sex addicts. Serial infidelity is deep seated and is probably best left to ones own introspection, trained therapy, and a spouse’s willingness to forgive...or not. Mr. Robinson your psycho- analysis of Tiger could be applied to any man who is promiscuous inside or out side of a relationship. You make an assertion about Tiger's motivation as apparently being based on what he thought other men thought....huh?! Do they give out crystal balls with those Pulitzer? You assume much sir. No where in this "article" have you evidenced this for being the reason he was having sex with what he perceived as sexy women.


"But the world is full of beautiful women of all colors, shapes and sizes -- some with short hair or almond eyes, some with broad noses, some with yellow or brown skin. Woods appears to have bought into an "official" standard of beauty that is so conventional as to be almost oppressive. "


You go on to admonish Wood for not cheating on his wife with a variety of women. Is this article a message to all the unofficial beauties that you are interested? It seems as though you are saying "damn man there is a whole slue of poon you could have been tapping. Damn you must hate yourself or something?” I could be wrong Mr. Robinson but it seems that you are envious of Tiger's ability to have the "official". Why does this one man's alleged preference rate the analysis of an acclaimed Journalist such as you? You have distilled the complex issues of power, miscegenation, sexual addiction, hero worship and unconventional rearing into the notion that Tiger doesn't like himself because he has sex with pretty white girls. Following your reasoning Mr. Robinson Tiger would have shown more love for himself if he would have bedded a variety of beauties. My question is would he have shown even greater self esteem if his variety were to include men as well?

Self righteousness and indignation may pass for evidenced reason in the world of brevity and concession which are op-ed and cable news spots but let me assure you they are not. Rest assured Mr. Robinson the Pulitzer people will probably not be contacting you regarding this piece. That is of course it can not be used to revoke the one you have already won. You do a disservice to the discussion of race relations in America by dancing around your feelings of miscegenation and men of power..

Oh yes.. Mr. Robinson you and I and many others know that you are saying Tiger is color struck. My final question is: What’s it to you?]]>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 05:53:47 -0800http://www.stmaartennews.com/19/post/2010/01/first-post.htmlSunday, November 29, 2009 at 1:20pm The survival of a species is dependent primarily on the ability to reproduce itself consistently over time. The probability of propagation for the human species is increased by association and cooperation. Functioning as a collective provides protection, industry and innovation essential to species survival. The family unit is the basic building block for such associations. There are social structures common to all tribes. The family is one such social structure. The look of this association (the family unit) varies from society to society but its purpose is universal.
The vast majority of the social structures that exist in western civilization have been sculpted by biblical dictates. The enunciation of human purpose can be found in the verbiage”be fruitful and multiply”. The design of the basic unit of family has been attributed to divine intention. The order of creation is also important to role and function within the unit. Man was created as a companion to God and woman was created as a helpmate to man. Man was first and woman was an after though. This is a recurring theme in the three major desert religions.

The Bible is pregnant with passages of mans divine right to rule. It is also equally clear in the expected servility of women. These ascribed roles still define formal and informal interactions between men and women in the western hemisphere. These descriptions imply privilege and acquiescence respectively. The roles of men and women are constrained by these beliefs in all social structures. The examination of thought that underpins the expression of social structure is essential in examining the morality in which people operate with in those structures. There appears to be a universal pattern of male dominance in human relationships that was initially established by superior strength. Religious and legislative text has instituted this uneven relationship in the social structures of religion and government.

Now that we have established the biological imperative, and the cultural expression of the family unit we can now explore deviation in terms of propagation outside of this unit. The ultimate aim of this inquiry is to examine power in the social structures of marriage and governmen
t as expressed sexually. The impact sexual expression of power has on minority groups such as people of color, women, and children.]]>