Sterling’s Clippers: Beyond Reactions to the Roots of the Problem

The power black athletes have today is as limited as when masters forced their slaves to race and fight. The primary difference is, today’s shackles are often the athletes’ own making.

In 1967, some of the nation’s top black athletes came to Cleveland to support Muhammad Ali’s refusal to fight in Vietnam: Front row: Bill Russell, Ali, Jim Brown, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (formerly Lew Alcindor). Back row: Mayor Carl Stokes, Walter Beach, Bobby Mitchell, Sid Williams, Curtis McClinton, Willie Davis, Jim Shorter and John Wooten.  (http://fritzpollard.org/organizatonbios/john-wooten/)

“From Jackie Robinson to Muhammad Ali and Arthur Ashe, African American athletes have been at the center of modern culture, their on-the-field heroics admired and stratospheric earnings envied. But for all their money, fame, and achievement, says New York Timescolumnist William C. Rhoden, black athletes still find themselves on the periphery of true power in the multibillion-dollar industry their talent built.

Provocative and controversial, Rhoden’s $40 Million Slaves weaves a compelling narrative of black athletes in the United States, from the plantation to their beginnings in nineteenth-century boxing rings to the history-making accomplishments of notable figures such as Jesse Owens, Althea Gibson, and Willie Mays. Rhoden reveals that black athletes’ “evolution” has merely been a journey from literal plantationswhere sports were introduced as diversions to quell revolutionary stirringsto today’s figurative ones, in the form of collegiate and professional sports programs. He details the “conveyor belt” that brings kids from inner cities and small towns to big-time programs, where they’re cut off from their roots and exploited by team owners, sports agents, and the media. He also sets his sights on athletes like Michael Jordan, who he says have abdicated their responsibility to the community with an apathy that borders on treason.

The power black athletes have today is as limited as when masters forced their slaves to race and fight. The primary difference is, today’s shackles are often the athletes’ own making.”

“Slavery is both spiritual and power-based. Spiritual because too many African American athletes, Rhoden charges, are so busy micromanaging their careers that they have no sense of the broader context, of African American history (one star athlete was shocked with disbelief when he discovered that blacks were once banned from Major League Baseball). Power-based because too many blacks are relegated to “black” roles and forget the larger mission of making more opportunities for blacks in positions of privilege.”Rhoden also details the rise and fall of the Negro Leagues and the tragedy of Arthur “Rube” Foster, who sacrificed everything in the 1930s to organize Black ownership of baseball teams and to give due respect to black baseball players who were unable to play in the major leagues. Ironically, integration saw the end of the Negro Leagues when prime players such as Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige went to the majors. Rhoden goes on to chronicle the early days of football and basketball. He recounts pioneers in both fields, including Paul Robeson of Rutgers and Raymond Chester of Morgan State and then the Oakland Raiders. It was not until the early 1970s that Southern colleges began recruiting Black football players; at one time the NBA was almost all-white.

Rhoden contends that our young Black athletes, high school, college and professional, lack knowledge of their history in general, and the history of African Americans in sports, in particular. He cites this disconnect for not only the negative, destructive behavior that many of them indulge in but the apathy and lack of political noninvolvement and racial pride. Where are the young Muhammad Alis? But it is the Benjamins that are the prize at the end of the day.

Poor inner-city or southern rural Black kids who show exceptional athletic talent become a victim of the “Conveyor Belt.” A system, by which they are prepped, coddled and many times exploited at early ages on into high school and college with the main goal to snag the million dollar contracts and lucrative endorsement deals. Who would not want this? But at what cost? Even with all the money Black athletes command, there is still a lacking in coaching, those in top management and almost nil in Black team ownership with the exception of Robert Johnson of the Charlotte Bobcats. Also notable are the few African American sports journalists working to shape and control our image and the lack of exposure to Black agents, attorneys and other specialists to these new multimillionaires.

Kellen Winslow Sr., now an attorney, was a former college football star and played pro for several years and is now in the Hall of Fame. Because he went through the Conveyor Belt, he was able to advocate for his son, Kellen Jr. when the college scouts came courting. He speaks candidly about how college scouts will try to divide the child and parents. He refused to let this happen, often butting heads with his son over where he would go to college. Winslow maintains though that most Black kids do not have a parent, most specifically a father, who will run interference in these matters.

One of the most profound chapters is “The River Jordan: The Dilemma of Neutrality.”  Rhoden shows disappointment, hurt, an almost aversion to the beloved Michael Jordan. Jordan’s apathy towards Black causes and his neutral stance was a topic of debate when Marcus Book Club met to discuss this book. The members however, came to the agreement that to whom much is given, much is expected and cited Magic Johnson and Dikembe Mutombo as excellent examples of those giving back to their communities. This book is a must-read, especially for young people, both young men and young women and their parents. The history is invaluable and the subject is timely. “

 

The “conveyor-belt” that I witness while working is lightly discussed in the book as well. I see a cycle of young African american boys who are talented yet misinformed and in some cases misguided. A “GOOD” father figure in the home is almost unheard of for many. A harder push in athletics rather than academics as it is seen by many as “the way out of the hood”. When they arrive to college, they are TAKEN under the wing of what is usual a white coach and staff who, to some degree, is the first adult male father figure they have ever had. This young man eventually gets auctioned, i mean drafted into the league and is so far removed from his upbringings and pride, that in essence, the positive aspects of African american culture he may have embraced are usually lost or dropped for acceptance. When one is 25yrs old without an identity, its much easier to mask it with a Bentley and gaudy jewelry.”

http://www.amazon.com/Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves-Redemption/dp/0307353141/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398695846&sr=8-1&keywords=40+million+dollar+slave

Advertisements

Polygyny Legalization & Women’s Inheritance: An African Response to Homophilic Marriage Legalization Pressures

Kenyan President Signs Polygyny Law

It brings civil law, where a man was only allowed one wife, into line with customary law, where some cultures allow multiple partners.  It allows men to take more wives without consulting existing spouses.  It has abolished the practice of unofficial traditional marriages which were never registered and could be ended without any legal divorce proceedings.  Kenyans now have to be 18 to marry and this applies to all cultures.  The law now allows for equal property and inheritance rights – previously a woman had to prove her contribution to the couple’s wealth.

“Through polygamous marriages women in precolonial Africa often had greater personal autonomy. As new wives joined a compound, older ones could focus on their trading. And successful women traders, such as the Iyalodes in Yorubaland, had a lot of power. While autonomous female traders are traditionally linked to West Africa, studies have found a long history of women’s trading also in places such as among the Kikuyu in Kenya as well as groups in Uganda and Zambia.

Of course, whatever autonomy polygamy afforded back then, it was subsumed by colonialism and the rise of puritanical missionary teaching.”

“That is not to say that married life was all that mattered to women, or that polygamy didn’t come with advantages for women, like independent trading, finances and legal rights.

Read more at:  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27206590

Proof Ancient Egypt was a Nordic Empire ;)

The ancient Egyptians were white.  Some even claim that they were Nordic.  The mummy of the Pharaoh Ramses II is indisputable proof.

caucasian 1

Afro-centrists aren’t getting around this one.  Only “white” people have these facial features:

caucasian 2

And the winners of “The Ramses II Look-Alike Contest” are…

[drumroll]

ramses lookalile

…all blonde, white, Nordic, Germanic, Teutonic Danish Vikings!

Funny, I don't FEEL Nordic...
Funny, I don’t FEEL Nordic…

See Ramses come face-to-face (literally) with modern northeast African men for a comparison (skip to 4:30):

Egypt (Ta-Merry, Ta-Nehisi, Meroe, Kemet) had Black natives, but it was a crossroads of cultures.  So let’s just play devil’s advocate, and argue that  Ramses was “white”:

American President Barack Obama is “black” (actually half “white”, so technically grey).  If people exhume his remains, and those of his wife and children 2,000 years from now, sequence their genomes and measure their skulls, should they conclude that all Americans throughout its history were “black”? 

Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

Not every ruler, or person living in Egypt, was originally from Egypt (that’s certainly the case today).  Some dynasties were west Asian, like the Greek Ptolemaic Dynasty.  Persians ruled Egypt from time to time, as did Turkic Muslims and Romans.  And nobody knows where the Hyksos came from, but they were “white”.  The native Egyptians were “black” Africans, but there were “white” people in Egypt (similar to America or Brazil with their natives marginalized to the point of invisibility by a cosmopolitan mix of invaders.)i

Here’s the real, real truth:  You know very little about race, and what you (think you) know doesn’t benefit you:

Common Racial Notions

  1. “Black” people have broad noses, woolly hair and full lips.

caucasian 3

2. “White” people have long, lank hair blond, and blue, green and hazel eyes.

caucasian 4

3.  (East) Asians have “slanted”* eyes.

*epicanthic fold

caucasian 5

By that “logic”, this is a White Black Man…

middle

…and this is a Black White Man…

black- straight hair, thin features

 

And these are…  ??

pale, straight blond hair

Back to the Original Topic

They were Northeast Africans, meaning they typically exhibited dark skin, gracile musculature, wavy to kinky hair, and often had “negroid” facial features:

akhenaten
Akhenaten, Father of Tutankhamen

Amāna- ātpa (Amenhotep III, Amenophis III;
Amāna- ātpa (Amenhotep III, Amenophis III; “Amun is Satisfied”)
Never make the mistake of thinking Egypt was the Origin of knowledge and understanding... It was the last of the African dynasties.
Never make the mistake of thinking Egypt was the Origin of knowledge and understanding… It was the last of the African dynasties.

From Whence These Desert Kings?

“…the rule of the Arabs came to an end; the Turks, upon whom the Messenger of God vowed to make war, assumed power.  …they (viz. the Turks) secured an ascendency in all the lands. God gave the Turks dominion…  They treated the religion of God as a plaything and established a reign of terror throughout all the provinces of the caliphate.”  (al-Maqrīzī)

“increasing intermarriage (between Arabs and non-Arabs) served to submerge the original distinctions, and increasing numbers of the conquered, having adopted the religion and language of the conquerors, took to assuming the identity as if Arabs themselves” (Segal 2001:22)

Arabized Kings of Arabia
Arabized Kings of Arabia

Al-Mubarrad (d. 898), the leading figure in the Basran grammatical tradition, claimed: “The Arabs used to take pride in their brown and black complexion (al-sumra wa al-sawād) and they had a distaste for a white and fair complexion (al-umra wa al-shaqra), and they used to say that such was the complexion of the non-Arabs.”

“…the complexion of most Arabs is brown and jet-black and the complexion of most non-Arabs is white and red.”  (Lisan El-Arab (an old Arabic dictionary))

See Black Sheep, White Sheep: How Slavery Changed the Arab Appearance

 

Slave is A Class, Not A Color

“Every king springs from a race of slaves, and every slave had kings among his ancestors.” (Plato)

In 1863 and 1864, eight former slaves toured the northern states to raise money for impoverished African-American schools in New Orleans; four white children were deliberately included to evoke sympathy from white northerners. Photographs of Charles Taylor, Rebecca Huger, Rosina Downs, and Augusta Broujey were mass-produced and sold as part of the campaign.
3.

Via loc.gov
4.

Via loc.gov
5.

Via loc.gov
6.

Via loc.gov
7.

Via loc.gov
8.

Via loc.gov
9.

Via loc.gov
10.

Via loc.gov
11.

Via loc.gov
12.

Via loc.gov
13.

Via loc.gov
14.

Via loc.gov
15.

Via loc.gov
16.

17.

Via loc.gov
18.

For further reading on these children, see White Slaves by Celia Caust-Ellenbogen and Visualizing the Color Line by Carol Goodman.

Childlessness Puts Women at a Greater Risk of Cancer: Study

Breast, ovarian and uterine cancers  result from childlessness, say scientists.

Not having children is a risk factor for cancer because pregnancy, as well as breastfeeding a baby, reduces the number of ovulatory cycles a woman has in her lifetime. More ovulatory cycles increases cancer risk. Women who begin their periods at an early age and hit the menopause late also have a higher risk.

In the first half of the 20th century, scientists who studied nearly 32,000 Catholic nuns in the US established that their death rates from breast, ovarian and uterine cancer were higher than for other women of their age. In 1970, it was formally recognised that the lack of childbearing in nuns raised their breast cancer risk.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/dec/07/catholic-church-allow-nuns-contraceptive

Abortion & Birth Control Cause Breast Cancer, Early Motherhood & Breastfeeding Prevent It


A recent study of breast cancer has found that:

  • Abortion increases risk by over 600%.

  • Birth Control Pills increase risk by 950%.

  • Less Breastfeeding increases risk by 15%.

  • Having first child after 21 increases risk by over 200%.

  • Having last child after 27 increases risk by over 300%.

All these findings are consistent with previous studies.

Abortion Causes Cancer

The history of abortions was found to be significantly higher in breast cancer cases as compared to controls, with the Relative Risk (RR) = 6.26 in women having a history of abortion. Results of other studies are not conclusive, while some reporting an increase in risk with induced abortion, [32] others reporting a decrease in risk of breast cancer, [33] and few studies reporting no association.

Birth Control Pills Cause Breast Cancer

In the present study, the risk of breast cancer was 9.50 times higher in women having a history of consumption of oral contraceptive pills. Previous studies have also shown similar results.

Longer Lactation (Breastfeeding) Prevents Breast Cancer

An association between lactation and protection from breast cancer has been postulated for a long time. [17] The results of the present study also revealed similar association, with breast cancer cases reporting a lower mean duration of breastfeeding (11.16 months) as compared to controls (21.00 months). Studies conducted in different countries have also reported similar findings. [18],[19],[20],[21] The RR of breast cancer was found to increase 14.9 (95% confidence interval: 8.69, 25.7) times in women having mean duration of breastfeeding less than 13 months. It has been suggested that lactation might reduce breast cancer risk by temporarily draining the breasts of potential chemical carcinogens and finally, the hormone oxytocin, which causes contraction of myoepithelial cells as a response to suction, has been reported to inhibit cell proliferation and tumor growth in animal models. Lactation also has a direct physical effect on the breast, such as changes in breast ductal epithelial cells leading to mechanical “flushing-out” of carcinogens.

Earlier Age of First AND Last Pregnancy Prevents Breast Cancer

It was observed that breast cancer cases married at a later age as compared to the controls and hence had their first child at a later age. Women who had an age of marriage more than 20 years had a 2.69 (95% confidence interval: 1.77, 4.07) times higher risk of breast cancer. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer was twofold higher in women having their first child at more than 21 years of age. Similar results were obtained in a study from India in which the OR was 2.4 (95% confidence interval: 1.3, 4.4) when the age at marriage was more than 20 years. Other studies have also revealed similar findings. [12],[13],[14],[15]

It has been speculated that a full-term pregnancy at an early age may reduce the likelihood of tumor initiation, while a full-term pregnancy at a later age may promote the growth of existing tumor cells. [16] Pregnancy induces terminal differentiation of human breast glands, which may have a smaller proliferative component. The first pregnancy induces irreversible changes that either render the breast tissue itself less susceptible to induction of cancer or reduced the carcinogenic stimulus to the breast.

The present study revealed that the breast cancer cases had statistically higher mean age at last childbirth as compared to the controls. The risk of breast cancer increased 3.29 (95% confidence interval: 2.15, 5.02) times in women having age at last childbirth more than 27 years.

Bhadoria A S, Kapil U, Sareen N, Singh P. Reproductive factors and breast cancer: A case-control study in tertiary care hospital of North India. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2013 [cited 2014 Apr 8];50:316-21. Available from: http://www.indianjcancer.com/text.asp?2013/50/4/316/123606

Ugandan President’s Response to Obama’s Statement on Homosexuality

Africans do not seek to impose their views on anybody.  We do not want anybody to impose their views on us.“


I have seen the statement H.E President Obama of the USA made in reaction to my statement that I was going to sign the anti-homosexual Bill, which I made at Kyankwanzi.   Before I react to H.E. Obama’s statement, let me, again, put on record my views on the issue of homo-sexuals (ebitiingwa, bisiyaga in some of our dialects).  Right from the beginning of this debate, my views were as follows:

1. I agreed with the MPs and almost all Ugandans that promotion of homosexuality in Uganda must be criminalized or rather should continue to be criminalized because the British had already done that;

2. those who agreed to become homosexuals for mercenary reasons (prostitutes) should be harshly punished as should those who paid them to be homosexual prostitutes; and

3. exhibitionism of homosexual behavior must be punished because, in this part of the World, it is forbidden to publicly exhibit any sexual conduct (kissing, etc) even for heterosexuals; if I kissed my wife of 41 years in public, I would lose elections in Uganda.

The only point I disagreed on with some of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and other Ugandans was on the persons I thought were born homosexual.  According to the casual observations, there are rare deviations in nature from the normal.  You witness cases like albinos (nyamagoye), barren women or men (enguumba), epa (breastless women) etc.

I, therefore, thought that similarly there were people that were born with the disorientation of being attracted to the same sex.  That is why I thought that that it was wrong to punish somebody on account of being born abnormal.  That is why I refused to sign the Bill and, instead, referred it to our Party (the NRM) to debate it again.

In the meantime, I sought for scientific opinions on this matter.  I am grateful to Ms. Kerry Kennedy of the USA who sent me opinions by scientists from the USA saying that there could be some indications that homosexuality could be congenital.  In our conference, I put these opinions to our scientists from the Department of Genetics, the School of Medicine and the Ministry of Health.

Their unanimous conclusion was that homosexuality, contrary to my earlier thinking, was behavioural and not genetic.  It was learnt and could be unlearnt.  I told them to put their signatures to that conclusion which they did.  That is why I declared my intention to sign the Bill, which I will do.

I have now received their signed document, which says there is no single gene that has been traced to cause homosexuality.  What I want them to clarify is whether a combination of genes can cause anybody to be homosexual.  Then my task will be finished and I will sign the Bill.

After my statement to that effect which was quoted widely around the World, I got reactions from some friends from outside Africa.  Statements like: “it is a matter of choice” or “whom they love” which President Obama repeated in his statement would be most furiously rejected by almost the entirety of our people.

It cannot be a matter of choice for a man to behave like a woman or vice-versa.  The argument I had pushed was that there could be people who are born like that or “who they are”, according to President Obama’s statement.  I, therefore, encourage the US government to help us by working with our Scientists to study whether, indeed, there are people who are born homosexual.  When that is proved, we can review this legislation.

I would be among those who will spearhead that effort.  That is why I had refused to sign the Bill until my premise was knocked down by the position of our Scientists.

I would like to discourage the USA government from taking the line that passing this law will “complicate our valued relationship” with the USA as President Obama said.  Countries and Societies should relate with each other on the basis of mutual respect and independence in decision making.

“Valued relationship” cannot be sustainably maintained by one Society being subservient to another society.  There are a myriad acts the societies in the West do that we frown on or even detest.  We, however, never comment on those acts or make them preconditions for working with the West.

Africans do not seek to impose their views on anybody.  We do not want anybody to impose their views on us.  This very debate was provoked by Western groups who come to our schools and try to recruit children into homosexuality.   It is better to limit the damage rather than exacerbate it.

I thank everybody.

Yoweri K. Museveni Gen. (Rtd)

P R E S I D E N T

18th February 2014.