Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1

There is that great proverb—that until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.

— Chinua Achebe, “The Art of Fiction,” 1994

(Photo:  Charleston City Paper)

Tucked amid those high-profile cases the Supremes chose to hear this year, is the little-talked-about (at least nationally), Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl wherein, the preservation of cultural identity is pitted against the often tried and true -- "best interest of the child" argument.

Steeped in the easily recognizable machinations of childless white folk who've set their sights on the children of the "Other" (don't act like this is an odd occurrence, it's what prompted the Indian Child Welfare Act in the first damned place!) -- the alleged adoptive parents' display of money+things+privilege must = power seems to me, little more than institutionalized white supremacy writ large.

Now Family, before you go asking yourselves, "What the hay-ell does this have to do with us?!" I beg your indulgence all the way to the end of the post, mkay?  Before then though, let's take a look at how this case of, "No!  You cannot have this man's child!" -- was able to even land in the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue for the Court:

1. Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and
2. Whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.

Just let those "implications" marinate for a minute. Having recently returned from home (yet again, Amenta!), I can tell you that there, as Elder Achebe noted above, "the history of the hunt" is definitely "glorifying the hunters" when it comes to "Baby Girl."

~#~#~

How it got this far

Perusing a hometown paper online the first week of 2013, I came across this: U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear 'Baby Veronica' case.  And yes, like the series of yet-to-be-published pieces about home with which I've been struggling across my recent visits, this also sat as a draft -- until I realized that the April 15 hearing date was upon us.

Several things struck me as I read the short piece (especially the first, double comment!).  I had to go and read the linked, mainstream media version of the original "specifics" of the case, as reported by The Charleston City Paper here.  Please, do read the entire thing -- I doubt you'll be able to ignore the "glorification of the hunter" throughout.  Particularly interesting to me, were these observations.

By now most people around here know something about Veronica. They see the purple Save Veronica signs and bumper stickers in business windows and parking lots. Her swath of curly dark hair has become almost iconic. But what most local residents don't understand is how this happened.

Four months after Matt and Melanie Capobianco brought Veronica home, an attorney called them to let them know that Dusten Brown had filed for paternity and custody. A few more months passed, and the Cherokee Nation joined the case, claiming a violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act. That law, passed in 1978 to keep tribes together, also deems the Capobiancos' unwavering drive to care for Veronica less significant than her biological tie to the Cherokee Nation. The Indian Child Welfare Act mandates that a child with Native American heritage grow up with blood relatives or, if that option is unavailable, with a member of his or her tribe. Social workers can place the child with adoptive or foster families from outside the tribe, but only after exhausting those possibilities. The cases that arise from this law prove as divisive as abortion or gay marriage. Some people take this law personally.

By, "most local residents," the writer must mean, "white folk who can't get their way," because quiet as it's kept, there are more Native Americans in the Carolinas than she'd like to admit, many of whom know full well how their culture has been turned upside-down by the presence of white folk on their lands (the main reason why "Occupy" anything causes a quiet riot deep in my gut). Equally -- because South Carolina once had a Black Majority due, in particular, to the volume of West African slaves brought into the colony because of their African and gendered knowledge of growing rice, as well as, to do the back-breaking work that made white planters rich -- there are many Blacks who not only understand why this happened, but are rooting for Dusten Brown.  So, no shit, Allyson, some people -- who are not white -- take this law personally (as a matter of fact, there's a Black father further down-post who, I'm sure, wishes there was an ICWA for him!).

Her concentration on the faux adoptive parents' "unwavering drive" versus the inane-sounding, "keep tribes together," is indicative of the "white gaze."  To frame this story as such, reeks of the white privilege permeating the whole affair.  And to equate the divisiveness of the cases arising from the ICWA with "abortion or gay marriage" is hyperbole at its best -- Baby Girl belongs with her damned Daddy who wants her!  Somebody please show my ignorant behind where the similarity is!

A court filing on behalf of the Capobiancos said Brown agreed to give up his rights to Veronica to his estranged ex-fiancée, so long as he could give up any child support obligation along with it. Brown's attorney, Shannon Jones, instead argued that her client expected Veronica's biological mother to raise their daughter and signed away his rights to her alone.

Now this is truly interesting to me.  As you will read in the opinion below, Dusten was active-duty military, preparing to deploy to Iraq, when he agreed "to give up his rights to Veronica to his estranged ex-fiancée."  Sounds really ominous right?  It is, but it's not -- here's why.  My husband and I were once, both on active-duty in the Navy (different languages, same specialty) and we both had to sign over our parental rights to (in our case) my mother, in the event that he would be assigned sea-duty and I would be assigned to an unaccompanied OUTCONUS (outside the continental U.S.) tour of duty.  This actually happened upon my re-enlistment, but I decided to get out instead because of the way my babies often reacted when Dad came back from other sea-duty tours  -- they didn't know who the hayell he was!  Their getting reacquainted was always a process, one I didn't want to have happen to me.  Now, might Dusten not have thought that was what he was signing?

Intrigued by the article though (mainly because in situations like these, there's always two sides to every story and then the damned truth), I googled some "Other" versions of the story.  This one was particularly interesting (especially the comments!):  Biological Father Regains Custody of Two-Year-Old Cherokee Daughter in Adoption Battle.

And further, because I prefer facts, versus an emotion-laden, media-biased opinion (which the City Paper's piece, along with CNN and others I've seen and read -- are), I decided to look up the actual, South Carolina Supreme Court opinion.  I wanted to know the legal reasons why the alleged adoptive parents' case was denied in the lower court in the first place -- and I'm glad I did:

CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: This case involves a contest over the private adoption of a child born in Oklahoma to unwed parents, one of whom is a member of the Cherokee Nation. After a four day hearing in September 2011, the family court issued a final order on November 25, 2011, denying the adoption and requiring the adoptive parents to transfer the child to her biological father. The transfer of custody took place in Charleston, South Carolina, on December 31, 2011, and the child now resides with her biological father and his parents in Oklahoma. We affirm the decision of the family court denying the adoption and awarding custody to the biological father. (emphasis mine)

Now I'm no lawyer, but I see no ambiguity here.  The child was never legally adopted!  However, given what James Island has increasingly become, I'm certain that fact was merely an annoyance for the money+things+privilege must = power folk (kinda like no-see-ums instead of gnats, because you see, no-see-ums bite -- but still, they can be handled).

This child is living with her Daddy and extended family! And they're trying their damndest to get in between that with their, "Woe is me" displays? Lawd ha' mercy, doesn't the sense of entitlement just drip -- even as they spew that whole "best interest of the child" bullshit?

And to think, all of this trauma, being inflicted on the child and her Daddy, is being aided and abetted by the faux adoptive Mom -- who has a Masters degree and a PhD in developmental psychology and develops therapy programs for children with behavior problems and their families!  And people wonder why I'm wary of alphabet-holding, "mental health experts." {smdh}

Some additional points to ponder from the opinion:

• Mother testified that she knew "from the beginning" that Father was a registered member of the Cherokee Nation, and that she deemed this information "important" throughout the adoption process. Further, she testified she knew that if the Cherokee Nation were alerted to Baby Girl's status as an Indian child, "some things were going to come into effect, but [she] wasn't for [sic] sure what." 

• Mother reported Father's Indian heritage on the Nightlight Agency's adoption form and testified she made Father's Indian heritage known to Appellants and every agency involved in the adoption. However, it appears that there were some efforts to conceal his Indian status. In fact, the pre-placement form reflects Mother's reluctance to share this information:

  "Initially the birth mother did not wish to identify the father, said she wanted to keep things low-key as possible for the [Appellants], because he's registered in the Cherokee tribe. It was determined that naming him would be detrimental to the adoption.” 

• Appellants hired an attorney to represent Mother's interests during the adoption. Mother told her attorney that Father had Cherokee Indian heritage. Based on this information, Mother's attorney wrote a letter, dated August 21, 2009, to the Child Welfare Division of the Cherokee Nation to inquire about Father's status as an enrolled Cherokee Indian. The letter stated that Father was "1/8 Cherokee, supposedly enrolled," but misspelled Father's first name as "Dustin" instead of "Dusten" and misrepresented his birthdate. (my bold, their italic -- emphasis here) 
• Because of these inaccuracies, the Cherokee Nation responded with a letter stating that the tribe could not verify Father's membership in the tribal records, but that "[a]ny incorrect or omitted family documentation could invalidate this determination." Mother testified she told her attorney that the letter was incorrect and that Father was an enrolled member, but that she did not know his correct birthdate. Adoptive Mother testified that, because they hired an attorney to specifically inquire about the baby's Cherokee Indian status, "when she was born, we were under the impression that she was not Cherokee." Any information Appellants had about Father came from Mother. (emphasis mine)

Based just on the afore-going, it's obvious that -- from the Mother, to the agency handling the "adoption," to the attorney involved, to the adoptive parents -- this case is riddled with fraud and financial coercion at best, and institutionalized white supremacy at the very least (All together now, can we say, "You lie!" to the faux, adoptive parents and their lawyers?).  Also, it seems if push comes to shove, the adoptive parents are positioned to hurl the birth-mother under the damned bus, walking away, not only unscathed, but painted as "victims" of a lying, conniving birth mother.  But for the Cherokee Nations' written caveat, this Dad never stood a chance!

Here we have a single (now married, according to The Atlantic piece), Cherokee Nation father (non-custodial parent) trying to block the adopting out of his own biological child to white folk, after her non-Indian mother (with some pre- and post-financial assistance from the white folk), voluntarily, but it seems to me, unlawfully, gave her up for adoption -- without telling the father.

(Photo courtesy of The Atlantic)

Secondly, we have the faux, adoptive parents, relying on the language of the ICWA, to determine that Dusten Brown is not Veronica's parent (institutionalized white supremacy notwithstanding, he did file for paternity four months after her birth when he found out what the birth mother had done.  I don't see how they have a leg on which to stand there, especially if his deployment is raised but -- you never know about those "hunters,"right?).

From "Wounded Knee" (where Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Thomas Morgan stated in October 1889 -- a year before that massacre):

“The Indians must conform to "the white man’s ways," peaceably if they will, forcibly if they must. They must adjust themselves to their environment, and conform their mode of living substantially to our civilization. This civilization may not be the best possible, but it is the best the Indians can get. They cannot escape it, and must either conform to it or be crushed by it. The tribal relations should be broken up, socialism destroyed, and the family and the autonomy of the individual substituted.” (emphasis mine)

To the Changeling's, revisionist-history-nominated-for-an-Oscar, faux, "Great Emancipator," homeboy, Abe Lincoln, who said in his, Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes:

"...If we deal with those who are not free at the beginning, and whose intellects are clouded by Slavery, we have very poor materials to start with.  If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed." (emphasis mine)

White supremacy has continuously demanded that all of us, "Others," totally forget who we are, and assimilate into what they demand we become -- a carefully cultivated, "rainbow" version of THEM.  

Thanks, but no thanks -- I'll pass.

I cannot, and will not, speak to my Brown sister's motivations, nor actions (especially given the "gaze" under which she's been portrayed). But what I do know is true, is that Veronica is in her father’s household where she needs to be.  To the Capobiancos, I say -- go adopt a little white girl. There are plenty of them waiting for loving families, and, you won't have to deal with the ICWA!

~#~#~#~

Okay Family here's where we come in (and please -- stop listening to what the MSM and the Changeling have to say about Black fathers!):

The father of a baby girl who is nearly 2 years old now, and did not even know she existed until last year is battling her adoptive parents for custody. Army Staff Sergeant Terry Achane's wife put her child up for adoption while he was away on duty and did not tell him about it until six months after he returned home. A Utah judge has ruled the adoptive parents must hand the child over to him within 60 days. But the couple, Jared and Kristi Frei, is filing an appeal, hoping to keep their daughter. (emphasis mine)

So, sister-girl decided this adoption on her own, though she didn't create this life on her own. And now, the white family wants to fight to keep "their" daughter. {smdh} Even more disturbing for us, is a trend my young sister, Ankh posted at the advent of the new year, entitled, "First One of the Year."   Raising interracial children in a home with two parents who love them, carries its own set of "preserving cultural identity" difficulties, however, I find this set of circumstances more than chilling for the "accidental children" of the trysts described therein. I, unabashedly found great pride in the "Idle No More" movement going on during the Baby Veronica case because -- in nearly every picture at the link, "Protect Our Children" is the prominent consideration, as it is with all the briefs filed by other tribes in support of the case at the initial link.  These "lions" definitely have their own historians, Elder Achebe, and because of that, I have high hopes that this child's, "history of the hunt" will glorify them all. My fervent hope, is that Black folk, with all our historians, can begin to cogently relate "the history of the hunt" in which we've long been involved, glorifying (for a change), the rights of African-descended children to know who they are, rather than who the "hunters" demand they become.

Continued: Preserving cultural identity in the face of institutionalized white supremacy: Another Home-going -- Pt. 1a -- Cultural assaults on "The Other" continues

Related:
- Slave descendants seek equal rights from Cherokee Nation
- First Nations, White Privilege, & the Red Struggle
- P.L. 95--608, Approved November 8, 1978 (92 Stat. 3069) Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
- The Indian Child Welfare Act, The need for a separate law
- Supreme Court To Hear Arguments on Indian Child Welfare Act
- High court to tackle Native American adoption dispute
- Indian family protection law central to emotional custody battle
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Information and Resources
- Save Wounded Knee

Newtown Massacre update -- "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

I was going to add this to the previous post but it's already pretty long, so I thought a separate update would work better.

Like my Grandmama used to say -- "Sumpin' in de milk ain' clean!" -- about these shootings.  Aside from the yet disproven unexamined links between the fathers of the Aurora and Newton "alleged" shooters, the mainstream media have again, played the role of "Useful Idiots," rather than seasoned information-gatherers and professional information-givers, by creating, out of whole cloth, a believable (for some) and functional (for many) narrative of what happened at Newton Elementary.

As I'd said in the previous post, I'd been trying to find out as much as could about this madness, and in doing so, I came across two interesting videos from "Idahopicker" on YouTube, that I'd planned to use in an update.  As it turns out, I wasn't alone.  Prof. James F. Tracy at Global Research was thinking the same thing as my Grandmama and me:  The Newtown School Tragedy: More than One Gunman? --

"When the news media act as willing partners in such acts the public becomes an unwitting accessory in its own psychic imprisonment, lulled into the notion that fair play still exists and public servants remain are intent on service."

I'm posting the two videos I found the other night from "Idahopicker," and two from Prof. Tracy below, but please do read his piece with an open mind.

~#~

From Idahopicker:



ABC, trying to hurry up and adhere to the "If it bleeds, it leads" mentality of the Fourth Estate, initially reported there were "two shooters"  Hell, it's their helicopter providing this aerial footage!

From Prof. Tracy:

"Dispatcher: I have reports that the teacher saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym, which would be rear ([inaudible].
Officer: Yeah. We got him(?).   He's (?) comin' at me down [inaudible]"

Now I know plenty will say those "two shadows" were cops, and I guess that's plausible. But wouldn't the officer have told the dispatcher that?  (I wasn't sure if I heard Responder #2 say, "him," or "'em" or "He's" or  "They" in the tapes, so I put question marks after them).

From Idahopicker:



Say what you want about "Idahopicker's" views on guns, but you cannot dispute what he's pointed out from the readily available dispatch tapes and aerial footage, neither of which the MSM have seen fit to report. Why haven't they? (methinks they've been told to leave that shit alone).

From Prof. Tracy:



Heard anything more about this "second shooter" from CBS News? I know I haven't.  Makes me think the Changeling's alleged, tearful statement, along with his hustling off to Newton, were perfect distractions from what may have really happened at this school.  You can call it a conspiracy theory or whatever you like, but one thing's for certain -- "Sumpin' in dis milk ain' clean!"

Related:
- The Sandy Hook Tragedy: An Inquisitive Visit to Newtown, Connecticut
- A 6-year-old Newtown survivor seeks $100m from Ct.
- The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information

The Newtown massacre: crocodile tears, a culture of violence, the hierarchy of human life and -- possible politricks

"People who treat other people as less than human, must not be surprised when the bread they have cast on the waters comes floating back to them, poisoned."

James Baldwin

It's amazing how Mr. Baldwin's words, always succinctly capture what I'm thinking.  No matter which meme blanketing the internet into which you buy, the real reasons for the undoubtedly disturbing shootings in Connecticut will, most definitely relate to Baldwin's words.  More disturbing though, were the Changeling's words on Friday (delivered while wiping away tears that I, at least, could not see), along with his follow-up, hypocritical "performance,"  in Newton on Sunday.  And what stellar performances they both were (I won't bother posting the videos.  I'm sure the whole world's seen them both)!

I've been trying to write this post on the shootings since Saturday, but for some reason, I just couldn't get through it (too many glaringly, contrasting thoughts running through my head).  But I was reading about it all, voraciously -- so much so that, rather than y'all listening to my droning, I've been able to knit together an expression of exactly how I feel, through what I've read.  Here's what I came up with:

Lucinda Marshall's,  "A Culture That Condones The Killing Of Children And Teaches Children To Kill:

"The Sandy Hook massacre isn’t just about the need for gun control laws, it is about a culture that condones the killing of children and teaches children that killing is okay."

Ye-e-e-p, she's right on the money there.  I stumbled upon a six-part series on You Tube awhile ago entitled, "Violence:  An American Tradition."  It shows, quite uncompromisingly, how this country's culture of violence -- since its founding -- absolutely confirms Ms. Marshall's statement.  I'm only posting Part 1 - but as the disclaimer says on each part, "Caution:  Contains scenes that may be disturbing to young or sensitive viewers" -- because it, and the other four parts linked here -- are not for the faint of heart!:



Arthur Silber's, God Damn You, America, and Your White, Privileged Grief is one of the closest renditions of my thought, ever.  While there's one section of his post, with which I totally disagree, I can't, not post this:

We've had Cool Obama, and No Drama Obama. Now we have Weeping Obama. Does Weeping Obama "meet privately" with the families of those he has ordered murdered in Pakistan, or Somalia, or Yemen? Does he even acknowledge those murders -- murders that he himself ordered? Does the "nation reel" in response to these regular, systematic murders of innocent human beings -- many of them children? Does the "nation reel" in response to the Obama administration's repeated public announcements of its Kill List and its Murder Program, a program which intentionally, repeatedly murders innocent people? Does America react with horror to the fact that Obama and his administration claim the "right" to murder anyone they want, anywhere in the world, for any reason they choose or invent out of nothing? (emphasis mine)

I'll save my one point of disagreement with Arthur for a later post, because for me -- it requires a "writing about," all its own (and I won't even tell you what part it is right now).  That said, he knocks it out of the damned park on everything else IMO.

This, "Child Casualties as a Result of U.S. Drone Attacks" video, embedded in Glenn Greenwald's, Newtown kids v Yemenis and Pakistanis: what explains the disparate reactions? -- is a stark reminder of the "hierachy of human life" being practiced by many, if not most, of my countrymen:

There's just no denying that many of the same people understandably expressing such grief and horror over the children who were killed in Newtown steadfastly overlook, if not outright support, the equally violent killing of Yemeni and Pakistani children. Consider this irony: Monday was the three-year anniversary of President Obama's cruise missile and cluster-bomb attack on al-Majala in Southern Yemen that ended the lives of 14 women and 21 children: one more child than was killed by the Newtown gunman. In the US, that mass slaughter received not even a small fraction of the attention commanded by Newtown, and prompted almost no objections (in predominantly Muslim nations, by contrast, it received ample attention and anger).

It is well worth asking what accounts for this radically different reaction to the killing of children and other innocents. Relatedly, why is the US media so devoted to covering in depth every last detail of the children killed in the Newtown attack, but so indifferent to the children killed by its own government? (emphasis mine)

If these strikes are as precise, as surgical, as targeted, as the voices of both Panetta and the Changeling adamantly proclaim in the background, what does that say about them, seeing there's more than ample evidence to the contrary?  I don't know about you, but I say they're both -- bald-faced liars.

Next, Khadija Patel of South Africa's, Daily Maverick gave me one helluva V-8 moment about "hierarchy of human life" here, in her, From Gaza to the Congo: Whose blood is more worthy of attention? (do click on her name and read her mini-bio -- gotta love it!):

Three years on, I no longer lay claim to sanity – I sleep too little to qualify – but these same niggling questions about a jaundiced media focus are spilling out in heated verbiage across the world. And it says something about our collective failure as a world that three years on we’re once more talking about Gaza and Goma. These things really do go on and on and on.

On Sunday, British columnist Ian Birrell noted that coverage of the recent conflict in Gaza had eclipsed another deadly conflict happening simultaneously in the eastern Congo.

Birrell described the Democratic Republic of Congo as a “scene of massacres, of mass rape, of children forced to fight, of families fleeing in fear again and again, so many sordid events that rarely make the headlines.”

“It can seem a conflict of crushing complexity rooted in thorny issues of identity and race, involving murderous militias with an alphabet of acronyms and savagely exploited by grasping outsiders. But consider one simple fact: right now, there is the risk of another round breaking out in the deadliest conflict since the Second World War,” he wrote.

Birrell is not alone in his sombre assessment. Others describe the situation in eastern Congo as “the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today.” The charge of a lack of media attention is also not unfounded. Since 1999, when Doctors without Borders first began issuing its top 10 underreported humanitarian crises in the world, the DRC has featured nearly every year.

Just over one week of bombing in Gaza and everybody was up in arms. There were rallies and protests right across the world. In the media, pages and pages of reportage, analyses and testimony. Hundreds of journalists made the trip into Gaza to record first-hand the death and destruction. Together with them, the reports of ordinary Palestinians on social media lent us some clues of the scale of human tragedy unfolding in the homes, the media offices and the refugee camps in Gaza.

And then there’s the Congo...

Two of my friends are currently tramping around Goma wielding recorders and cameras, doing their bit to bring the crisis there to the attention of the world. It’s not that what’s happening there is going altogether unreported. All the major wires carry updates on the situation several times a day. The crisis is certainly not being ignored. It just is not exciting the same kind of fevered attention that Gaza did.

When superstorm Sandy ripped through the Caribbean and then the east coast of the US last month, many media analysts complained that coverage of the hurricane was overwhelmingly skewed in favour of how it affected Americans. No matter that people in Cuba and Haiti as equal citizens of the world also braced the hurricane and also suffered loss and a disruption to their lives, it was the effect of the storm on the US that filled the world’s media. Some analysts and observers of American dominance on the rest of us meek creatures used the asymmetry in media coverage of the storm in the US and outside as the US as proof of the warped focus of global media. (emphasis mine)

It is important that I own my own complicity in not talking about what's happening to people who look like me in the DRC.  All of my writing, with the exception of my limited coverage of Cote d'Ivoire, and the Marikana massacres, have had nothing to do with Congo.  But I have written about pseudo-sister, Susan Rice, so I don't feel too bad. The one statement Rice made, as Slick Willy's Under Secretary of State for African Affairs which forever rests in the nether reaches of my consciousness, is one Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report nails right here:

“We say hands off Ambassador Susan Rice!” Dr. Ron Daniels’ Institute of the Black World, a proudly Afro-centric organization, would do better to demand that Rice and the rest of the Obama administration keep their bloody hands off Africa. Republicans are “hypocrites “ who “have no moral or political authority to stand in judgment of Ambassador Susan Rice!” One can make that argument, but the Institute of the Black World and the rest of us certainly have the right and obligation to stand in judgment of a political operative and ideologue who, according to an article by Michael Hirsch in the Ethiopian Review, cavalierly dismissed the Rwanda/Uganda-sponsored M23 rebel group’s murderous rampages in the Democratic Republic of Congo. “It’s the eastern DRC. If it’s not M23, it’s going to be some other group.”  Rice delayed for months publication of a United Nations panel of experts report documenting M23 as a front group for Congo’s neighbors, who have all but annexed the mineral-rich eastern part of the country since invading in 1996, leaving 6 million dead in their wake, half of them below the age of five. Rice and her then boss, Bill Clinton, supplied the money, arms and political cover. As Under Secretary of State for African Affairs, Rice left it up to Washington’s Rwandan and Ugandan puppets to safeguard against genocide. “They know how to deal with that,” Rice is quoted as saying. “The only thing we have to do is look the other way.”

Rice’s African American boosters also choose to look the other way. They shame us all." (emphasis mine)

'Nuf said.

H/T to Sis Carolyn over at Perspectives -- Another Way to View for this great piece by Sikhvu Hutchinson -- Nice White Boys Next Door and Mass Murder:

“Standing in line at the California Science Center the day of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary school, my students wondered aloud about the race of the shooter. More than likely he was white,” they agreed. As the only people of color waiting to be admitted to the exhibit, their open question about race elicited visible unease from a group of elderly white women across the line from us.

In high school when my friends and I found ourselves at the business end of Inglewood PD officers’ rifles because someone in our car “looked” like a burglary suspect, it was a rite of passage initiation...

But contrary to the rap stereotype of Glock-toting men of color, an overwhelming majority of people of color are pro-gun control, while the majority of the white electorate is not. The high school assailants in the Littleton, Colorado, the Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Santee, California shootings were steeped in a NRA besotted gun culture that fetishizes readily available firearms as the ultimate medium for violent white masculinity.

However, these youth were instantly transformed into symbols of troubled, tragically “misunderstood” teens. National conversations about the perils of bullying dominated the airwaves. It was accepted that these tragic figures were “our boys,” our recklessly wasted youth. It was conventional wisdom that preventive mental health resources could have minimized their inner turmoil. As the bloggers Three Sonorans note in their piece, “White Privilege and Mass Murder in America,” “whenever white men commit mass murders it is just a freak isolated incident, but when we look at other crime statistics for minorities the reason given is that it is something innate to their culture, to their family. It is those people.”

With Columbine there was tacit understanding that these boys’ acts were symptomatic of a potentially imperiled national heritage. Conversely, any time violence erupts in a black or Latino context it’s a racial indictment, an indictment of a community, not a reflection on the rogue acts of lost boys from salt of the earth homes.

As my students and I left the Science center, bracing for more news about the scope of the attack, it was clear that the tragedy would dominate the news for weeks to come. The senseless slaughter of children from the “perfect” town may finally prompt serious bipartisan legislation to curb the barbaric gun lobby. But it will not prompt analysis of the violent masculinity at the heart of whiteness. And if any of these nice white boy shooters had been black the national sentiment would have echoed the biting comment made by my student Jamion: “Send those niggers back to Africa.” (emphasis mine)

Biting is right, and totally on-point IMHO.

On a final note, as I talked to my youngest about the shootings during "family dinner time" last Sunday,  he told me about this -- Libor scandal grows as the fathers of two mass murderers were to testify:

One interesting connection to the tragedy that took place at the Sandy Hook school is that the father of Adam Lanza has a connection to the theater shootings that took place in Aurora earlier this year by James Holmes.

Both fathers of the shooters were allegedly expected to testify in the Libor scandal that rocked the banking world in June.

The father of Newtown Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza who is a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO. Both men were to testify before the US Sentate in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low level traders arrested. (emphasis and interior link on HSBC mine)

While I knew about the Libor scandal, I wasn't aware of any connection whatsoever to either the Aurora or Newton massacres (funny how you think your kids aren't really paying attention to what's going on in the world in which they live -- but they are).  I told him I knew there was a reason I couldn't get this post finished, and this unknown information was probably why!

This story hasn't been officially investigated -- and why would it, if it is, in fact true? After all, the Changeling's appointment of GE's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt to lead his new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness would certainly nip any meaningful digging by the MSM in the bud, no?

I just have to say that I don't believe in coincidences.  And while I still haven't found any smoking guns, the fact that Nancy Lanza had also been previously employed -- on Wall Street, coupled with this, most interesting fact pointed out by commenter, Peter Hyoguchi in the afore-linked piece that:

"Three of Peter Lanza's financial associates from GE Capitol headed to prison because of this fraud. Why would Peter Lanza not be called to testify? James Holmes' father designed the software that assesses national credit scores which is the focus of this Federal trial so why would he not be called to testify? It's unlikely just a coincidence."

Adding to that -- there were, in fact, hearings scheduled (and had) in Congress regarding America's involvement in the Libor scandal (neither Holmes, nor Lanza mentioned, far as I can see)!  Hell, despite the fact that it all may sound circumstantial,  it's certainly enough to have me scratching my head about the murders in both, Aurora and Newton.

Yes, the Changeling has quite a few things regarding human life about which he needs to sincerely squeeze out a tear or two, but I won't hold my breath that he will.  Why?  Because he's a perfectly cast, risk-averse, deus ex machina who always sticks to the dog-whistling, photo-op script he's been given.

Related:
- UBS Libor-rigging settlement exposes pervasive bank fraud
- In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats
- Sen. Boxer Proposes Putting National Guard Troops in Schools
- Mayor wants cops in North Charleston elementary schools
- Gun rights advocates: Arm our teachers to help stop school shootings
- Gun sales surge after Connecticut massacre

Neo-colonialism still wreaking havoc in Africa -- as the world watches

"It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed."

"Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes"
Abraham Lincoln
August 14, 1862

That particular "exceedingly important" goal of white supremacy remains in effect -- all over the world. No matter where one turns, the M.O. is sickeningly apparent, as in the recent Marikana Massacres in South Africa.

**(WARNING - GRAPHIC)**




Were you shocked?  Disgusted?  I hope so.  Indeed, like many of the "Blacks in Blue" here (Danziger Bridge, Sean Bell, these fine specimens in Philly to name but a few), these men have cast their lot with white supremacy, mowing down and beating up folk who look like them, with no apparent conscience, nor morality.  I'm sure they're paid way better than their "systematically oppressed" brothers and sisters; probably have better homes, and even cars; perhaps they even enjoy a few beers with their white counterparts, celebrating that whole, "I'm accepted-but-have-no-real-power," status thing (more on that shortly).

Guess they skipped right over the, "For the sake of your race you should sacrifice something of your present comfort" part, in the beginning of this guilt-tripping sentence in Lincoln's above-referenced address, and headed straight to the, "...for the purpose of being as grand in that respect as the white people" part at the end.

Two articles at Black Agenda Report this week certainly bear that out. The first, "Economic and Social Crisis in Post Apartheid South Africa" by William Bowles, is a must-read that provides an excellent rundown of South Africa's neocolonialism from Mandela to Zuma:

The African National Congress (ANC) won a resounding victory in South Africa's first democratic election in 1994 with a host of promises that it would improve the lives of the Black majority (85% of the population). And whilst there have been gains in some areas, overall, most Black South Africans are materially worse off now than they were under Apartheid.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs have vanished; costs for the basics: electricity, water, food and rents have skyrocketed. Ironically, no longer the pariah of the world, South Africa's white minority is even better off now than it was under Apartheid (remember the 'Rainbow Nation'?). The only Blacks to have gained have been a tiny minority, many from the ranks of the (former) liberation movement and the trade unions as well as the South African Communist Party (SACP).

So what went wrong? Did anything go wrong? Has the ANC and its partners in the Tripartite Alliance, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the SACP betrayed their roots and sold out Black South Africa? Indeed, sold out the rest of Africa?" (emphasis mine)

The second, Mark P. Fancher's passionately succinct, "The People's Rage,"  leaves no doubt about who continues to have, "the real power" in South Africa; not only economically and socially -- but militarily:

The massacre in Marikana, South Africa was not a run-of-the-mill wildcat strike that was met by undisciplined police officers. It was instead an event that left no doubts that while imperialism may be willing to allow Africans to sit in government offices, it will not tolerate any disruption in the flow of profits from the exploitation of highly valuable natural resources. Platinum in particular is indispensable in the manufacture of catalytic converters and other motor vehicle parts, and South Africa has more than 80 percent of the world’s platinum group metal reserves.

Even in 1965, Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana’s first president) understood why South Africa was a focal point of mining activities. He said: “A 1957 U.S. government survey of American overseas investments shows the single most profitable area was in the mining and smelting business of South Africa, whose profits are higher than from any comparable investment in the United States. The high profits can be explained largely by the cheapness of African labor.”

Nkrumah went on to explain that South African mineworkers earned 27 times less than their U.S. counterparts. More than half a century later, South Africa’s miners are still paid extremely low wages for dangerous, difficult work. One worker reported that he receives about $500 a month. (emphasis mine)

Fancher goes on to make this very crucial observation, one that reverberates all across the Continent:

This violent response should not have come as a surprise. An essential element of every neo-colonial state is an armed force with express or implied standing orders to put down rebellions. Often there are armies that play this role. In the case of the Marikana tragedy, those carrying out the massacre may have been branded as “police,” but they functioned as a military unit. They were heavily armed and ready to kill.

It should also come as no surprise that an overlap in South Africa’s police and army missions means that the U.S. military is lurking in the shadows. In an article published by the South African Institute of International Affairs, writer Thomas Wheeler reported: “U.S. defense attaches have on-going interaction with the [South African] military and police to define ways in which the U.S. can assist them.

One concrete example of this “assistance” was last year’s “Exercise Shared Accord.” The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) website explained that this joint exercise between 700 U.S. Marines and about twice that number of soldiers in the South African National Defense Force was an opportunity for the soldiers to, among other things: “…engage in live-fire exercises…”

All of this raises logical questions about who South African forces are training to kill. The answers are found in the historical record. It shows that in general, African soldiers are used in conflicts with other Africans, both in their own countries and elsewhere on the African continent. The tragedy of this was not missed by Nkrumah who suggested: “…the ordinary soldier who is after all only a worker or peasant in uniform, is acting against the interests of his own class. (emphasis mine)

On another, indirectly related post over at AfroSpear, I commented, "I am so disturbed and hurt by the massacre of miners at Marikana in S. Africa! WTH?? Apartheid didn’t go anywhere, it just seemed to have melted into the ANC. {smdh}" To which Bro. Amenta replied, "Deb, when we really see and know who controls ALL of these countries; It will be clear who is the true enemy and who is not. A U.S. company owns the mine. The government agents (policemen) work at the behest of the company. Peace"

His comment, along with the two above pieces, sent me looking for some names, so I went straight to Lonmin's site and clicked on its "Investors" tab where, not surprisingly, I found the "usual suspects."  Turns out the company is owned by the UK, but yes, the U.S. is right there with them, as both "investors" and "advisers."  As for names --  JP Morgan, Bank of New York Mellon and Citigroup Global Markets.  Glance at the "About Us" and "Our Business" tabs while you're there, the information on each is particularly laughable, especially given the video above.

Finally, adding insult to injury, we have this:

On Thursday, 270 miners were charged in the Ga-Rankuwa Magistrate’s Court with the murder of 34 of their comrades, who were shot and killed by police at Lonmin’s platinum mine in Marikana in the North West. A further, 78 injured by the same force, have realised a charge of attempted murder for all accused. The legal vehicle used to charge the accused in the Marikana massacre case is called 'common purpose'; it was masterminded by the architects of Apartheid and used during the darkest times to send MK cadres to the gallows. (emphasis Daily Maverick)

This is just imperial madness run amok (and please, don't say, "But they're all Black!"-- it'll tell me you've not really read, nor understood a word I've written).

Briefly, from the Daily Maverick piece:

“The state began to fall back on the common purpose doctrine, which originated in English law and was introduced into South African law via the ominously named ‘Native Territories Penal Code’. At the time the courts interpreted this doctrine to apply to all members of a crowd who had ‘actively associated’ with criminal conduct committed by one member of the crowd – even if those charged were not involved at all in the commissioning of the crime,” writes De Vos. (emphasis mine)

For a concise explanation of the 'common purpose' doctrine, please, do read the first related article below by De Vos, a South African Constitutional Law professor (don't worry, he seems very unlike the one selected president of this country).

On Asabanga's latest post, "270 South African miners charged with murder of their 34 collegues killed by the police, " Bro. Amenta left this comment:

"When I read how the law was from Apartheid era, it actually made me recall how so similar the laws are here!  http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/13704992-418/man-charged-with-murder-after-police-shoot-accomplice.html"

Given the 'common purpose' doctrine originated in the same place as the doctrine of white supremacy brought here by the English, I'm neither surprised by the similarity, nor am I surprised at the inequity with which it is enforced there, or here -- if you're Black.

Remember last year when James Anderson was beaten up by a group of white, Mississippi darlings and then run over by Deryl Dedmond with his pick-up truck?  And it was all caught on a hotel surveillance camera?  There were seven of them.  As of March of this year, three were charged and pled guilty to murder and hate crimes and are serving life sentences; one was charged with simple assault, pled not guilty and is free on a $5,000 bond because he left the scene before Anderson was killed; I could find no criminal charges filed against the other three -- two of whom, were females (James Anderson's family has filed a civil lawsuit against all seven of them).

And the world just keeps on watching...

**UPDATE!!!** 9/2/12 - South African miners to be freed after prosecutors drop murder charges

Related:
- Abuse, Inc: The 'miners made us do it' murder charge
- Marikana Is the Latest Chapter In a Long Saga

- Mnikelo Ndabankulu speaks at Marikana memorial service (video) -- (h/t to Asa @ AfroSpear)
- The murder fields of Marikana. The cold murder fields of Marikana.