You know, I'm pretty sure if my father could have been responsible for scripting November 4th, 2008, he would have not only had John McCain winning the Presidency - but also had every last person in the State of California vote 'Yes' on Proposition 8.
Yes, my father is a bit afraid of those gays. A homophobe in the truest sense of the word, he knows that their bedroom activities do not include him and would not affect him even if he didn't know about it - but he still fears that if we grant homosexuals the same rights as everyone who 'plays by the rules', he will somehow end up with a dick in the butt.
Is it crazy? Yes. Is it archaic? Yes. Is it funny? Sort of.
It can only be viewed as funny if you think about his fear, and not about his mindset. He truly believes that homosexuals are second-class citizens (of this or any country), which means that he believes that there are second-class citizens. Which is wrong on all accounts, but especially so in a country which pretty openly stresses that it views all men to have been created equal. "Liberty and justice for all" is a great catch phrase for people like my father, because it perpetuates their own freedoms while granting them the liberties of restricting others.
The idea that marriage is anything other than A.) a commitment which requires a ceremony involving friends or family witnessing two people stating what was usually already fairly obvious to everyone else, or B.) a legal phrase that we assign to couples who don't mind the alteration in their taxes or people knowing that they are attempting to stay with one person for the rest of their lives - is ludicrous.
I've heard the argument that there are people who would use same-sex marriages with 'malicious' intents such as guaranteeing themselves insurance coverage from their employers, or ensuring that any children that they have or may have will be the sole executors of their estate, thanks to a friend who is willing to pose as a lover to help meet those ends. Yes, because heterosexual coupling has never produced anything that could even be construed as illegal.
The fact of the matter is that prohibiting gays, lesbians and/or transgendered people their right to marry whoever they see fit is an action that serves only to show the cowardice of those who introduce such a bill, and the weak-mindedness of those who would vote for it.
Actually, I take that back - it also violates one of the founding principles of the United States: separation of church and state. Of course many of the arguments for the establishment of that separation are founded on the idea that a government should have a complete lack of authority in the realm of individual conscience. But keeping with the theme of checks and balances that was also established in this country, shouldn't the ideals of a religion have no authority in the realm of social contracts? Should freedom of religion take priority over freedom of expression - such as the expression of love between two people, regardless of their gender?
I distinctly recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, stating that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
... And if we look to the other side of the argument, the non-secular view of the world offers many contradictory points in reference to being with a person of your own gender. Apparently being a homosexual will in turn banish that person to a firey pit of torment for all of eternity not spent on Earth, unless the mass hatred poured out towards homosexuals is to be counted. And speaking of that hatred, don't the same books that state that homosexuality is 'wrong' also speak of not judging other people, as God will do so with infinite wisdom?
This argument could go on forever, and I'm only discussing it with myself at the moment. So to conclude I will say this - I would rather burn in Hell if it allows two people who truly love each other, be they two men or two women, to have the right and the confidence to state and express that love how, when and wherever they see fit.
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
18.11.08
27.5.08
Technical Difficulties
I'm not exactly sure if this applies to all of human society, or if it is more restricted to the worlds I have been exposed to - specifically media [including but not limited to those involved television, newspapers, magazines, 'blogging '(for all fairness, this includes myself) and politics]. Really I can only speak about, for, and in concern to what I have come into contact with; I absolutely cannot understand
Organizations such as the Jewish Task Force, have claimed to have uncovered information that "proves" many discrediting thing about the class and/or integrity of Malcolm X - including, quote "The fact that Malcolm X was a convicted drug dealer who sold poison to his own people for profit is a matter of public record. As is the fact that Malcolm X was a pimp and a rapist who violently attacked both black and white women."* Now, I do not proclaim that Malcolm did no wrong within his lifetime - during his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, he was an active and outspoken racist against white people of all nations, merely for their skin colour - just as white were racist unto he, his race and others for the very same reason. Does that justify his beliefs or actions during that time? Of course not, and these are things that he came to realize himself, following a pilgrimage he made to Mecca (the Muslim holy city), and explains within the text of his autobiography;
"You may be shocked by these words coming from me, but on this pilgrimage what I have seen and experienced, has forced me to re-arrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions... During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same bed (or on the same rug) - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white... We were truly all the same (brothers) - because their belief in one God had removed the 'white' from their minds, the 'white' from their behavior, and the 'white' from their attitudes."1
... And considering the widespread distribution of Malcolm's autobiography, especially following the 1992 release of Spike Lee's Malcolm X - this isn't something that can completely be ignored. And assuredly it did not slip past the notice of the wizards at the JTF, considering that another claim they make is, "... When Malcolm X returned from Saudi Arabia preaching the true Islamic message that Muslim hatred must be based upon religion and not race, the Bolshevik news media claimed that he was no longer a racist because he now was willing to accept whites if they converted to Islam. (How generous of him.)"*
Before I venture off too much further into this, let's examine a few things. First, yes - Malcolm X was at one time a drug-using (and probably dealing) "numbers runner" in both Boston and New York, who associated himself with white women simply to offend the upper-class white men of that time. Yes, he got caught and spent some four years in prison - during which time he both embraced his "outsider" persona (the other inmates referred to him as "Satan", most particularly for his red hair), and later - converted to Islam, that is - the version of it offered by the Nation of Islam. He doesn't deny that he was taken in by a more-or-less totally fraudulent organization that basically served to promote the greater glory of its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Upon his being kicked out of the NOI, his mind wandered, leading him to study and try to find "true" Islam (highlighted by the aforementioned trip to Mecca). He began to understand that what he had believed in several periods of his life before then, was either not entirely truthful, not worthy of patterning one's life after, or otherwise misleading in its guise. Gilded as the Nation of Islam may have been, even Malcolm could acknowledge that their existence was a very necessary one - even if only in the "necessary evil" sort-of sense... And those of us with the benefit of hindsight, especially here after his death - can make all the accusations and criticisms that we would like about his path towards what many consider to be a social enlightenment - but rest assured, he saw that coming, too;
"You watch, I will be labeled as, at best - an 'irresponsible' black man. I have always felt about this accusation that the black 'leader' who white men consider to be 'responsible', is the black 'leader' who never gets any results. You only get action as a black man if you are regarded by the white man as 'irresponsible'. In fact, this much I had learned when I was just a little boy. And since I have been some kind of 'leader' of black men here in this racist society of America, I have been reassured each time the white man resisted me, or attacked me harder - because each time made me more certain that I was on the right path in the American black man's best interests. The racist white man's opposition automatically made me know that I did offer the black man something worthwhile."2
So what Malcolm was, is most assuredly not as important as what he became... Rest assured, I do not speak of the policies offered by those in the NOI that betrayed him. The policies that state "one hand washes the other" and "the good a man does in his life, far outweighs the bad" - both must be taken in equal consideration in order to accurately depict and understand that man, and the life he lead. But to fully understand the life of Malcolm X, one must do just that - and consider that while he did begin his adult life participating in socially unhealthy practices, and was - for a time, taken in, used and eventually discarded by an organization centered around specific men, instead of men as a whole... These are not the true identity of the man known as e-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz. Just as those who criticize him, Malcolm acted and spoke out based on the teachings and confidence of his faith... And to criticize him for such is not just hypocritical - but outright ludicrous... And what are these criticisms and accusations? Some of the most recent include such as the following;
"Malcolm X was involved in many homosexual relationships in high school. His schoolmate and close friend, Bob Bebee, recalls Malcolm X forcing another male high school student to perform Sodomite sexual acts. In other words, Malcolm X raped one of his fellow black male students. Malcolm X then bragged about the rape.
By the age of 20, Malcolm X was already a homosexual prostitute.
When he lived in Flint, Michigan, his roommate noticed that he would sneak down the hall every night to have sex and spend the night with a black homosexual transvestite named Willie Mae.
Two of Malcolm X's friends from Michigan met him at the YMCA in New York, where he bragged to them that he made his money servicing "queers."
One of Malcolm X's closest friends, Malcolm Jarvis, remembers Malcolm X boasting that he made a lot of money having sex with William Paul Lennon, a wealthy white homosexual from Boston. Lennon hired Malcolm X to be his butler.
... The indisputable and shocking facts about Malcolm X's notorious homosexual past - including homosexual rape - are covered up by the Bolshevik news media just as the truth about Louis Farrakhan's homosexual activities in the 1960s are covered up."*
So, the JTF have a bit of a 'beef' to chew with Malcolm, and more particularly the Nation of Islam, perhaps even more so with its current leader, Louis Farrakhan - who probably had Malcolm murdered... And how do they go about picking their fight? In the time-tested manner that only a peaceful, understanding group such as the Jewish Task Force of America and say, any given sixth grader in America could devise - by all-but-screaming, "OMG-D UR A FAGOT AND U SUK." Who are their cited sources for these allegations? Along with other nameless friends, they cite Bob Bebee, a "schoolmate and close friend" that is (or at least was) so close to Malcolm, that he is completely left out of Malcolm's own autobiography, and whose name reveals absolutely no hits in relation to Malcolm at any point during his or Malcolm's life, when searched upon in that context. They also cite the 1960s media that also did not take particular liking to Malcolm, his actions, or his previous organization, the NOI... And how do they punctuate their message of "truth"?
"In your heart, you know we're right. And in your guts, you know they're nuts.
Every generous check or money order (which can be anonymous) made out to "JTF" (which is political and not tax-deductible) or to "VJA" (which is fully tax-deductible and non-political) makes a huge difference. You can also send cash donations if you wish.
Do not depend on others to do your part! G-d only blesses those who do their own part!"*
By stating that if you don't pay them some money, you're going straight to hell. Damn, I knew there was a catch somewhere.
... But such allegations as these are not exclusively cast upon Malcolm X, nor are they always motivated by race - although, for the most part, they do seem to only find their way unto those dealing with race relations (particularly in or around the 1960s). Take, for example - Robert Kennedy. Almost always lost in the magnitude of either his brother John's Presidency, or his brother Teddy's amazingalcoholism tenure in the Senate, Robert Kennedy was a necessary tool throughout the duration of John's political career - before his Presidency, and even after his death... And this is where most of the publicity of Robert Kennedy is given light. Why, you may ask? Because of the obvious emotional strain that was put on him during such an ordeal? Because of the heir-apparent nature that it imposed upon him, as the "next Kennedy in line"?
Of course not, the bulk of reporters focused on the fact that Kennedy bonded with JFK's late wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, during their respective mourning... Most particularly on the fact that he vacationed with her and her family, and might have had a relationship that extended beyond mere kinship... But that's only because there's absolutely no evidence, premise, or otherwise to prove it. None of the parties involved seemed too worried about their relationship; Jackie or her eventual husband Aristotle Onassis, nor Bobby or his wife Ethel... And I will add this as a personal note; Robert and his wife Ethel had eleven children. Eleven, and this was in the late-fifties-to-sixties - so it isn't as though contraceptives hadn't been invented - he was probably just too devout in his Catholicism to use them... So, if an affair had occurred between Robert and any of the women he had been linked to, considering these facts - we would probably have at least an abortion scandal to note, if not a now fully-grown child... But, like Malcolm X - he was quick to both acknowledge and dismiss the allegations thrown on him;
"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."
That takes some courage of its own, when people state that you're sleeping with your brother's widow - to simply cast them aside, dismissing the allegations for what they more than likely are anyway, when it is so much easier (not to mention more appealing) to retaliate, whether through comments or otherwise.
Who is another example? Abraham Lincoln, many people seem to enjoy telling a story that proclaims that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation either did not set any of the American slaves free, or only set free those enslaved in the then-Confederate States of America as a political "power-play". Let's take a look at the document itself:
"Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
Let's see, "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State; the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" Wow, that was simple. Every state, part of a state - every person who was or is enslaved within it... Seriously, are there people losing sleep over this or something?
* - Taken verbatim from the JTF.org website.
1 - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X; ch. 17, "Mecca", pg. 347.
2 - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X: ch. 19, "1965', pg. 389.
Organizations such as the Jewish Task Force, have claimed to have uncovered information that "proves" many discrediting thing about the class and/or integrity of Malcolm X - including, quote "The fact that Malcolm X was a convicted drug dealer who sold poison to his own people for profit is a matter of public record. As is the fact that Malcolm X was a pimp and a rapist who violently attacked both black and white women."* Now, I do not proclaim that Malcolm did no wrong within his lifetime - during his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, he was an active and outspoken racist against white people of all nations, merely for their skin colour - just as white were racist unto he, his race and others for the very same reason. Does that justify his beliefs or actions during that time? Of course not, and these are things that he came to realize himself, following a pilgrimage he made to Mecca (the Muslim holy city), and explains within the text of his autobiography;
"You may be shocked by these words coming from me, but on this pilgrimage what I have seen and experienced, has forced me to re-arrange much of my thought-patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions... During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate, drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same bed (or on the same rug) - while praying to the same God - with fellow Muslims whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white... We were truly all the same (brothers) - because their belief in one God had removed the 'white' from their minds, the 'white' from their behavior, and the 'white' from their attitudes."1
... And considering the widespread distribution of Malcolm's autobiography, especially following the 1992 release of Spike Lee's Malcolm X - this isn't something that can completely be ignored. And assuredly it did not slip past the notice of the wizards at the JTF, considering that another claim they make is, "... When Malcolm X returned from Saudi Arabia preaching the true Islamic message that Muslim hatred must be based upon religion and not race, the Bolshevik news media claimed that he was no longer a racist because he now was willing to accept whites if they converted to Islam. (How generous of him.)"*
Before I venture off too much further into this, let's examine a few things. First, yes - Malcolm X was at one time a drug-using (and probably dealing) "numbers runner" in both Boston and New York, who associated himself with white women simply to offend the upper-class white men of that time. Yes, he got caught and spent some four years in prison - during which time he both embraced his "outsider" persona (the other inmates referred to him as "Satan", most particularly for his red hair), and later - converted to Islam, that is - the version of it offered by the Nation of Islam. He doesn't deny that he was taken in by a more-or-less totally fraudulent organization that basically served to promote the greater glory of its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Upon his being kicked out of the NOI, his mind wandered, leading him to study and try to find "true" Islam (highlighted by the aforementioned trip to Mecca). He began to understand that what he had believed in several periods of his life before then, was either not entirely truthful, not worthy of patterning one's life after, or otherwise misleading in its guise. Gilded as the Nation of Islam may have been, even Malcolm could acknowledge that their existence was a very necessary one - even if only in the "necessary evil" sort-of sense... And those of us with the benefit of hindsight, especially here after his death - can make all the accusations and criticisms that we would like about his path towards what many consider to be a social enlightenment - but rest assured, he saw that coming, too;
"You watch, I will be labeled as, at best - an 'irresponsible' black man. I have always felt about this accusation that the black 'leader' who white men consider to be 'responsible', is the black 'leader' who never gets any results. You only get action as a black man if you are regarded by the white man as 'irresponsible'. In fact, this much I had learned when I was just a little boy. And since I have been some kind of 'leader' of black men here in this racist society of America, I have been reassured each time the white man resisted me, or attacked me harder - because each time made me more certain that I was on the right path in the American black man's best interests. The racist white man's opposition automatically made me know that I did offer the black man something worthwhile."2
So what Malcolm was, is most assuredly not as important as what he became... Rest assured, I do not speak of the policies offered by those in the NOI that betrayed him. The policies that state "one hand washes the other" and "the good a man does in his life, far outweighs the bad" - both must be taken in equal consideration in order to accurately depict and understand that man, and the life he lead. But to fully understand the life of Malcolm X, one must do just that - and consider that while he did begin his adult life participating in socially unhealthy practices, and was - for a time, taken in, used and eventually discarded by an organization centered around specific men, instead of men as a whole... These are not the true identity of the man known as e-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz. Just as those who criticize him, Malcolm acted and spoke out based on the teachings and confidence of his faith... And to criticize him for such is not just hypocritical - but outright ludicrous... And what are these criticisms and accusations? Some of the most recent include such as the following;
"Malcolm X was involved in many homosexual relationships in high school. His schoolmate and close friend, Bob Bebee, recalls Malcolm X forcing another male high school student to perform Sodomite sexual acts. In other words, Malcolm X raped one of his fellow black male students. Malcolm X then bragged about the rape.
By the age of 20, Malcolm X was already a homosexual prostitute.
When he lived in Flint, Michigan, his roommate noticed that he would sneak down the hall every night to have sex and spend the night with a black homosexual transvestite named Willie Mae.
Two of Malcolm X's friends from Michigan met him at the YMCA in New York, where he bragged to them that he made his money servicing "queers."
One of Malcolm X's closest friends, Malcolm Jarvis, remembers Malcolm X boasting that he made a lot of money having sex with William Paul Lennon, a wealthy white homosexual from Boston. Lennon hired Malcolm X to be his butler.
... The indisputable and shocking facts about Malcolm X's notorious homosexual past - including homosexual rape - are covered up by the Bolshevik news media just as the truth about Louis Farrakhan's homosexual activities in the 1960s are covered up."*
So, the JTF have a bit of a 'beef' to chew with Malcolm, and more particularly the Nation of Islam, perhaps even more so with its current leader, Louis Farrakhan - who probably had Malcolm murdered... And how do they go about picking their fight? In the time-tested manner that only a peaceful, understanding group such as the Jewish Task Force of America and say, any given sixth grader in America could devise - by all-but-screaming, "OMG-D UR A FAGOT AND U SUK." Who are their cited sources for these allegations? Along with other nameless friends, they cite Bob Bebee, a "schoolmate and close friend" that is (or at least was) so close to Malcolm, that he is completely left out of Malcolm's own autobiography, and whose name reveals absolutely no hits in relation to Malcolm at any point during his or Malcolm's life, when searched upon in that context. They also cite the 1960s media that also did not take particular liking to Malcolm, his actions, or his previous organization, the NOI... And how do they punctuate their message of "truth"?
"In your heart, you know we're right. And in your guts, you know they're nuts.
Every generous check or money order (which can be anonymous) made out to "JTF" (which is political and not tax-deductible) or to "VJA" (which is fully tax-deductible and non-political) makes a huge difference. You can also send cash donations if you wish.
Do not depend on others to do your part! G-d only blesses those who do their own part!"*
By stating that if you don't pay them some money, you're going straight to hell. Damn, I knew there was a catch somewhere.
... But such allegations as these are not exclusively cast upon Malcolm X, nor are they always motivated by race - although, for the most part, they do seem to only find their way unto those dealing with race relations (particularly in or around the 1960s). Take, for example - Robert Kennedy. Almost always lost in the magnitude of either his brother John's Presidency, or his brother Teddy's amazing
Of course not, the bulk of reporters focused on the fact that Kennedy bonded with JFK's late wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, during their respective mourning... Most particularly on the fact that he vacationed with her and her family, and might have had a relationship that extended beyond mere kinship... But that's only because there's absolutely no evidence, premise, or otherwise to prove it. None of the parties involved seemed too worried about their relationship; Jackie or her eventual husband Aristotle Onassis, nor Bobby or his wife Ethel... And I will add this as a personal note; Robert and his wife Ethel had eleven children. Eleven, and this was in the late-fifties-to-sixties - so it isn't as though contraceptives hadn't been invented - he was probably just too devout in his Catholicism to use them... So, if an affair had occurred between Robert and any of the women he had been linked to, considering these facts - we would probably have at least an abortion scandal to note, if not a now fully-grown child... But, like Malcolm X - he was quick to both acknowledge and dismiss the allegations thrown on him;
"Anti-Catholicism is the Anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."
That takes some courage of its own, when people state that you're sleeping with your brother's widow - to simply cast them aside, dismissing the allegations for what they more than likely are anyway, when it is so much easier (not to mention more appealing) to retaliate, whether through comments or otherwise.
Who is another example? Abraham Lincoln, many people seem to enjoy telling a story that proclaims that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation either did not set any of the American slaves free, or only set free those enslaved in the then-Confederate States of America as a political "power-play". Let's take a look at the document itself:
"Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
Let's see, "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State; the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free" Wow, that was simple. Every state, part of a state - every person who was or is enslaved within it... Seriously, are there people losing sleep over this or something?
* - Taken verbatim from the JTF.org website.
1 - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X; ch. 17, "Mecca", pg. 347.
2 - Taken from Autobiography of Malcolm X: ch. 19, "1965', pg. 389.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)