Post by krazeeboi on Sept 16, 2005 3:01:56 GMT -5
Now isn't THIS title one for controversy!
The following was written by a pastor friend of mine in Houston (who, by the way, is really involved in helping many of the evacuees reclaim their lives). It's a lengthy read, and everyone may not agree with everything he says, but it's certainly thought-provoking to say the least:
The following was written by a pastor friend of mine in Houston (who, by the way, is really involved in helping many of the evacuees reclaim their lives). It's a lengthy read, and everyone may not agree with everything he says, but it's certainly thought-provoking to say the least:
Let me give you my crass understanding of politics. Politics is about how many people you can get to side with you. This is done by one of two ways 1) how much can you talk and say nothing (sophistry) and/or 2) how many lies can you tell without getting caught (be they false witnesses or broken promises.) The truth is never popular and therefore will rarely be the will of the majority. A murder was more to be desired by the people than the purest truth, Jesus Christ.
Now here is the problem KB, the details are deceptive. The old saying goes, you can’t see the forest for the trees. Details must be viewed by two things. First -- the big picture and secondly -- principles. The big picture is what is supposed to happen. Then what and who have violated principles where and why. Details change, sometimes what is evil in one situation is good in another. I am not speaking of and do not believe in situational ethics. But for instance "war" may be bad in one instance and good in the next (i.e. what war accomplishes.) Or say, the possession of a firearm, good in one instance, bad in another. A classic biblical case is Rahab's lie concerning the spies.
Here my point, it is principle that helps one to codify the truth about the details, not necessarily “the whole story” as they say. You can here one side of a story and principles will allow you to know what fault the person who is speaking bears. So principles are unchanging primary laws, which tell you the direction in which the winds of details are blowing.
The primary principle issue of any group of people is the integrity of the group itself. The reason the group gets got is because someone(s) is not really integral (united.) There is some self-center ness, an Anninias and Sapphire that the group is not willing to judge and punish.
Let me give you a personal example of this principle of integrity. I was young, oh 20 or so, and a guy on the street approached me offering me to buy a gold chain. Now I knew it was stolen to say the least, but I went for it. Of course the thing turned green. The point is I got took not really as much from the outside as from the inside. I took myself because I lacked integrity. Where there is integrity the wall of protection is fortified. Where there is not, believe me there are holes in the wall and your enemy will take you.
Remember for all it is worth even Jericho fail from the inside, as Rehab for whatever her reason compromise that city’s integrity all the more by siding with the spies.
I could go into various principles but that is not my intention. My only intention is to show how important a principle is to proper interpretation of details, and that it is an internal principle-compromise that allows for the fall of any group – best friends; marriage; company; city; nation; etc…
My implications are these… blacks fail themselves in the most primary sense. Here are the PRINCIPLES of a social order that blacks violated…
1) Order – the female became dominate in our culture, largely through allowing them to become educated above our men. Women became the educators of our future rather than men. That is still around today in the so call strong black educated woman, who black men are too weak to deal with, as they say. Such was the white man’s weapon, but we allowed it, rather than recognizing the problem in violating the principle order.
2) Beauty (the give-back or life principle) – The beauty/glory of anything is not merely in “the thing” it yields but the “seeds” of the thing it yields. For therein is not merely life but abundant life. Obviously there were blacks who started great universities, churches, and other entities. However, those who have succeeded through such entities give very little back to them. They leave the community, rather than coming to employ and mentor the community. I’m not talking about superstars, whose image per se’ depend on giving out some bread crumbs, but the average Joe. People who come out of the community and know the community must be willing to bear the burdens of the community and give til it hurts.
3) Variety – Someone said “the spice of life.” The key to any sustainable social infrastructure AND economy is diversity of labor. There need to be black groceries, shoeshops, cleaners, gas stations, more as the industries broadened. However the whites did not close our businesses. We did! A) lack of integrity by business owners B) lack of community support C) Selling out for the easy material life D) Not rearing our children to carry these things on E) The slow demise of a black entrepreneurial culture whereby a sub-economical system can be sustained and sustain those who comprise it.
This would have provided jobs for our young people and chances for those who need a second chance (though such labor would have lessened black delinquency)
4) Unity/Integrity – There was no code of ethics that dealt with the one who sought to exploit various components of black culture – the most gross of which have of course been our leaders, spiritual and spiritual/political (as the way to black leadership in the latter nineteenth century is through the pulpit – I’m not sure that has always been the case… I need to research that.) But assuming it has not, then Martin Luther King set the precedent, although be it an unintentional precedent. That being the case, the exploitation of the pulpit should have been an indication of the lack of integrity. Anyway, point - community accountability is essential to integrity. As Augustine said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” There can be no untouchable demigods in the group/community if integrety is to be maintained.
However, the paradigm shift from the issue of basic human ‘civil’ rights, to a pursuit of material equity with whites, gave birth to a leadership and eventually a people who have taken on the nature of our oppressor.
The lack of internal integrity has made our own leaders our oppressors, because the nature of the white man has been to oppress the weak. That is the nature that the black man has pursued in his quest for equity. So those who are ‘the weak’ that he must oppress – WATCH THIS! – not the white man… he’s not weak. Your own are the ones who are weak. So in the black leader’s “exercising his will to power” (Hitler’s philosophy from Nietzsche’s book ‘The Superman’) he exploits and oppresses his own people as do the white man. Thus the old white will is still in affect through the black leaders.
The results were the white man still affected his oppression but used exploitative black leaders to do it (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the like.) They killed King, because they could not control him for better or for worse. WHY DID KING DIE? He did not really die as a result of the black cause, but rather for moving beyond the social plight of blacks in the political controversy of the Vietnam War (Which in my opinion he should not have done.) Such a move would have position king to gain wide support from white people all over this country. The government was simply not going to have it. My point is they could not control king at all. I think he was sincere about the war and his move was based in his Ghandi – derived anti-war pro-peace philosophy, but I think it cost him his life. These others after King, did not have the shear tenacity, fortitude, and most important the conviction of King. King was a lot of things, but he was no sellout. You could not buy him. He was his own man, not for sale and not selfish in the crass/immediate sense of the word. Maybe he was a bit overly humanistic (in my opinion), but not selfish.
Lastly, the result of giving direct oppression over the black leaders (thus an indirect oppression by the white man remains) is the black body was freed but not the black mind. True freedom explores what it does have and not what it lacks… Check out Psalm 126. Our leaders, preoccupied us with what white folks were not doing for us, rather than what we could do for ourselves. For instance, we pursued getting into their schools, getting their books, etc… The only possible underlining assumption has to be theirs is better than ours in one way or another. All that only to later complain that there is nothing in their books that reflect us… well duh! We were not led to be resourceful and self-motivated and self employed. We looked to the white man for all of that, which it is impossible for him to give anyway.
Lastly, and I could go on and on… since you asked… This created a new class of black youth, who do not follow Jesse ‘em, with a WATCH THIS! Americanize philosophy – pragmatism… whatever works – just do it. So while white America is highly secularize “whatever work legally” the new breed of underworld youth says whatever works legally, illegally or whatever. Works for what? make you feel good, gets you paid… REMEMBER! Their bodies are free but not their minds. And licensousness has been loosed. And they use their body in all kinds of way to get what they can’t get with their minds – material and fame. And our children are with their children and their children are acting like our children. WHY because their were granted physical rights (in their parents) but not mental rights and as the bible says… the curse is down to the third and fourth generation. There is nothing that America's little girls (black and white) will not do today for a dollar, and there is not that America's little boys won't ask them to do to make a dollar off of them.
So while it is enough blame to go around and the consequences are now coming around to their children and homes, we bear primary responsibility for our own condition. Such a condition is a result of ethics, although we like to deny that our ethics are even in the equation. However, your house not being clean is not the white man’s fault, and not because you are poor. Our run down neighborhoods is not the white man’s fault and it is not because you are poor. These things are because you won't take care of your yard and your house.
We choose a Benz over a good new roof on the house or a paint job. By way of antidote… I had a dear friend who had come into a couple thousand dollars. He had just had a baby in addition to the other three he already had. So he was contemplating what he would do with this money – buy a big screen or a washer and dryer. I said to him, “Look man buy your wife a washer and dryer. I mean you all have all these kids. The washateria thing is a lot of work dude.” He says to me, “Solomon you are messing me up man… I ain’t trying to here that…” Needless to say he bought a big screen.
That is unethical and wicked, and that is generally black folk type of thinking at various levels.