“Americans are not very bright,” she said. “No, really, they make up the stupidest liberals in the world, if you can even call them liberals? Liberals, I guess, only when compared with the reactionary lunacy of her conservatives, this America that once stood as a beacon of liberty?” She asked.
“John Lennon had said that woman is the nigger of the world. Was it appropriate or inappropriate to draw this analogy, house this term? We are too often concerned for the appropriateness or inappropriateness of language that have little to no adherence to literary value, rhetorical necessity, semantic need in a deeper understanding of action no,” she said.
“Did Lenon understand the universal plight of women correctly? Did he appreciate the plight of women internationally and the economic and sometimes social inequality faced in the world’s foremost democratic nations? His was an awareness of what the word nigger had meant and applied it to another group equally deserving, right?” She asked.
“Are we not to see points of contact, paradigms in repression? Yes, no, maybe? It seems instead as if we will talk, talk and talk endlessly needlessly about the appropriateness of using the word without ever getting to the what if of it, which is to say, what if women were niggers, what then does that say about women; and if they are niggers, what then does that say about African-Americans?
If you could appreciate the irony of women being called niggers, allowing for the many ifs that would ensue rhetorically if nigger were held appropriate in the place Lennon had put it . . . what then would we say?
Agree, disagree, understand, misunderstand, disavow, whatever have we in words to express what response you had, do have, could have, will . . . I say that anybody at any time anywhere can be a nigger, not in the way blacks have been the niggers in America or any of the colonies or countries where they were slaves or subject to other forms of oppression, nor exactly in the many ways women have been treated in kind with their brothers and sisters in oppression. No? Again, incorrect; again, inappropriate?” She asked.
“Agree, disagree . . . you do not need me to draw up another litany of words that could represent any one of the many responses anyone might have to using the word nigger at all, let alone as a term to describe a group that may or may not be black,” she said.
“When subject to the whims and the will of power and money, anybody anywhere can be a nigger. In fact, everyone is the nigger of multi-national power and the corporate elites who rule through an oligarchy of like interests moving in the same general direction as they move about in the same circles, as they are inclined to support like policies, thus like candidates, who get closer and closer to one another in the Two Party system, themselves getting closer and closer as they become more and more alike. Yes, the niggers of money are subject to a corporate elite who have subsumed an oligarchic function, including those corporations of finance on Wall Street,” she said.
She said, “If Obama can be the bankers bitch, how is that we are not the niggers of American Totalitarian Capitalism. How have the Chinese people not been the niggers of the state, the niggers of the Communist Party power in China. How were the serfs in Russia not niggers? Blacks under Jim Crow were niggers,” she said. She said, “No one rational is going to compare our economic and political oppression at the hands of a power elite more monied and a monied elite more powerful than any at any time in our history with the brutality of chattel slavery; nor would any sensitive person connect our oppression point for point with exact dimensions of oppression blacks felt and suffered under JIm Crow. However, power is power is power and for power to continue, it adapts,” she said.
“Power elites and monied elites are more sophisticated than they have been in the past,” she said.
“Mike Bloomberg increased his wealth nine times since he became mayor. The Justice Department did not investigate him. I am still wondering why, but not with sustained earnestness. Politicians, when they are not themselves members of the monied elite, serve the monied elite, for that money is power because it is the base from which all political campaigns are waged,” she said. “The government thus serves the elite; but today, so then does our press. The media, another set of corporations ruled by profit and thirst for more of it for fewer and fewer people, are aligned with Power and Money–only several corporations run all the major print and broadcast media in the United States,” she said.
“News in America,” she said, “in a restricted way, resembles the old Soviet Pravda, an irony lost in the good marketing of news . . . the old totalitarian propaganda machines resembling and even mirroring advertising in the US, advertising in America informing State spin,” she said.
“How had Bloomberg used the office of the mayor to increase his coffers at the same time the city cried poverty and services for the people were slashed?” She asked. “Like Bloomberg, Obama will have us abdicate our responsibility to ourselves as a People who are free in order to become a public a bit more dependent on the state, a public who receives a few more crumbs from the dinner table of the elite,” she said.
“We were once horrified at the historical existence of minstrel shows, of white men wearing black face imitating in derogatory, racist ways the supposed manners of black people. I am from the age of James Brown, Black Power, Black Panthers and the Mexico City Olympics when I was boy, so forgive me if I say black and not African-American,” she said. She said, “But what then is Obama’s Presidency but a half white puppet of the monied power elite wearing blackface to inverse effect. How can Obama be supporter of the Monied Elite, how can he be deeper in the pockets of the banks than any President in our history, owing them more because no one in Washington owed him anything.?” She asked rhetorically.
“But as formed by the selective dissemination of information as we are, we were primed to think that a black man had to speak for the People, that a beck man in the Oval Office could not be a friend of the corporate elite, would not be the closet conservative that the elite needed and wanted,” she said, “was never going to deport more people than all other Presidents,” she said, “expand the drone assassination campaign to all quarters of the world,” she continued, “would never violate the air space or the sovereignty of other nations, could not have spent one trillion dollars on upgrading our entire nuclear arsenal, thus making fifty ormolu years of arms talks irrelevant,” she said. She said that he was not going “to try to worm his way into Ukranian politics, tweaking Putin’s nose and causing a horrific civil war; he would not be laying hands off ISIS, letting us then think our intelligence community had under estimated them, perhaps thinking they were not what they were from the beginning . . . yes, laying hands off ISIS in its move toward Syria in an attempt to play geo-politics with Assad, hoping to get him to leave,” she said.
“It could not have been Obama who allowed ISIS to gain such steam causing a terrible situation in Syria to explode into a human right’s disaster. No, all these couldn’t be possible because he is black. And that’s what the closet and agent conservatives in the Democratic Party and among the Power andMonied Elite understood. I am not even going to discuss his diplomatic disasters when leaving Hilary off the hook. But then none of this is measured by mainstream political analysis and remains perhaps too visceral, too much in line with diatribe and tirade, all of it akin to the polemics I sometimes engage,” she said.
Rosalind said much and wrote much, published here as she has been and will be.