which is negro

10

One of 20th Century America’s greatest literary voices, James Baldwin and his work are garnering renewed interest, thanks in part to the Oscar®-nominated documentary, I Am Not Your Negro, which should be opening at a cinema near you soon (if it hasn’t already). The trailer is below a companion volume for the film is now available fom Vintage Books, home to much of the author’s backlist, including Go Tell It on the Mountain, Tell Me How Long the Train’s Been Gone, and The Fire Next Time. Baldwin’s literary work has also been issued by the prestigious Library of America in three essential volumes.

4

Anna Pauline “Pauli” Murray (November 20, 1910 – July 1, 1985) was a civil rights activist, women’s rights activist, lawyer, and author. She was also the first black woman ordained an Episcopal priest. Born in Baltimore, she later moved to New York and obtained a degree in English in 1933. In 1940 she was arrested for violating Virginia’s segregation laws on a bus. This incident, along with her involvement in the socialist Workers Defense League to free a Black sharecropper from execution for killing his white landlord, led her to become a civil rights lawyer. She enrolled at Howard University’s law school where she, along with James Farmer and Bayard Rustin co-founded C.O.R.E. (Congress for Racial Equality) in 1942. 

While at Howard, she became conscious of sexism, or “Jane Crow” as she called it. As one of the few women law students there, she found herself the object not of hostility but of ridicule. On her first day of classes she was shocked to hear her professor announce that he didn’t know why women went to law school, but that since they were there, he guessed the men would have to put up with them. She responded with steely silence. “The professor didn’t know it,” she later wrote, “but he had just guaranteed that I would be the top student in his class.” 

After passing the California bar exam in 1945, Murray became the state’s first black deputy attorney general. It would be Murray’s 1950 book States’ Laws on Race and Color that NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall would hail as the “bible” of the civil rights movement, directly contributing to the 1954 Brown vs. Board decision. Respect for her mind did not improve her treatment by men in the movement however. In 1963, she became one of the first to criticize the sexism of the civil rights movement. In a letter to civil rights leader A. Philip Randolph, among other grievances, she criticized the fact in the 1963 March on Washington no women were invited to make one of the major speeches or to be part of its delegation of leaders who went to the White House:

I have been increasingly perturbed over the blatant disparity between the major role which Negro women have played and are playing in the crucial grassroots levels of our struggle and the minor role of leadership they have been assigned in the national policy-making decisions. It is indefensible to call a national march on Washington and send out a call which contains the name of not a single woman leader.[x]

Murray lived in Ghana from 1960–61, serving on the faculty of the Ghana School of Law. She then returned to the US and studied at Yale Law School, becoming the first African-American to receive a J.S.D. from the school in 1965. Murray co-wrote the critical position papers on the E.R.A., Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the American Civil Liberties Union brief for the White v. Crook case, which successfully challenged all-white, all-male juries in Lowndes County, Alabama. In 1966 she was one of the founding members of NOW (National Organization for Women), but resigned when the white women of the organization failed to incorporate analysis of racial oppression into their activism.

[I’ve begun to] reassess my entire relationship to the women’s movement and to ponder how I can remain effective without exposing myself to humiliation, for it is humiliating to be deliberately excluded from participation in an area to which one has devoted many years of one’s life.[x]

In 1973, Murray left law and academia for the Episcopal Church, becoming a priest, and was the first Black woman named an Episcopal saint in 2012.

Literally the weakest argument I’ve seen about why allosexual is a bad word is because it sounds like a slur in a totally unrelated language

You know what else sounds like a slur? The Spanish word for black. Which is negro. (Of course, there are other terrible terms for black ppl in Spanish but I digress)

If someone were to call me a negro… In the context of “oh lookit that dirty negro!!” or something like that then that would be… Bad, lol

But if I were to deny a Spanish speaking person the autonomy of using their own word (which literally just means the color black) simply because it sounded like a slur… I can’t describe how unnecessary that is. And allosexual literally just means not asexual. That’s all.

Does that make sense? I don’t know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

like literally why would any non black person need or want to read an argument between africans and african americans about which one of us negroes is allowed to enjoy black panther it literally has nothing to do with you kjshlkjhskjfh sdkfjh 

nytimes.com
Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White (James Baldwin; 1967)

When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them. We hated them because they were terrible landlords, and did not take care of the building. A coat of paint, a broken window, a stopped sink, a stopped toilet, a sagging floor, a broken ceiling, a dangerous stairwell, the question of garbage disposal, the question of heat and cold, of roaches and rats–all questions of life and death for the poor, and especially for those with children–we had to cope with all of these as best we could. Our parents were lashed to futureless jobs, in order to pay the outrageous rent. We knew that the landlord treated us this way only because we were colored, and he knew that we could not move out.

The grocer was a Jew, and being in debt to him was very much like being in debt to the company store. The butcher was a Jew and, yes, we certainly paid more for bad cuts of meat than other New York citizens, and we very often carried insults home, along with the meat. We bought our clothes from a Jew and, sometimes, our secondhand shoes, and the pawnbroker was a Jew–perhaps we hated him most of all. The merchants along 125th Street were Jewish–at least many of them were; I don’t know if Grant’s or Woolworth’s are Jewish names–and I well remember that it was only after the Harlem riot of 1935 that Negroes were allowed to earn a little money in some of the stores where they spent so much.

The root of anti-Semitism among Negroes is, ironically, the relationship of colored peoples–all over the globe–to the Christian world. This is a fact which may be difficult to grasp, not only for the ghetto’s most blasted and embittered inhabitants, but also for many Jews, to say nothing of many Christians. But it is a fact, and it will not ameliorated–in fact, it can only be aggravated–by the adoption, on the part of colored people now, of the most devastating of the Christian vices.

Of course, it is true, and I am not so naive as not to know it, that many Jews despise Negroes, even as their Aryan brothers do. (There are also Jews who despise Jews, even as their Aryan brothers do.) It is true that many Jews use, shamelessly, the slaughter of the 6,000,000 by the Third Reich as proof that they cannot be bigots–or in the hope of not being held responsible for their bigotry. It is galling to be told by a Jew whom you know to be exploiting you that he cannot possibly be doing what you know he is doing because he is a Jew. It is bitter to watch the Jewish storekeeper locking up his store for the night, and going home. Going, with your money in his pocket, to a clean neighborhood, miles from you, which you will not be allowed to enter. Nor can it help the relationship between most Negroes and most Jews when part of this money is donated to civil rights. In the light of what is now known as the white backlash, this money can be looked on as conscience money merely, as money given to keep the Negro happy in his place, and out of white neighborhoods.

One does not wish, in short, to be told by an American Jew that his suffering is as great as the American Negro’s suffering. It isn’t, and one knows that it isn’t from the very tone in which he assures you that it is.

For one thing, the American Jew’s endeavor, whatever it is, has managed to purchase a relative safety for his children, and a relative future for them. This is more than your father’s endeavor was able to do for you, and more than your endeavor has been able to do for your children. There are days when it can be exceedingly trying to deal with certain white musical or theatrical celebrities who may or may not be Jewish–what, in show business, is a name?–but whose preposterous incomes cause one to think bitterly of the fates of such people as Beside Smith or King Oliver or Ethel Waters. Furthermore, the Jew can be proud of his suffering, or at least not ashamed of it. His history and his suffering do not begin in America, where black men have been taught to be ashamed of everything, especially their suffering.

The Jew’s suffering is recognized as part of the moral history of the world and the Jew is recognized as a contributor so the world’s history: this is not true for the blacks. Jewish history, whether or not one can say it is honored, is certainly known: the black history has been blasted, maligned and despised. The Jew is a white man, and when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this, and it certainly contributes to their attitude toward the Jews.

But, of course, my comparison of Watts and Harlem with the Warsaw ghetto will be immediately dismissed as outrageous. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is that while America loves white heroes, armed to the teeth, it cannot abide bad niggers. But the bottom reason is that it contradicts the American dream to suggest that any gratuitous, unregenerate horror can happen here. We make our mistakes, we like to think, but we are getting better all the time.

Well, to state it mildly, this is a point of view which any sane or honest Negro will have some difficulty holding. Very few Americans, and this includes very few Jews, wish to believe that the American Negro situation is as desperate and dangerous as it is. Very few Americans, and very few Jews, have the courage to recognize that the America of which they dream and boast is not the America in which the Negro lives. It is a country which the Negro has never seen.

For many generations the natives of the Belgian Congo, for example, endured the most unspeakable atrocities at the hands of the Belgians, at the hands of Europe. Their suffering occurred in silence. This suffering was not indignantly reported in the Western press, as the suffering of white men would have been. The suffering of this native was considered necessary, alas, for European, Christian dominance. And, since the world at large knew virtually nothing concerning the suffering of this native, when he rose he was not hailed as a hero fighting for his land, but condemned as a savage, hungry for white flesh. The Christian world considered Belgium to be a civilized country; but there was not only no reason for the Congolese to feel that way about Belgium; there was no possibility that they could.

What will the Christian world, which is so uneasily silent now, say on that day which is coming when the black native of South Africa begins to massacre the masters who have massacred him so long? It is true that two wrongs don’t make a right, as we love to point out to the people we have wronged. But one wrong doesnít make a right, either. People who have been wronged will attempt to right the wrong; they would not be people if they didn’t. They can rarely afford to be scrupulous about the means they will use. They will use such means as come to hand. Neither, in the main, will they distinguish one oppressor from another, nor see through to the root principle of their oppression.

In the American context, the most ironical thing about Negro anti-Semitism is that the Negro is really condemning the Jew for having become an American white man–for having become, in effect, a Christian. The Jew profits from his status in America, and he must expect Negroes to distrust him for it. The Jew does not realize that the credential he offers, the fact that he has been despised and slaughtered, does not increase the Negro’s understanding. It increases the Negro’s rage.

JB never fails. DAMN!!

White Privilege/ Dear White People

Although many would like to deny its existence, White privilege does exist. Beginning with the age of exploration and the idea that the less advanced societies, with darker skin tones and different traditions were of lesser value and weren’t considered to be people with rights but were seen as cheap labor and products to be bought and traded. This has stayed with society for centuries and traces of it is still seen today in all aspects of society in the past, present and maybe even our future. Like the idea that lighter skin people are more attractive or that less curly hair is more desirable. Thats why people spend so much money with cosmetics, skin treatments and on their hair. But that also raises the question why do people want/get tans? Why do people curl their hair? “ White Privilege” is a term for societal privileges that benefit white people beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.  It refers to both the obvious and less obvious and unspoken advantages that white people may not recognize they have.

  Peggy McIntosh is an American feminist and anti-racism activist, the associate director of the Wellesley Centers for Women and a speaker and the founder and co-director of the National S.E.E.D. Project on Inclusive Curriculum (Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity). Her essay  “White Privilege and male privilege” that she released in 1988 discusses and points out the ways in which socially, legality, and economically constructions of how race benefits white people in their daily lives. In this quote “I did not see myself as racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth. Likewise, we are taught to think that sexism or heterosexism is carried on only through individual acts of discrimination, meanness, or cruelty toward women, gays, and lesbians, rather than in invisible systems conferring unsought dominance on certain groups.” She discusses how growing up she didn’t know she was being racist because she was taught that racism only took the form of insulting people or saying hurtful things to an individual. But racism is bigger than that it  can be “invisible” or so common they become the new normal and are no longer seen as racist. Like those stereotypes and generalizations that automatically pop into your head in different situations. Even the idea of being masculine/manly or to prove that one is straight they must be rude and insult women or say hurtful things about homosexuals.

And here “I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks. Describing white privilege makes one newly accountable. As we in women’s studies work to reveal male privilege and ask men to give up some of their power, so one who writes about having white privilege must ask, “having described it, what will I do to lessen or end it?” she states that she thinks ‘white’ people are taught not to recognize the privileges they have. Shs sees white privilege as a set on unearned assets they receive just for being born/existing. There is also male privilege so overall as it can be obviously seen in the various aspects of our society particularly when it comes to jobs and income that white men make the most money is most fields even if their not fully qualified for the job or lack experience or don’t have a college degree.

The movie “ Dear White People” that came out on October 17th addresses all of these issues/conflicts of White Privilege and Racism head on by speaking frankly and addressing things people usually like to avoid acknowledging. The story starts when an activist Samantha White wins an election to become the head of a residence hall that “traditionally black” residence hall and her provocative radio show called “Dear White People”  challenges the conventional notions and stereotypes of what it means to be black, what can/can’t be considered racism and pointing out the privileges that the white students have. The reason she did this was to prevent them from diversifying the ‘Armstrong Parker House” whose head Troy Fairbanks (and son of the University’s dean) goes against his father by choosing to join a magazine that he wasn’t expected to be interested in let alone join. In a twist of events Lionel Higgins (the character easy to spot with his glasses and big afro) was recruited by the all-white student newspaper to go undercover and write about black culture which is actually a subject he knows very little about. But the biggest surprise for everyone at Winchester University is prepared for Pastiche’s (the magazine Troy joined) outrageous, and very ill-conceived annual Halloween party’s theme of  "unleash your inner Negro" which added fuel to the fire that was always there and that Samantha had brought some light to. The misunderstanding and resentment among all the people not only in the movie’s college campus but also in the real word and in societies of the past and even today and its most likely going to stick around for a while longer.

And the police are simply the hired enemies of this population. They are present to keep the Negro in his place and to protect white business interests, and they have no other function. They are, moreover—even in a country which makes the very grave error of equating ignorance with simplicity—quite stunningly ignorant; and, since they know that they are hated, they are always afraid. One cannot possibly arrive at a more surefire formula for cruelty.

This is why those pious calls to ‘respect the law,’ always to be heard from prominent citizens each time the ghetto explodes, are so obscene. The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer. To respect the law, in the context in which the American Negro finds himself, is simply to surrender his self-respect.
—  James Baldwin

Omnic raceplay is the worst thing ever said, more horrible than Snowbunny Zarya, and I forgot which one of you negros said it first so you’re safe…for now…

IF YOU NOT BLACK DONT SAY NIGGA

Idk why I have to keep explaining this to people over and over again. The word ‘nigga’ is derived from the Spanish word ‘negro’ which means black. During the colonial times the European Spaniards established a hierarchy (las casta) that degraded POC given the simple fact race was ranked and respect was given in levels, since equality is entirely based of fairness I think it’s clear to see why a race classification syetem is deemed so oppressive.

The top of the list was white, black the bottum. The whiter you where the more repsect you where given. Never the less the word ‘negro’ (NE-GE-ro) was used to degrade black people, Negro was our label on the hierarchy. This system was basically the foundation of colorism/racism/discrimination in North America syatamaticaly opressiong everyone who isn’t white. Whiteness becomes a social cosntruct and blackness left unacceptable. We grow up believing black is not successful, attractive, or even human. You treat black unjustly and confuse it with proper treatment because this hierarchy is subliminaly embedded in each passing genration intututionlizing anti-blackness creating yes in fact opression. Key with here: OPPRESSION. Black people are oppressed, and just like Naruto you better believe it. The subliminal animosity developed for black unknowingly drives us to act discriminatory.

The word nigga is a declaration of racism. Using it circumstantially means you openly accept the your place in the system, you are accepting opression. The use of the over by non-black POC is an actin dominacy because they are above you in the system the fact that they can use the word agaist you means they shouldn’t say it at all. It means they’re using there privilege, then only way to be equal is to make that privilege non existent.

Moral of this rant:
IF YOU NOT BLACK DONT SAY NIGGA!

“EVERY NEGRO in the South knows that he is under a kind of sentence of death; he does not know when his turn will come, it may never come, but it may also be at any time.” – John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town, 1937

“The researcher cannot always be sure that the book he starts to write is the one it will be given him to finish. My original plan was to study the Negroes in the South, to get a few life histories, and to learn something about the manner in which the Negro person grows up. It was far from my wish to make a study of a community, to consider the intricate problem of the cultural heritage of the Negro, or to deal with the emotional structure of a specific small town in the deep South.” Written in 1937.

Identity of the African Diaspora: An Evolution of Identifying Terms

The terms used to describe members of the African Diaspora have evolved throughout the last couple of centuries. Identities have taken shape often based on the region in which African descendants currently live. The majority of people, who used to be categorized solely as ‘black’, are in search of a term which identifies them as people who are part of a larger culture and not one that necessarily reflects their race and skin color. 

The modern debate over an identifying name took shape during the African slave trade when the first Africans were shipped to the Americas and the Caribbean. The vast majority of Africans wanted to be referred to as African. However the non-African population referred to Africans either as slaves or free. Thus began the reference to people as an adjective and not a noun. Soon Africans and African descendants rejected the term 'African’ because a negative connotation evolved through the ideas of European descendants. 'African’ came to symbolize a sub-human identity because Africans were seen as 'barbaric’ and 'ape-like’. With the end of the nineteenth century, adjectives started to transform into nouns as identifying terms for African descendants. The term 'Colored’ became customary when describing all people who were 'non-white’. However this was replaced with the term 'Negro’ in the early twentieth century due to the fact that segregation was on a rise and signs above public facilities appeared all over the United States indicating which facility could be used by the 'Colored’ or by the 'Whites’. Segregation fueled racism and the terms, 'Colored’ and 'Negro’, were perceived as racist by the time of the 1950s and 60s’ Civil Rights Movement. Currently the only acceptable use of the term 'Colored’ is in the organizational title of the NAACP (the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). 

In the 1960s many African Americans were rediscovering their African roots. Hairstyles such as the Afro were becoming popular and slogans such as 'Black is Beautiful’ were chanted by many. “Say It Loud: I’m Black and I’m Proud”, was a song by James Brown which demonstrated the rise of 'Black Pride’ in the 1960s. With this rise of Black awareness, the distinction on who was 'Black’ changed. Although 'Black’ still referred to the color of one’s skin, now it referred only to African descendants and no longer encompassed dark-skinned individuals such as Italians or Mexicans. However, this remained problematic because it referred to anyone originating from African descendants, such as people from the Caribbean, even though these possessed a highly distinct culture. Not all African descendants welcomed the surfacing of the term 'Black’ because they felt it was similar to the term 'Negro’ which was now seen as a racist term. But for the most part many accepted the term 'Black’ and it is still considered acceptable in the USA and other parts of the world today. 

The term 'Afro-American’ developed during the rise of hyphenated terms to describe American minority groups in the 1970s and 1980s. Soon the term evolved into 'African-American’ and finally into 'African American’ with it losing the hyphen. The hyphen was removed because many believed that it implied a sub-category. 'African American’ was adopted quickly by many because many African descendants in the USA did not identify themselves as 'Black’. However, this terminology does not satisfy everyone because many also believe that there is nothing African about them. It is now widely accepted as the politically correct terminology for Americans of African descendant although it is understood that one term cannot contain all the information required to accurately represent a population of over forty million people. 

Today, members of the African Diaspora associate themselves with Africa through the terms with which they identify. Many African descendants believe that the usage of 'African’ when being identified is a way of circling back to their roots of Africa which carried a stigma for a long time. When polled by the online Village forum associated with the Blacknet website, 40% of African descendants living in Great Britain wished to be called African British while almost half that number, 24%, wished to be called Black. Many believe that the English language has oppressed African people by constantly using adjectives instead of nouns when referring to an ethnic group. With the desire to be recognized and connected with their heritage and not described according to their skin color, many prefer the reference to Africa when identifying them. 

Afro-Latinos acknowledge their black identity but do not accept it as a means of identification. Although many people would expect Afro-Dominicans to share the same level of identification with blackness as African Americans do, many Afro-Dominicans believe that being black places them into the same social category which African Americans associate with racism and discrimination. Afro-Latinos in the USA also do not identify with the African Americans. For many Afro-Latinos, African American means that someone is born in the USA with African ancestry and not Hispanic heritage. However, the longer an Afro-Latino remains in the USA, the more likely he/she will identify him/herself as being black just like the African American. 

These diversities and complexities pertinent to members of the African Diaspora make it difficult to claim a common identity. Although many share broad similarities, African descendants do not believe these similarities are enough to associate all under the same umbrella. Every region of the world that African descendants live in has unique aspects for understanding the logic behind the terminology desired by them. History, culture, and political institutions have all been factors which have shaped racial identities throughout the world.

descendants-of-brown-royalty.tumblr.com/archive

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.’ Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: 'All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.’ Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

—  Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”

P h i l i p p i n e  M y t h o l o g y  S e r i e s x | 
L a o n , Goddess of Agriculture, Harvests, & Mt. Kanlaon.

In the Bisayas, one of the most worshiped and revered diwata was the Goddess Laon who resided on Mt. Kanlaon, a dormant volcano on the island of Buglas, which today is called Negros due to the colonization of the island by the Spaniards. She is also the most recorded in depth in the early Spanish accounts.

She is known by many names throughout the ethnic groups in the Bisayas such as Kanlaon, Malaon, Lalahon, Raom, Laon Sina, & Alunsina and was known as a supreme deity for most groups. Agriculture was and still is relevant among the Bisayans, thus it’s no wonder why one of their most important deities was a goddess of agriculture and harvest. The people would invoke her for a good harvest, giving her offerings and prayers for fear of her fiery wrath if disrespected. Though they loved her, she was also to be feared as she had the power to destroy their crops, their livelihood, by sending a swarm of locusts to feast on their main source of food.

She is known as the “creator of all things” and as “the one who disposes everything and renders everything equal” based on another name she was called by some groups such as the Bisayans of Ibabao, known as Makapatag. From this she was equated to the equality of the divine justice. 

Why I Won’t Vote

By W.E.B. DuBois, The Nation, 20 October 1956

On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivers this eloquent indictment of US politics while explaining to Nation readers why he won’t vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care.

Since I was twenty-one in 1889, I have in theory followed the voting plan strongly advocated by Sidney Lens in The Nation of August 4, i.e., voting for a third party even when its chances were hopeless, if the main parties were unsatisfactory; or, in absence of a third choice, voting for the lesser of two evils. My action, however, had to be limited by the candidates’ attitude toward Negroes. Of my adult life, I have spent twenty-three years living and teaching in the South, where my voting choice was not asked. I was disfranchised by law or administration. In the North I lived in all thirty-two years, covering eight Presidential elections. In 1912 I wanted to support Theodore Roosevelt, but his Bull Moose convention dodged the Negro problem and I tried to help elect Wilson as a liberal Southerner. Under Wilson came the worst attempt at Jim Crow legislation and discrimination in civil service that we had experienced since the Civil War. In 1916 I took Hughes as the lesser of two evils. He promised Negroes nothing and kept his word. In 1920, I supported Harding because of his promise to liberate Haiti. In 1924, I voted for La Follette, although I knew he could not be elected. In 1928, Negroes faced absolute dilemma. Neither Hoover nor Smith wanted the Negro vote and both publicly insulted us. I voted for Norman Thomas and the Socialists, although the Socialists had attempted to Jim Crow Negro members in the South. In 1932 I voted for Franklin Roosevelt, since Hoover was unthinkable and Roosevelt’s attitude toward workers most realistic. I was again in the South from 1934 until 1944. Technically I could vote, but the election in which I could vote was a farce. The real election was the White Primary.

Retired “for age” in 1944, I returned to the North and found a party to my liking. In 1948, I voted the Progressive ticket for Henry Wallace and in 1952 for Vincent Hallinan.

In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no “two evils” exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. On the Presidential ballot in a few states (seventeen in 1952), a “Socialist” Party will appear. Few will hear its appeal because it will have almost no opportunity to take part in the campaign and explain its platform. If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by “force and violence.” Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called “Communist” and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.’s and “Liberals” are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

The present Administration is carrying on the greatest preparation for war in the history of mankind. Stevenson promises to maintain or increase this effort. The weight of our taxation is unbearable and rests mainly and deliberately on the poor. This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing. Our crime, especially juvenile crime, is increasing. Its increase is perfectly logical; for a generation we have been teaching our youth to kill, destroy, steal and rape in war; what can we expect in peace? We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is “legal” we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is “illegal” the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.

The “other” party has surrendered all party differences in foreign affairs, and foreign affairs are our most important affairs today and take most of our taxes. Even in domestic affairs how does Stevenson differ from Eisenhower? He uses better English than Dulles, thank God! He has a sly humor, where Eisenhower has none. Beyond this Stevenson stands on the race question in the South not far from where his godfather Adlai stood sixty-three years ago, which reconciles him to the South. He has no clear policy on war or preparation for war; on water and flood control; on reduction of taxation; on the welfare state. He wavers on civil rights and his party blocked civil rights in the Senate until Douglas of Illinois admitted that the Democratic Senate would and could stop even the right of Senators to vote. Douglas had a right to complain. Three million voters sent him to the Senate to speak for them. His voice was drowned and his vote nullified by Eastland, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was elected by 151,000 voters. This is the democracy in the United States which we peddle abroad.

Negroes hope to muster 400,000 votes in 1956. Where will they cast them? What have the Republicans done to enforce the education decision of the Supreme Court? What they advertised as fair employment was exactly nothing, and Nixon was just the man to explain it. What has the Administration done to rescue Negro workers, the most impoverished group in the nation, half of whom receive less than half the median wage of the nation, while the nation sends billions abroad to protect oil investments and help employ slave labor in the Union of South Africa and the Rhodesias? Very well, and will the party of Talmadge, Eastland and Ellender do better than the Republicans if the Negroes return them to office?

I have no advice for others in this election. Are you voting Democratic? Well and good; all I ask is why? Are you voting for Eisenhower and his smooth team of bright ghost writers? Again, why? Will your helpless vote either way support or restore democracy to America?

Is the refusal to vote in this phony election a counsel of despair? No, it is dogged hope. It is hope that if twenty-five million voters refrain from voting in 1956 because of their own accord and not because of a sly wink from Khrushchev, this might make the American people ask how much longer this dumb farce can proceed without even a whimper of protest. Yet if we protest, off the nation goes to Russia and China. Fifty-five American ministers and philanthropists are asking the Soviet Union “to face manfully the doubts and promptings of their conscience.” Can not these do-gooders face their own consciences? Can they not see that American culture is rotting away: our honesty, our human sympathy; our literature, save what we import from abroad? Our only “review” of literature has wisely dropped “literature” from its name. Our manners are gone and the one thing we want is to be rich–to show off. Success is measured by income. University education is for income, not culture, and is partially supported by private industry. We are not training poets or musicians, but atomic engineers. Business is built on successful lying called advertising. We want money in vast amount, no matter how we get it. So we have it, and what then?

Is the answer the election of 1956? We can make a sick man President and set him to a job which would strain a man in robust health. So he dies, and what do we get to lead us? With Stevenson and Nixon, with Eisenhower and Eastland, we remain in the same mess. I will be no party to it and that will make little difference. You will take large part and bravely march to the polls, and that also will make no difference. Stop running Russia and giving Chinese advice when we cannot rule ourselves decently. Stop yelling about a democracy we do not have. Democracy is dead in the United States. Yet there is still nothing to replace real democracy. Drop the chains, then, that bind our brains. Drive the money-changers from the seats of the Cabinet and the halls of Congress. Call back some faint spirit of Jefferson and Lincoln,and when again we can hold a fair election on real issues, let’s vote, and not till then. Is this impossible? Then democracy in America is impossible.

All of the physical characteristics of the Negro which had caused me, in America, a very different and almost forgotten pain were nothing less than miraculous - or infernal - in the eyes of the village people. Some thought my hair was the color of tar, that it had the texture of wire, or the texture of cotton. It was jocularly suggested that I might let it all grow long and make myself a winter coat. If I sat in the sun for more than five minutes some daring creature was certain to come along and gingerly put his fingers on my hair, as though he were afraid of an electric shock, or put his hand on my hand, astonished that the color did not rub off. In all of this, in which it must be conceded there was the charm of genuine wonder and in which there was certainly no element of intentional unkindness, there was yet no suggestion that I was human: I was simply a living wonder.
[…] I thought of white men arriving for the first time in an African village, strangers there, as I am a stranger here, and tried to imagine the astounded populace touching their hair and marveling at the color of their skin. But there is a great difference between being the first white man to be seen by Africans and being the first black man to be seen by whites. The white man takes the astonishment as tribute, for he arrives to conquer and to convert the natives, whose inferiority in relation to himself is not even to be questioned; whereas I, without a thought of conquest, find myself among a people whose culture controls me, has even, in a sense, created me, people who have cost me more in anguish and rage than they will ever know, who yet do not even know of my existence. The astonishment with which I might have greeted them, should they have stumbled into my African village a few hundred years ago, might have rejoiced their hearts. But the astonishment with which they greet me today can only poison mine.
— 

“Stranger in the Village” (Notes of a Native Son), James Baldwin.

Baldwin on visiting a small Swiss village and discovering that its inhabitants had never seen a black person before.

I don’t think whites understand the degree to which Negroes do not want their whiteness. I am trying to suggest that the negro is striving to be equal to a particular image of himself that he has achieved. He is not trying to become equal to whites.
—  Grace Lee Boggs to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in 1963 as cited in the film American Revolutionary  http://video.pbs.org/video/2365279681/

“The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”


Dear Black Tumblr,

listen to the King.

anonymous asked:

Fantasy; I have a black character that likes to sing and, in the book, he's introduced while singing as he walks along because it allowed some nice showing of how cold it was and I know how stereotypes work and I looked through everything but I was wondering if it was harmful, or could be harmful? (The song he sings is a bit foreshadowing)

Sing-Songy Black Man, Avoiding Magical Negro Stereotypes

Najela and Brei (kinda) jokingly say to this: “as long as he isn’t tap dancing… or shucking/jiving or singing any stereotypical Black spirituals like “wading in the water.”

Even without the magic, this could easily classify him as a variation of the Magical Negro which you could read up on in our tag.

Point being, even if this character is depicted as light-hearted and likes to sing (which is fine!) make sure you respect him as a character and make him multifaceted. I wouldn’t make him statically happy-go-lucky and certainly wouldn’t make his sole purpose to encourage everyone else while, characterization-wise, he stays in the shadow, conveniently there only to cheer others on or provide information. 

In summary, i’d encourage you to give him depth and a range of emotions, making him a fully-realized character that’s not a token, and his existence in the story more than a means to foreshadow.

~Mod Colette

Slave Narratives- In Original Context- Interview With Mr Gus Brown- Birmingham, Alabama -A Folk History of Slavery in the United States From Interviews with Former Slaves: Volume I, Alabama Narratives SPONSORED BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. Author: Work Projects Administration

“They is all gone, scattered, and old massa and missus have died.” That was the sequence of the tragic tale of “Uncle” Gus Brown, the body servant of William Brown; who fought beside him in the War between the States and who knew Stonewall Jackson.

“Uncle Gus” recalled happenings on the old plantation where he was reared. His master was a “king” man, he said, on whose plantation in Richmond, Virginia, Uncle Gus waited on the tables at large feasts and functions of the spacious days before the War. He was entrusted to go with the master’s boys down to the old swimming hole and go in “washin.” They would take off their clothes, hide them in the bushes on the side of the bank, put a big plank by the side of the old water hole and go in diving, swimming and have all the fun that youngsters would want, he said.

Apparently his master’s home was a plantation house with large columns and with all the glitter and glamour that the homes around Richmond have to offer. About it were large grain storage places for the master was a grain dealer and men on the plantation produced and ground large quantities into flour. Gus worked around the house, and he remembers well the corn shuckings as he called them on which occasions the Negroes gave vent to emotion in the form of dancing and music. “On those occasions we all got together and had a regular good time,” he said.

“Uncle,” he was asked, “do you remember any of the old superstitions on the plantation? Did they have any black cat stories?" "No sir, boss, we was educated Negroes on our plantation. The old bossman taught his Negroes not to believe in that sort of thing. "I well remember when de war came. Old massa had told his folks befo’ de war began dat it was comin’, so we was ready for it.

"Beforehand the master called all the servants he could trust and told them to get together all of the silver and other things of value. They did that, he explained and afterward they took the big box of treasures and carried it out in the forest and hid it under the trunk of a tree which was marked. None of the Negroes ever told the Yankees where it was so when the war ended the master had his silver back. Of course the war left him without some of the things which he used to have but he never suffered.

"Then de war came and we all went to fight the Yankees. I was a body servant to the master, and once a bullet took off his hat. We all thought he was shot but he wasn’t, and I was standin’ by his side all the time.

"I remember Stonewall Jackson. He was a big man with long whiskers, and very brave. We all fought wid him until his death.

"We wan’t beaten, we was starved out! Sometimes we had parched corn to eat and sometimes we didn’t have a bite o’ nothin’, because the Union mens come and tuck all the food for their selves. I can still remember part of my ninety years. I remembers we fought all de way from Virginia and winded up in Manassas Gap. "When time came for freedom most of us was glad. We liked the Yankees. They was good to us. ‘You is all now free. You can stay on the plantation or you can go.’ We all stayed there until old massa died. Den I worked on de Seaboard Airline when it come to Birmingham. I have been here ever since.

"In all de years since de war I cannot forget old massa. He was good and kind. He never believed in slavery but his money was tied up in slaves and he didn’t want to lose all he had.

"I knows I will see him in heaven and even though I have to walk ten miles for a bite of bread I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then. I am a Confederate veteran but my house burned up wid de medals and I don’t get a pension.

"Thank you, mister bossman, fer the quarter. It will buy me a little grub. I'se too old to work but I has to.”

The reporter left him sitting with his little pack and a long fork in his hands; in his eyes, dimmed with age, a far-off look and a tear of longing for the Old Plantation.

PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ***Illustrated with Photographs WASHINGTON 1941