Your article on the death of poor black child turned football player is only partially correct. While statistics do point to the fact that a black man pulled the trigger and statistics do show that violence between blacks is high you seem to have overlooked a strong point concerning this “black on black violence” or as you said the “Black KKK.” I find the term “black on black” violence to be rather strange. I find it odd that the study of black on black violence even exists and that people try to prove their own little points with those statistics. Let me ask you this? How many times in the US news do you hear the phrase “white on white violence” “Hispanic on Hispanic violence” “Arab on Arab violence”? You don’t, those phrases don’t exist. You might be saying, it’s because they don’t kill each other at the rate we do. My point is this, when you use phrases like “black on black” you single us out as a group saying that our biggest enemy is us, that stats say we can’t turn our backs on one another, that our biggest concern in life isn’t morally based but colour based. Our own people are the ones we should worry about. Such phrases as “black on black violence” are set up as morale killers and are also part of the whole propaganda scheme our people continue to stay in an uproar about.
You, sir, are as guilty as others when it comes to propaganda but yours is quite subtle. It appears to be for racial unity and advancement but when you toss in your stats and your quotes like “Does Soulja Boy want an education?” and “Black KKK” you find yourself guilty of pressing forward the idea that we as a racial group have ourselves to fear and have ourselves to blame for falling behind as an ethic group.
My other concern with your article is this, you said that students back in the 60’s risked their lives to go to school but we can’t get our kids to go now. Shame on you for saying such a thing. What has been handed to them on a silver platter has not been handed to them without conflicting ideas of trust and equality. Changes in the books doesn’t mean trusting that any real changes will come in their life or that they’ll have an equal chance on a leveled playing field. Might I remind you that we as a people have only recently begun to have open freedoms that we don’t lose our life for? For instance, as an ethnic group we were not legally able to vote until 1965. For 42 years we have LEGALLY been able to vote, voting SAFELY didn’t come for years upon years later. My point is that things change on the books but public life and private life changes take much longer. A person can legally be given an opportunity but privately see that opportunity as a threat or a waste of time because its real benefit might be undermined by others. I can vote legally but can I vote safely and equally and have it count, be worth something? Private influences and change on a private level prevents people from accepting silver platter opportunities. This phenomenon of change and acceptance without influence crosses all ethnic boundaries.
Sincerely,
Austin of Sundrip Journals
RECENT COMMENTS