The Apartheid president.

Congrats to The Butler for being the number one movie at the box office this past weekend. As I wrote earlier, it was destined to be a hit. I won't be seeing it, but apparently conservatives have been watching it and they don't like what they see.

"Ronald Reagan biographer Craig Shirley appeared on Fox News Monday afternoon to criticize Lee Daniels’ The Butler an Oprah Winfrey-produced biopic of the White House butler who served under numerous presidents, a film that is drawing heat from conservatives over its portrayal of Reagan.

Most objectionable to Shirley and others is the film’s take on Reagan’s refusal to sanction South Africa over Apartheid. “It’s a very complex issue, and it was presented in a very simplistic fashion,” Shirley said. “It’s accurate to the extent that Reagan opposed the sanctions, but not accurate as to why he opposed the sanctions.”

Shirley argued that Reagan was constrained by Cold War politics". [Source]

This is classic conservative speak. Rather than acknowledge that they were on the wrong side of history; they try to rewrite it.

Seriously, what could have been so "complex" about Apartheid? Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the conservative movement, is the same guy who chose Philadelphia, Mississippi- a place where three civil rights activists were murdered- to give a speech on states rights, disparaged America's greatest African American hero, and tried to appeal to bigots in his base when he tried to paint African American women as "welfare Queens."

Nope, there was nothing "complex" about Apartheid. It was a racist policy("state sanctioned segregation") put in place by a racist government to hold down blacks in that country. Reagan knew that and he supported it. It's really that simple.

Finally, there is sad story out of Oklahoma. Three young thugs shot some poor dude from Australia to death just for fun and because they could. In case you Aussies didn't know, that's how we roll here in A-murder-ca. It's all about the guns.

There were a couple of killings last night in Philly as well, and three more in a little town 20 minutes from here called Chester. Just another typical summer night in Killadelphia.

Conservative radio and wingnuts in general are playing up the racial angle of the killing in Oklahoma, and there are even calls to label it a hate crime. Some idiot named Mike Gallagher was ranting on the radio about a white march for justice and a movement led by white people for this Aussie baseball player like there was for Trayvon Martin.

Not quite. Maybe, like Zimmerman, they thought that they could just kill someone and get away with it. But, unlike Zimmerman, they were all immediately arrested ---as they should have been--- and will be tried as adults for their alleged crime.

But still, I will be willing to march for justice with my white brothers and sisters, as long as we march against the NRA and their enablers as well.  

  

"Whitosphere vs. Blackosphere"

I want to post about something I saw over at My DD ,a progressive net roots web site whose primary focus seems to be the advancement of democratic party candidates.

 Now in the spirit of true disclosure, I have to say that I have posted on My DD from time to time, and I even link the site here on my own blog.

 But an African American blogger raised some very good points while posting over there about the lack of links to black bloggers on many of these so called progressive white sites, and the lack of black participation ( I think he said 2%) on the white web sites. So I thought that it was worth talking about. Now this brother-I think his name is Francis Holland- seems to have a (excuse this reference ladies) "hard on" for the people at Daily Kos (who apparently banned him from their site) and My DD. So I understand that there is an element of sour- grapes with his position. Still, he raised some interesting points, and this is a subject worth discussing among people of all colors on the Internet.

I understand that this is a touchy subject for many progressives, because 90% of the time blacks and liberal white progressives see eye to eye on many core issues and causes. But what about the huge elephant in the room? Yes, that one; race. I guess we have to ask ourselves: do we have to get along on the racial issues in order to come together and promote issues that we all care about? Can we practice a form of "blogger apartheid" -as Mr. Holland refers to it- on the net, yet come together around certain issues and politicians who we all support? Honestly, I am not sure I know the answer to that. I thought some of the responses the brother got to his post was really interesting. Some of the commentators were upset that he would inject race into such a "color blind" forum as the Internet. Yeah right, when was the Internet ever color blind? Give me a fu****g break! The Internet is no more color blind than any other aspect of society. (Like when I post as the field-negro folks don't know that I am black.) So that's a bogus argument, and it's the type of hypocritical argument on racial matters which absolutely drives me crazy. I saw where my man from My DD was defending Markos over at Daily Kos and declaring that "he is not a racist".  First, how the f**k does he know this? Because they are kindred spirits on matters of politics? I don't think so!

Now I thought  that Jill Tubman had the best answers and most thoughtful response to Mr. Holland's concerns, because she put the entire debate in its proper context: "White progressives address politics more directly whereas black bloggers are addressing it indirectly, as it affects us more as a community." I co-sign with her on that. If you read most black blogs we address political and social issues as they affect us as a community and not society as a whole. So maybe we can never really become truly as one with our white ideological soul-mates on the webs because our interests when it comes to day to day issues are so diverse.

Mr. Holland seems to be screaming for more black inclusion in the Whitosphere, and more black links to sites like Daily Kos and My DD, etc. This is where my man and I tend to part company. I personally could give a f**k whether My DD or Daily Kos-- or any of the other so called white progressive blogs-- link me or even include me in their discussion. Honestly, their issues aren't my issues. I know they have very strong political beliefs and are tied to the democratic party and its leaders; but not me, and this is going to surprise some people. But I would just as soon vote for a republican over a democrat if I thought that he/she had my people's best interest at heart. So I really don't give a f**k which party a particular politician belongs to. The reason I happen to despise most republicans is that they just happen to be the most f****d up when it comes to matters of race. But don't get it twisted;  a lot of democrats are just as f****d up when it comes to this issue. And I will never walk lock step with any one party. NEVER! This is what separates me from the Daily Kos and My DD crowd, and what I think ultimately might separate me from people who are crying for inclusion.

Call me a separatist, but I am more proud to be linked to sites like Skeptical Brotha, Freeslave, and Mirror On America than to the more popular progressive white sites like Kos, My DD, and their ilk. And, for the record, I have links to white sites on my blog as well. -My man konagod and the aforementioned My DD comes to mind- so maybe I am not such a separatist after all.

I am glad Mr. Holland raised this subject, as it needed to be addressed. But my position on this is pretty clear, although I understand the opposite school of thought: We should try to learn about each other and from a political standpoint, it benefits the democratic party to get  feed- back from its most reliable constituents.

But you can't force inclusion on people, I don't care how progressive they claim to be. We have given up on the republicans because we realize that they have given up on us. Maybe we should take that position with the democrats as well.