Tag Archives: Tariq Nasheed

When tofu-dashikiists attack

I recently got 6 comments from a misogynistic black nationalist scumbag, who was attempting to “put me in my place” or “tell me a thing or two” in response primarily to my criticism of Umar Johnson and his plans to develop a residential academy for boys. But Kwame, the scumbag, illustrates exactly what I have said about black patriarchy and racialized misogyny, particularly among many so-called Afrocentrics. In a previous blog I wrote about the similarities between reactionary black nationalists and white supremacists. Among many of the similarities is the way that they both view black women. Because white women are the standard of femininity per white supremacy, black women are not regarded as feminine from the outset. Black women are viewed by white supremacy as masculine because they do not meet the racist standards of western beauty. Black women were also never fully viewed as feminine because of work. Black women as slaves had to work rather than maintain homes and children, leading of various stereotypes of emasculating black women- as work outside the home is viewed as a masculine role. A lot of resentment and tension around black women pursuing higher education, working outside of the home, using public assistance to provide for their families (something men are supposed to do per patriarchy), remains to this day, even when it is evident that racist policies limit the economic opportunities of black people- that impair the economic success of black men. But for these men it isn’t just success that they long to achieve but dominance. They want to dominate their homes and families like the white supremacist patriarchs whose power they covet. Sharing in a similar type of nostalgia to that of their white supremacist counterparts, black nationalists believe in an idealized “Afrikan” past where women served men and “knew their place”. This is why typical so-called Afrocentrics regard black women as race traitors for not submitting to patriarchal authority. They typically will accuse black women who question their agenda as “having the white man’s mind” simply for not being gullible enough to believe everything that they say as gospel. It is clear when I see comments like this:

Comment 2Here is the text re-written below for those that have trouble viewing the image with my comments in red.

“Don’t call yourself part with me [I am pretty sure I covered that when I said, “All skinfolk ain’t kinfolk.”], you trying to stop a brother from opening a school for Black men [I’m pretty sure I didn’t try to stop him, I’m pretty sure I just offered my opinion on why Umar Johnson opening a school was a bad idea.], because they are against, this unnatural bullshit [Except that homosexuality is not, in fact, unnatural.], and they won’t educate our kids to be like you, a cog in the white mans wheel [yawn], I’ll bet you either lesbian or married to a white-man [Actually, neither. Not that being in either category would be a bad thing.], and if you are, stat the fuck outta our business, this is why men are mysoginst, because when you women get educated, you always take on your masters mind [1. it is spelled Misogyny 2. That is not why you are a misogynist. You are a misogynist because you hate women.], and bring this garbage to us, you make me began to hate all you under 40 black feminazis [Because fighting for gender equality is the same as marching on Poland.]

brothers, we need to learn another language [Or you could try mastering English first.], and become a new people, and separate ourselves, not only from these amerikkkan loving, ex-women [See what I mean about Afrocentrics and White Supremacists and how they view black women?] , we’ll call ourselves whatever, and these things, can remain afri-can amerikkkan, or whatever they call themselves, we are not the same, It us e like the Arab or the Jew, and separate ourselves, these women are now foreigners, Philistines, they are less than human to us, the enemy in campment, a roach even.”

 

Notice the dehumanizing language. There can be no true equality found among typical so-called Afrocentrics. They don’t want freedom and equality, they just want to exchange places with white supremacist patriarchs with the power to oppress others. This is clear in the way that Afrocentrics narrowly define manhood, womanhood, and blackness. This is why ideologies such as those expressed by people like Umar Johnson, Tariq Nasheed, and other are so toxic. These men cannot free us!!!! They cannot help us. And they cannot help our community because they are not interested in uplifting all of  us. And their ideology encourages abusive and even violent behavior even if they themselves do not do so explicitly. I am sad to say these are the kind of men that some folks think should be educating black children. I think not.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

“All my skinfolk ain’t kinfolk.”: The need to approach black patriarchal male leadership skeptically

Charing Ball recently wrote an excellent article for Madame Noire, where she discusses the latest shenanigans of Dr. Umar Johnson, a favorite in many afrocentric/ black nationalist/ Pan-Africanist circles. Johnson is currently seeking donations to buy St. Paul’s College a former HBCU that closed June 30, 2013. Johnson is proposing to buy the property for $5 million dollars and to start the Frederick Douglass Marcus Garvey  RGB International Leadership Academy. Charing Ball aptly lays out many reasons why this is problematic. She discusses his homophobia and his misogyny which can be seen in many of the videos of lectures and interviews he has given online. Throughout his work are bizarre conspiracy theories about homosexuality as plot by white supremacists to destroy or depopulate the black community and a host of other pseudo-scientific views. He is also a misogynist who blames black women for psychologically damaging their sons and making them gay. He is also featured in the Hidden Colors series, directed by fellow pseudo-historian Tariq Nasheed. I shudder to think what hateful men this school would turn out, when its founders ideologies label black women and black gays and lesbians as race traitors or potential enemies of the black community.

But another one of the big issues with his proposal is his lack of a business plan. Johnson proposes to purchase the campus for $5 million but there is no discussion of the annual cost of running or maintaining the campus. Or what tuition may cost to families who are daft enough to send their children to be influenced by this man. Not to mention that this would be a pretty ostentatious move for anyone to make, but particularly when they haven’t even opened or operated a school themselves. There is absolutely no indication from his previous endeavors that he is capable of running a food truck, let alone an 11-building 185 acre college campus.  Doesn’t seem to be a good start for a school, the aims of which are to teach students how to be  self-employed and entrepreneurial, does it?

Johnson has also opted for a few of the least transparent ways to fund raise in the digital age utilizing donations from PayPal and snail  mail. The lack of transparency, his dubious credentials, and his hateful views should be more than enough to give one pause. It has been interesting especially to see people I know who are apt to regard church finances skeptically due to a lack of transparency and follow through, expressing enthusiasm over the mere two and a half minute video of Johnson requesting donations. It reminds me of the film When Cotton Comes to Harlem, adapted from the novel by Chester Himes. In it Reverend Deke O’Malley presents himself as a Marcus Garvey like figure, raising funds for a ship line to transport black people in America to Africa. It doesn’t take long before it is revealed that O’Malley is running a scam. The film is pretty entertaining but what it impressed upon me as a child is that not everyone who claims to represent or work towards the betterment of the black community or social justice is doing so. I cannot say with absolutely certainty that this will turn out to be a scam like the one in the film but I think that given the lack of forethought and transparency that it is certainly likely. But, even if Johnson’s plans for the donated funds he is receiving are above board (since I doubt that he will raise the $5 million or be able to maintain the St. Paul’s Campus if he were able to acquire it), there is no way that he can be working to improve the black community while embracing an ideology that casts parts of that community, the same gender loving black men and women, black mothers, etc as race traitors, mentally ill, or otherwise deviant. It is an ideology that he intends to teach to impressionable young children.

The defense of Johnson and reactions to the criticism of Charing Ball is demonstrative of the paranoia and misogyny that seems to be part and parcel of many of these afrocentric/ Pan-Africanist/ black nationalist or what I like to call tofu-dashikiist communities. Merely being a woman questioning the motives or methods of people like Johnson, Tariq Nasheed, and others is enough to get you labeled as a lesbian (as though that is the worst thing you can be) or “negro bed wench”. This is something I have experienced directly on many occasions, including, when I and Kimberly Veal criticized the Hidden Colors series. What does it say about these men, these movements, and their followers, when any question or challenge to their views is met with such vitriol? What does it say that challenges to their world view are not evaluated based on their merits? To me it says that they value ideology above all even the community they are supposed to help.

 

Recommended Reading

https://rhoadestoreality.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/afrocentrism/

https://rhoadestoreality.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/silly-arguments-the-law-of-reproduction/

 

 

Tagged , , ,
%d bloggers like this: