Using Words To Influence Negativity

Over the years, racist politicians...excuse me, I meant white nationalist politicians have used words to negate positive movements and to vilify people. The accusations engendered in these words frequently influence opinions negatively-opinions that are the lifeblood of fairness. The latest of these words or terms are “woke” and “CRT”. The other words are “diversity”, “equity” and “inclusion” but more on that in a later column.

If we go back in time, some of the oldest and most effective “tried-and-true” scary words are “Communist” and “socialist”.

The word “communist” describes a person who believes in a classless system in which everything is supposed to be owned by everybody and there is no private property. Actually, the government, which is supposed to represent the people owns everything. When looked at closely, it becomes obvious that the power and wealth in Communist systems reside not in the government but in government officials and the “common people” are subject to the whims of those government officials. Ideally, this would work well if human nature was not involved. Jealousy, greed and envy always make things worse.

The McCarthy years (the late 1940’s through the mid 1950’s) in the United States ruined many lives and careers with the mere accusation of being communist. If someone believed in and fought for equality, they were branded as communist. In fact, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was accused of being a communist. The great multi-genius, multitalented Pan-Afrikanist, Paul Robeson (one of my heroes) was ruined by the United States government and branded as a communist because he exposed the racist policies and hypocrisies of the government. If it were not for the fact that he was so popular outside the United States, especially in Europe (the United Kingdom and Russia in particular), he would not have been able to make a living, despite his enormous talent (he had been a professional football player, concert bass-baritone soloist, and attorney, actor as well as a Pan-Afrikan activist who literally spoke dozens of languages). He was also popular in other continents and other European countries. Actually, if it were not for the support that he received from these places, and his wife, he would not have survived.

It is very important that we as AUSA (Afrikans from the United States of America) understand that our very existence poses a threat to the white narcissistic pseudo-supremacy that we say that we are so focused on eliminating. How are we a threat? Well, it is complicated. The fact that we are here is a constant reminder that any non-Black person who benefits from “the system” at all, has done so on the backs of our Ancestors and us. This idea of “generational wealth” also has a flip side, which is “generational poverty”. Even those non-Black Americans who are poverty stricken benefit from the notion that “at least you are white”.

Also, the fact that we have not only survived, but have thrived despite all the evil and horrible treatment that has been afflicted upon our Ancestors is scary to those who attempt to victimize us. A lesser people would have perished under all the attacks on our humanity.

Finally, I’m convinced that they must know something about us that we don’t know or fully realize. Otherwise, why would they spend so much time, energy and money trying to keep us down and prevent us (and the world) from knowing who we are and what we have accomplished despite seemingly unsurmountable odds?

We must know and understand the code words that are used against us. The current insane and almost laughable attack on the simple word “woke” is an example. If this attack was not so dangerously and. potentially problematic, it would be hilarious. We have previously discussed the history of that word in our cultural community and have referred any interested people to the writings of Michael Harriot.

Understand that the redistribution of wealth that many of our scholars and “leaders” (including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) advocated is not socialism. It is humanistic fairness. I read an article recently that if the richest fifty Americans gave up half their wealth, they would not be substantially affected negatively. But, the lives of the poorest Americans (more that 50%) would be significantly improved. Why are we so satisfied with a few people having so much and the majority of people not having much at all?

I must admit that this article has been “all over the place” but I have tried to connect some dots and, hopefully, stimulate more critical thinking in those of us who don’t think as critically as we should.

Food for thought.