“There was a war. You lost.”

There are undoubtedly megabytes of text data out there in the Internet recording self-described “black” and “white” people debating “the race issue.” The recent Blog posts by the Undercover Black man, “UBM—The Early Days” and “UBM—The Early Days (cont.),” remind me of these debates. Having spent years of my life—from my late teens to my thirties—watching this debate, when the “white side” plays fair, the only thing remotely legitimate they have to say is, “There was a war. You lost.”

Buy this DVD at Amazon.com!This comment usually ends the so-called debate. Any other talk afterward is mostly emotional waste. This invocation of the “sanctity” of war is extremely potent for those who do not dare question the legitimacy of warfare. It is very hard for a warlike Black man to respond to this white statement without his dreams of black empire and organized black violence. By respecting this statement as “masculine truth,” the Black man has fallen into the psychological framework that is the foundation of whiteness. As long as this legitimacy stands, Africa will always have guns in the hands of so-called “real men.” The irony is that these “real men” are too often children.

In the first world countries, beginning with the United States, guns are put in the hands of children through profitable video-game rituals and electric church services at the altar of the Hollywood aesthetic. The first-world media, led by Hollywood, literally spends billions of dollars daily to make young boys and girls assume that war is natural. Since this is a Blog post on the Internet and not yet another academic book about African history, let me (yet again) make statements without qualification. Statement number one:

War is not natural. War is imperial.

Buy this DVD at Amazon.com!Any desire for me to “prove” this statement is a waste of my time and betrays ignorance of scholars like Howard Zinn. In fact, my running around “proving” shit can be regarded as falling for a military tactic designed to waste my resources for the sake of a pyrrhic victory in a sadly ironic war against war. It is more efficient to make a few statements and then leave the room:

So I wish I could go back to keeping it real but now that I am unable to wish I can’t go back—and, out here, it’s not that fun… it’s not that easy… where’s all the cute women? “There was a war. You lost.”…To step off the master’s real estate, his plantation, and into “the wild” is a truly terrifying experience. It has been (and will be) a terrifying experience for me. So keeping it real is safe—but not “environmentally sustainable.” Plush safe he think.

Comments

Ed, 2007-06-23 13:05:04

Bryan, you are dead on about one having to run around a prove a point - it is a military tactic design to waste an opponent resources. This is a popular strategy during modern political campaign John Kerry failed to address. The GOP attack him from all directions from him being a coward in Vietnam to him flopping about the authorizing Bush to start the Iraq War. He never gave Bush this same heat, but sat there looking "dignified" and he lost. Today, it is about manipulating Wikipedia, forcing the opponent to spend time address baseless comments instead of dealing with the real battle at hand.

No one won a race war. Any person who say "Whites won, Black lost" did not participate in the battle and talking from the sidelines. Everybody is guaranteed to grow old and die - what is really there to win?

rasx()