Activist dredged up ‘family secret’ of plantation myth

Activist dredged up ‘family secret’ of plantation myth

By Heather Bolejack

October 29, 2002

Actor, singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte dredged up a centuries-old “family secret” for the world to hear when he likened Secretary of State Colin Powell to a plantation “house slave” who curries the favor of his master.

He made the comment during an Oct. 9 talk show interview with KFMB in San Diego.

In a follow-up interview with Larry King, Belafonte clarified that he was not intending to label Powell as an “Uncle Tom” with the comparisons to slavery. Belafonte, however, reiterated that there are “those who sit in the service of the house and those who sit in the service of those who languish on the plantation.”

Belafonte noted several times in his interview with King that he has dedicated himself to the service of the disenfranchised and impoverished peoples and has traveled the world to personally witness their suffering.

In order to truly serve those who “languish on the plantation,” must one stoop to pick the cotton and bloody his hands alongside those in the field every day, or can one be of equal service to his people “in the house”?

While shocking to the nation, Belafonte’s comments unearth the longstanding debate in the African-American community rooted in the plantation myth that the field slave was the rebel and the house slave the collaborator with the evil master. Like many arguments perpetuated over time, we often forget how the infighting began.

First of all, many house slaves were selected simply because they were the lighter-skinned blacks on the plantation, usually the result of the master’s “relationships” with slave women. The master’s system was calculated and mentally cruel. By separating light-skinned and darker-skinned blacks on the plantation and bestowing different privileges based on status, the master could divide and conquer and perpetuate racial self-hatred and division. With division, the slaves would never rally as one cohesive group to usurp the tyranny of the master.

Let’s wake up! The plantation divide among African Americans is alive and well. We perpetuate it today without the powerful persuasion of the master’s whip on our backs.

Belafonte has exhibited the very plantation mentality he decries by perpetuating this age-old, divisive stereotype with the eyes of the world watching. He continues to belittle Powell simply because he does not subscribe to the view that all African Americans should share one voice, one view, one spokesperson and one political party.

Is Belafonte mad because Powell is “selling out” and “stepping and fetching,” or just mad that Powell isn’t stepping and fetching for Belafonte’s party of choice?

It is disheartening when I hear African Americans attack others of their race who have achieved the highest distinctions in their fields with such vitriol as “sell-out,” “Uncle Tom,” “house slave” and “wannabe.” On the shoulders of those who fought for civil rights, we are able to go forward serving others in the boardroom and elected office, on the stage, in the studio, on the factory line, in our homes, churches and schools. Why then do some blacks cry out that you are not “keepin’ it real” if you do not continue to somehow toil in the field?

The man or woman who wears the business suit is no less socially conscious than the brotha’ or sista’ wearing the dashiki. Harry Belafonte is a man of wealth, privilege and power. When he returns from trips to impoverished nations of the world, he does not return to a home located in what he referred to as “America’s plantations” in South-Central Los Angeles or Watts.

The fact that he returns to a life of status in no way undermines his activism. We should set high expectations for ourselves as African Americans and challenge each other in a healthy way to be better, for being average will never be enough as we compete for the same opportunities as whites.

I say “thank God” we have African Americans serving in the house, and in the field if that is what we still wish to call it.

If everyone would stop the infighting the master devised centuries ago, we would notice that if we are working in the field and in the house, we run the plantation.

Bolejack is an Indianapolis attorney.

Copyright 2002 The Indianapolis Star

ROSA PARKS DIES!

Rosa Parks Dies!
By El-Veasey
Copyright 2005 El-Veasey Publishing Inc

Civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks died, Monday 10-24-2005, leaving behind a legacy that will probably never die. Fifty years ago Parks made history when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger in the black section of the bus she was riding on. I don’t know if she was aware that she was making history at that moment, but that’s how watershed moments are made: in a decisive moment that changing one’s life forever and in this case American civil rights history forever as well.

That one simple act that any black person could have done but didn’t do, was the spark that the budding civil rights movement needed to shift it into full gear, and to be a rallying point, for activists like Martin Luther King and others to focus there energies on and use as a spearhead against that barrier of American apartheid: Jim Crow laws and enforced racial segregation.

Parks said in 1992 that contrary to popular belief the real reason she refused to give up her seat was because she felt she had the right to be treated with the same respect as white passengers and that black people had endured mistreatment to long. That act triggered a 381 day bus boycott by black citizens, organized by the then little know Baptist minister, Martin Luther King, thrusting him into the national media spotlight, and eventually leading to the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act, which banned racial discrimination in all public accommodations.

Parks said she had no idea at the time that what did would lead to all the changes that would come later, saying it was just another day like any other day, but what made it special was all the people jumping on board the protest.

She was rewarded for her stand against injustice with threats, harassment, and the inability to find work in Alabama. Subsequently she and her husband relocated to Detroit, MI in 1957, where she worked for Congressman John Conyers from 1965 until retiring in 1988, her husband, Raymond, died in 1977. She retired so she could devote more time to the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, established in 1987, to develop leadership among Detroit's young people and to initiate them into the civil rights movement.

Parks had two books published: "Rosa Parks: My Story," in February 1992. And "Quiet Strength: The Faith, the Hope and the Heart of a Woman Who Changed a Nation," In 1994. A collection of letters "Dear Mrs. Parks: A Dialogue With Today's Youth." were published in 1996.
The world will never be the same, in a good way, because of the decision of one woman. It’s nice to know that one person can still make a world changing difference.

Thank You Rosa Parks!
Rest In Peace!

Did Roy Jones Con The Boxing Public?

Did Roy Jones Con The Boxing Public?

By El-Veasey

Copyright 2005 El-Veasey Publishing

Roy Jones was probably one of most skilled boxers of his era but he’s not in the class of the great fighters, like Sugar Ray Robinson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Tommy Hearns, Marvin Hagler etc, because he appeared to be afraid to challenge himself by facing fighters who were tough and could punch, like Gerald McClellan [before he got hurt], Nigel Binn, Chris Eubanks, Stevie Collins or Julian Jackson. He was never willing to give Hopkins or Tony rematches or Eric Harding who was giving him a challenge until he hurt his shoulder late in their fight. He seemed content to just maintain his sweetheart deal with HBO, where he could make millions fighting weak competition and meaningless, non-challenging mandatories.

After Gerald McClellan got seriously hurt in the ring, I think that made Jones even more afraid of getting hurt and ending up in McClellan’s condition; and in a sense I can't blame him; but if he was afraid of getting hurt he should've gotten out of the game, but, on the other hand why should he, when he could look brilliant and make millions fighting weak opposition?

One rationalization used by Jones fans to account for his choosing to face weak opposition, is that it's not Jones’ fault that he was boxing in an era with weak opposition; that may be partly true, but as alluded to earlier, he was never willing to call out the more dangerous opponents in his division or the ones above it to test himself against. Jones was probably one of the most skilled boxers of his era but didn't he make himself look even more spectacular by choosing to fight low risk opponents he knew he could beat and look spectacular against?

Jones' fans try to excuse Roy's knockout lost to Tarver by saying he had to lose too much weight when he went back to light heavyweight. Buddy Mcgirt, Tarver's trainer, said that Tarver come to training camp for that fight weighing around 212 pounds, Jones only weighed 190 something. So Tarver had to lose more weight than Jones did (but his defenders aren’t concerned about how much weight Tarver had to lose, only with defending their hero).

Another excuse his fans use is that Jones has been fighting so long he got old overnight, that Tarver hasn't been fighting as long as Jones so he's fresher than Jones; More bull and denial. One of the reasons Jones’ defenders say he's so great is that he's never taken punishment in his fights, so how can he be worn out? Jones should be just a fresh as Tarver. The " he's got old overnight" excuse is just that, an excuse, because he and Tarver are the same age. So Rather than seeing that when Jones finally faced real competition, Jones struggled and then got knocked out twice (by Tarver and Glen Johnson) or giving Tarver or Johnson credit for their wins; they keep making excuses for Jones poor showing against Tarver in their first fight, knockout loss in their second and devastating knockout lost in the Johnson fight.


A big deal was deal was make about Jones being the second former middleweight champion to win the heavyweight title: but Jones winning the "heavyweight" title can't compare with Bob Fitzsimmons winning the heavyweight title. Fitzsimmons didn't have the option to "pick" which heavyweight champion he would face. There was only one heavyweight champion and that's whom he had to face. Jones on the other hand, picked the "champion" he wanted to face and the one he knew would be easiest for him to defeat, John Ruiz, whom most boxing analysts and fans viewed as a "paper" champion, the worst and least skilled of all the champions. So Jones’ title win can't be placed in the same category as Fitzsimmons' title win.

Another factor that may be considered as possible detraction from this win is a report that Jones tested positive for steroids after a fight with Richard Hall, a story which very few in the boxing media focused on. In the Ruiz bout, even though Jones weighed less than Ruiz he looked very muscular, like he had been pumping iron big time. He looked just as big as Ruiz or bigger. He couldn't take steroids and lose weight to fight Tarver and maybe that's part of reason why he didn't look as muscular, fast or strong against Tarver or Johnson. When Jones stated he lost to much muscle trying make the lower weight he may be right for the wrong reason.

If Jones showed by winning a heavyweight title that he was superior to all boxers no matter what weight class he fought in, why didn't he challenge Lennox Lewis, the recognized heavyweight champion for the title rather than the lightly regarded Ruiz? If he'd beaten Lewis, his win would have equaled Fitzsimmons', but he didn't challenge Lewis because he didn't want a real challenge. What he did want was a big money fight with a washed up Mike Tyson because he didn't view Tyson as a serious threat or that competitive anymore. But that fight didn’t happen. So rather than stay in the heavyweight division, defend his title and show his greatness by taking some serious challenges, he opted to go back to light heavyweight to face Tarver, who he didn't want to fight and had avoided fighting for years. But Tarver had publicly called him out and it was the only big money fight available to him (the lesser of two evils) as opposed to defending his title in a high-risk heavyweight fight (I read his mandatory may have been David Tua).

Remember, after Jones defeated the lowly regarded John Ruiz for his portion of the heavyweight title, Jones was considered unstoppable, one of the all time greats, maybe even better than Sugar Ray Robinson; but when he got knocked out twice in a row, he defenders were so shocked, they couldn't see or didn't want to see the message that was being delivered to them: when Jones faced real stiff competion he lost big time.

There is no doubt that Jones had exceptional skills as far hand speed, reflexes etc, but he made his skills appear to be even greater by choosing to fight opponents he knew he could beat because he was faster than they were, including policemen, garbage men, etc and meaningless mandatories when he could have chosen rematches with James Toney, Bernard Hopkins or even Eric Harding. Or he could have challenged the fighters I named earlier, Gerald McClellan, Nigel Binn, Chris Eubanks, Julian Jackson or Steve Collins, or take some serious challenges at heavyweight, but there was definitely more risk involve in fighting these guys or serious heavyweights than any of the fighters his faced in the last ten years, so he avoided those risks.

Did he con the boxing public?

As far as Jones conning the boxing public in his last lost to Tarver; he’s was conning the boxing public a long time before that fight. He’s just finally been found out. There have always been writers and fans that saw Jones as conning the boxing public, the way he conned HBO into paying him millions to fight nobodies and meaningless mandatories.

Yes he conned the fans and himself as well, that’s why he made all those excuses about his knockout loss to Tarver, he couldn’t believe it or didn’t want to believe it. His pride was hurt, he was in shock, traumatized and embarrassed. When HBO cameras went into his dressing room after the fight. Jones and his yes men were making comment about the knockout loss to soothe his ego like, "A scared man is a dangerous man!"(Referring to Tarver) "Yeah a scared man is a dangerous man!" It wasn’t that a better fighter knocked out Jones; he was just beaten by a scared fighter and everybody knows a scared fighter can get lucky and beat a good fighter anytime. This is how people talk when they’re experiencing psychological trauma and denial is use to lessen the shock and make it easier for them to deal with.

Jones is still in denial and conning himself but there are signs that even his defenders are starting to see through the con and their own denial and hero worship (superman myth) because it's so obvious now that even they can’t continue to deny the truth any longer, though they may wish to [some of them still try to give him more credit than he’s due].

Jones was a good fighter made to look even greater because of his speed, flashy style, HBO hype, avoiding tough competition and blinding hero worship by his fans; but he not in the class of the great champions who were willing to test their greatness by taking great challenges in the ring, like Robinson, Louis, Marciano, Duran, Leonard, Hearns, Hagler or a host of others.