Shortly after the Million Man March the black economist recalls reading in the Washington Post a quote from Alexander Lebed , a Russian general. He said (to the best of my recollection), "People in Washington are sure to be concerned about joining Islam with the genetic imprint of slavery."
At the time what caught my attention were the words, "genetic imprint of slavery." I have since come across other references to that line of thinking from some black Hollywood actors but no concrete work on the concept.
As the war on terror has progressed more and more black Americans have been arrested on terror related charges. Louis Farrakhan, the most prominent black Muslim in America, has been a no show in the public eye for years now.
The implication is explicit.
The government has long known that the greatest threat to domestic security is its black population (think COINTELPRO). At this point in history that threat is even greater because a large domestic disturbance would prevent America from projecting it's power overseas and drastically increase security costs which in turn would send the economy into a tailspin.
The black economists predicts this issue will burst into the public eye spectacularly at some point in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The government has long known that the greatest threat to domestic security is its black population (think COINTELPRO).
I disagree (ever so slightly) with this. The greatest threat to domestic security is the "unintegrated" minority (or, if you want, the "unassimilated" or "disenfranchised" minority). I'm trying to be careful with those words -- unintegrated, unassimilated, and disenfranchised -- because they mean so many things and have so many remedial programs or statuses attached to them. I'm specifically referring to any minority that, either through law or practice, is unable to become a part of the larger community.
It used to be blacks in the US as a direct result of slavery, segregation, and adverse economic policies. The problem has been mitigated somewhat by fairer laws, but you can still see the lasting impact of the adverse economic policies. If you'd asked me prior to 9/11, I'd agree... you can point to the LA riots or any racially tinged event. (More recently, you can look at the impact of Hurricane Katrina and the sudden forced reintegration of 1,000s of poor blacks into society.)
Europe is now seeing the problem from its unintegrated immigrants-- individuals and communities that
NOW, the threat to domestic security is not being driven solely race... poverty and the discontent of the empoverished is the new threat to the US.
As for the Nation of Islam, it has faded from the public view for two reasons:
First, the Oklahoma City bombing made it untenable to maintain a militant position for many groups. In order to avoid the scrutiny, many of these groups increased their political efforts so that the public -- and the government -- would view them as something other than a small militia. Second, the 9/11 bombing changed the public perception of the religion of Islam, and I truly believe that the Nation decided it didn't want to be lumped in with the larger Muslim community.
In short, the Nation decided that it really couldn't afford to be a "militant group of black muslims" in a world where militant groups, in general, were less acceptable, and muslims, in particular, were suspect.
The politics, however, live on, and in this case, I think that's what the Nation was all about anyway.
I can see your points. I would argue it is that level of assimilation that makes the black population so potentially dangerous, as we are everywhere and unlikely to tolerate seeing our less fortunate brothers and sisters put upon by government. I would argue it but for Katrina.
As for the Nation I agree they made a conscious decision to take a lower profile.
John Allen Muhammad was reported as a former member and as I mentioned other blacks (and yes browns) have been arrested on terror charges in America.
In Britain we read of the "indigenous problem" and witness bombings carried out by its native born citizens.
Could a major terror attack in America carried out by native black citizens spark a race war?
I wonder why there was no "war on terror" declared after Oklahoma City?
Could a major terror attack in America carried out by native black citizens spark a race war?
That's a good question and after thinking about it, I am inclined to say that it would. Yet, I don't see the native black terrorists (or revolutionaries, depending on your perspective) as having the critical backing. In fact, I would imagine much of the black population would be dumbfounded by such an action. I'm not sure that we've reached that point of no-return; as much as we may disagree with the status quo, we seem to have bought into the system and as such, we tend to frame our needs and our next steps in ways that are acceptable to that system (ie, we strive for better education, more economic empowerment, etc.) If the previous sparks didn't ignite a sustained response (for example, after the riots, after Katrina, etc.), I'm not sure that a galvanizing event would provide any more direction or clarity.
On the other hand, I can see the backlash quite clearly... if a group of native black citizens committed a large act of terror (or revolution, again, depending on your perspective), I can see becoming the galvanizing event for white nationalist and their militias to ignite the race war that they have been dreaming about.
... which naturally brings me back to a point that you made: why was there no war on terror after OK City? And more importantly, where did THOSE groups -- the racial identity militias -- disappear to?
Post a Comment