Black Boy Poems

by Tyson Amir

  Merriam-Webster's is not the only major English dictionary guilty of this very thing. The Oxford English Dictionary, which claims to be the most-accurate English dictionary ever produced, has committed the same offenses.

  The Oxford English Dictionary states:

  “Racism: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

  Here we have the mention of discrimination that is somewhat similar to the poor treatment that was part of the Merriam-Webster's definition. One common point between both definitions is the mention of racism being tied to belief in superiority. Sadly, we see obfuscation again because this is not racism. Discrimination is an issue, but if a person discriminates against me because they think they are superior, that doesn't really detract from my quality of life. Maybe a person chooses to call me a nigger. Or maybe they attempt to insult me using some other racial epithet. This is very common, but before, during, and after the epithet, I still have a job and I still have my life and all things that matter to me. And it is possible that the person who used the epithet might be more in danger because they are now at risk of losing life or limb by attempting to insult me.

  The quality of life piece is very important because we will all encounter people who might not like us for whatever reason, but if you can still take care of your family and live a fairly decent life, then you're actually in a good place. Sure, the discrimination or hate is certainly unwanted and unmerited, but it can be neutralized and then life goes on. That type of discrimination could result in some loss; I might not have too many white friends or friends who espouse similar discriminatory/prejudicial opinions, but if they held those opinions about me or my people, I wouldn't want them in my circle of friends anyway. The discrimination is an unwanted inconvenience, but personal discrimination doesn't result in loss of life or major changes to quality of life.

  What both of those definitions are missing is the sole most important piece when discussing racism, and that is power. Discrimination and prejudice become problematic when they are paired with power and authority. When a government, state, or society discriminates against a group of people through institutional means in a way that impacts the quality of life of people in said group, you are now beginning to examine the underpinnings of racism. Discrimination/prejudice articulated and exercised through directed state power evolves into racism that restricts the quality of life of the targeted group. This is what these definitions need to say and are clearly lacking.

  Why is it that these definitions perpetuate obfuscation instead of truly defining the problem accurately? Why am I so easily able to refute the feeble claims of these meaning-making institutions? In my opinion, the answer as to why they are lacking an objective and thorough understanding is because a true definition of racism is counterproductive to Western society. They have no need to author a real critical definition of something that they continue to profit from, especially because they hold the power of defining their language. There is nothing holding Western society accountable for its racist practices, so therefore there is no reason for it to critically analyze and correctly define its racism.

  To further debunk the gross inadequacies of these definitions, we'll deal with the concept of "superiority." Both definitions cited superiority as one of the major components of racism. Believing in one's superiority does not create institutional discrepancies. Furthermore, belief in superiority doesn't account for the staggering disproportionate statistics surrounding black incarceration, poverty, and other areas where racism rears its ugly head. Belief in superiority does not explain why crack cocaine related offenses receive much harsher penalties than powder cocaine offenses, even though they are the same drug in different forms. Belief in superiority doesn't explain why poor underfunded schools are found all throughout black communities, and it doesn’t explain the process of redlining that 'legally" forced blacks to live in certain parts of cities. Each one of these previous examples is the result of some deliberate action taken by people who hold the reins of power. This is why racism is more than a belief and more than the idea of racial superiority. One can believe they are better than someone else; that belief does not directly lead to a system where the person who falsely believes they are superior will always have more than the one who is believed to be inferior.

  I can believe I am the most superior basketball player alive. That belief does not change the fact that Steph Curry is the greatest player on the planet at this moment. I can believe that as much as I want, but the reality is he is that dude. But if I used my institutional power in conjunction with a belief to create a system that reinforced my belief that I was better than Curry, all the while limiting opportunities for him to showcase his talent, then we begin examining the basics of a system of discrimination. In the event that he is able to showcase his talent, I'll then use my resources to tell him that his talent is worthless and that actually my talent is still more valuable. Then we're beginning to approach what a total system of institutional discrimination looks like.

  Why is it that the definitions of racism we use in English don't even venture near a correct understanding of the phenomenon of racism? In my opinion, it is because these definitions are created by the society guilty of racism, and that society is not interested in holding up a mirror to itself to account for the atrocities it has committed. Instead of objective analysis, society elects to blur the understanding to avoid the truth. Defining racism accurately in English is akin to a rapist defining what constitutes rape or the equally absurd reality of police officers policing themselves regarding miscarriages of justice. Somehow officers keep finding a way to explain away the actions of their colleagues and friends as justified. The general public can see an unarmed black person who posed no threat being illegally executed, but somehow when police analyze the actions of their officers, that black person becomes "life threatening" and the extermination of that black life is deemed justifiable. In the context of racism, it is the perpetrators of racism and the language that gives meaning to their society defining racism. The racist defining the racist or policing the racist. Just like the rapist would most likely justify his or her actions, the police often find no violations in police misconduct investigations. The system of racism is equipped with this mechanism that allows itself to not see racism in its institutional practices. This is what the Western world looks like when it continuously defines racism in a way to limit its culpability.

  So many of us do not arrive at this level of understanding because we are so thoroughly wrapped up in the narrative provided by our society. The confusion and misdirection is a full-time, full-scale operation. Black people have to be aware of the fact that the social tools, words, and symbols that we use within our societies can actually be harmful to our self-development. Likewise, using Western definitions of racism will have you confused as to what the real problem is. How can you successfully deal with and possibly fight against something if you don't even know how to define it properly? Many people will say they know what it feels like when they are a victim of racism, but developing a strategy to combat racism will require an understanding of the rules of the system, according to the great work by Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

  "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."

  If you place any value in this ancient text on stratagems of war, then you'll see the importance of not only knowing your enemy but also of knowing yourself. Sun Tzu cites both as imperative if you want to guarantee victory for yourself. How can you understand the system of racism that is your enemy when it's not defined correctly? How can you truly know yourself if you only understand yourself through the lens of the system that has colonized and oppressed you? Not knowing your enemy or yourself relegates you to
that third category in Sun Tzu's example, the one who never wins. If we are not careful, we will not be able to see that racism is so imbedded in our culture that people are violated in the very words that come out of their mouths. Furthermore, this society does not equip us with education and tools to accurately know ourselves, leaving us violated in that sense, too. These are the people who, according to Sun Tzu, are destined to lose in every battle.

  Real Definition of Racism

  If you are interested in a more accurate definition of racism, then you must go to the good doctor. I defer to the definition by Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, who in The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors puts forth the best definition of racism I've ever studied. For those unfamiliar with Cress Welsing, she was a psychiatrist who specialized in creating a framework for combating white supremacy. She is famous for her work in this field and her other published works. Her two most popular publications are The Cress Theory of Color Confrontation and Racism and The Isis Papers.

  According to the good doctor: "RACISM (white supremacy), is the local and global power system and dynamic, structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined, which consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and war); for the ultimate purpose of white genetic survival and to prevent white genetic annihilation on planet earth – a planet upon which the vast majority of people are classified as non-white (black, brown, red and yellow) by white skinned people, and all of the nonwhite people are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetic recessive white skin people.”

  This is what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary are for some reason reluctant to or unable to say. This definition allows one to fully see the extent of the racial apparatus at work in America and globally. This definition also demonstrates that racism is not a one-to-one matter, which is a common misnomer. Yes, a person can engage in racist activity, but racism, i.e. a system based on race, is only possible through systemic power. To state it another way, racism is the systematic empowerment, and the institutional advancement of one group over the systematic/institutional degradation and disenfranchisement of another group in all areas of human interaction or "people activity."

  Any attempt at providing a solution to the problem of racism will have to address and work to dismantle the institution of race as a whole. The problem our society faces is daunting because racism is deeply entrenched within the bone marrow of America and the larger Western world. The corrective procedure to remove what can be considered the social terminal cancer of racism from our society will be highly invasive, and it is possible that America might not survive the operation.

  In the light of the doctor's definition, the concept of "race relations" in no way is a prescription for removing this malignancy that has caused so much death and destruction over the past four centuries. I have had close family members and friends face cancer. Imagine a doctor advising healthy dialogue as the way to best treat the cancer. It's preposterous, and it demonstrates a clear failure on the part of our society to grasp the immensity of the problem we face. Some may still argue that you can't change the system without conversation. It is a good point, but an even better counter is the fact that there is no liberation struggle that has been successful via petitioning the oppressors for freedom in the form of conversation/race relations. None!

  Never in the history of human beings has power abdicated as a result of conversation, especially in the recent history of the Columbus era and Industrial Age. Appealing to the moral center of an oppressor who rules while ignoring morals has not once resulted in a change of direction by the oppressing group. Those struggles that have found their way to being liberated most often treaded a path paved with blood and bone or some other form of organized protest movement that dealt major social/political/economic blows to their oppressors.

  Once "liberated," there's no guarantee that liberation will lead to freedom. There's a long list of examples of peoples and countries that have fought for independence but are still controlled by, or at least heavily influenced by, outside Western forces. Still, the point remains; to even arrive at a place where political "freedom" or "independence" was a reality, it took the power of the people through military force or concentrated protest movement, and not dialogue, to lead to the changes. Let those who wish to race relate do so. I stand firmly with those who seek to mobilize and take direct action to manifest freedom and liberty for their people. This body of work is a contribution to that effort.

  Black Boy Poems is not an appeal to the intellect to solve the problem. It's not an appeal to the good nature in every man, woman and child. Black Boy Poems is a reflection of my firm belief that concentrated force, which can manifest in multiple ways, is the only way to combat those who profit and benefit from a system of white supremacy and force them to relinquish the accoutrements they receive. Racism is not about belief in superiority of white people over all else—that belief does exist and contributes to the perpetuation of the system—but most importantly racism is about wealth, power, and access to resources, and the transference of all of the above to a people's offspring. Those who have developed the system have acquired huge amounts of wealth, power, and resources, which they will not voluntarily give away until a powerful force either strips them of the above or compels them to change.

  Freedom Fighter versus Career Race Relations Expert and Allies

  A phenomenon I feel I've witnessed in the world of "race relations" is the emergence of specific personality types who have either self-selected or through some other means have been "appointed" to a position of spokespersons on all things race related. I see them as wannabe race-relations experts and out-of-position allies. Both can become problematic because they turn the issue of race into an opportunity for profiting off the very real pain and suffering of black people and other people of color. The Western world, via “free market” capitalism, has found a way to create industry out of just about anything. The social reality of race is no exception. The industrialization of race has led to the development of personas that are able to make a living off of race in America.

  In the colonial era or Jim Crow South, North, East, and West, there was no career in race politics. State-sponsored racial domination was the rule of the land. If you resisted the system, you faced consequences, mainly death. This was the reality of revolutionaries and freedom fighters before race became a career path. Not too many people want to make a career out of something where death is a potential reality. There were people discussing abolition or enfranchisement and rights for blacks, but you could not make a career out of race politics in colonial or Jim Crow America without having a price on your head. The people who did find a way to profit off of the racial dynamics that existed during the colonial, constitutional slavery or Jim Crow eras were blacks who helped support the system that enslaved blacks. It was possible to fetch a pretty penny as a slave catcher, or if you snitched on a plot to kill the slave master, or helped squash an uprising, or told on some escaped slaves. If you endeavored to preserve the white status quo, then the system might confer favor upon you and give you a little something for your troubles.

  Immediately after the end of the Civil War, the Freedmen's Bureau began to lay foundations for the rise of black institutions of higher learning. Not all of Black America was uneducated; there were a substantial number of educated blacks prior to Reconstruction, but most black people were enslaved and for them education was illegal and therefore hard to come by. The rise of public schools, colleges, and universities for blacks led to the development of black academics. Some of them began to set their sights upon the fundamental problems facing blacks in America, including institutional racism. That is one of the truly liberating things about knowledge. Once blacks in masses began t
o master letters, theory, philosophy, and numbers, they began to use these new weapons to take shots at the system that oppressed them. Names like W. E. B. Du Bois, Booker T. Washington, Mary McLeod Bethune, Ida B. Wells, Anna Julia Cooper, and many others whom history hasn't remembered with similar acclaim, labored to improve the condition of Black America. Not all agreed on their strategies for facing the problems blacks experienced in America, but each one knew that their stand against white supremacy could cost them their lives. With that knowledge, they did not approach their work as a "career" for the sake of a paycheck. The advancement of a people was the reward, and to the descendants of slaves, that was worth the ultimate sacrifice.

  That context is important to establish because we are now living in an age where race politics has been monetized and commodified. It is "cool" to be against the system. There are examples of people who have parlayed their fame and notoriety from being a "revolutionary" into a lucrative financial opportunity. I'm not hating; we all have to survive, but freedom fighting does not come with a promise of fame and fortune. Dr. Huey P. Newton mentioned in his autobiography how he received a letter from a Hollywood studio after he was released from prison. The studio wanted Huey to use his "star power" for the sake of selling Hollywood TV shows and movies. Huey could've made that decision and capitalized on his fame for the sake of fortune, but the "servant of the people" was more focused on revolution for the sake of liberating his people.

  In today's world, it is quite possible to live fairly well being a race commentator. Write a few books, do some show appearances, secure speaking engagements, participate in some demonstrations from time to time, maybe even have a university position as a lecturer. If you do all that, you might be able to enjoy a comfortable existence by material standards.