The Black Book II: From Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz to Barack Obama

THE BLACK BOOK II

THE BLACK BOOK

II

FROM HAJJI MALIK AL-SHABAZZ TO BARACK OBAMA

DR. Y. N. KLY

CLARITY PRESS, INC.

© 2010 Y. N. Kly

ISBN: 0-932863-97-3

978-0-932863- 97-3

In-house editor: Diana G. Collier

Cover: R. Jordan P. Santos

Illustration: Arvie Villena

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: Except for purposes of review, this book may not be copied, or stored in any information retrieval system, in whole or in part,

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kly, Yussuf Naim, 1935-

  The black book II : from Hajji Malik al-Shabazz to Barack Obama / Y.N. Kly.

      p. cm.

  ISBN-13: 978-0-932863-88-1

  ISBN-10: 0-932863-88-4

1. X, Malcolm, 1925-1965--Political and social views. 2. King, Martin Luther, 1899-1984--Political and social views. 3. Obama, Barack--Political and social views. 4. Black nationalism--United States. 5. African American politicians. 6. African Americans--Politics and government. 7. United States. President (2009- : Obama) I. Title.

BP223.Z8.L576K59 2010

320.54’6092--dc22

Clarity Press, Inc.

Ste. 469, 3277 Roswell Rd. NE

Atlanta, GA. 30305, USA

http://www.claritypress.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Observation

Observation Two

Introduction

The Contribution of Western Civilization

The Cure for Domestic Colonialism

Contributions of Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz

Stagnation in the American Melting Pot

One Nation, One State, Two Parties Fits All

The Fallacy of Forced Assimilation

After the Assassinations of Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Back to the Future

Creating National Minority Puppet Leaders

The Role and Purpose of the Puppet Leadership (House Negroes)

In Guise of Concluding

Endnotes

OBSERVATION

John Locke has been widely revered in the teaching of American history as one of the thinkers of the European Enlightenment. However, viewing him from The Dark Side—the African American perspective—Locke was one of the founders of domestic colonialism in America. He was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal African Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesbury’s secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave his so-called master absolute power over his so-called slaves. As a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673–4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696–1700) Locke was, in fact, one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude.* As such, his opposition to slavery in his major writings was clearly hypocritical. His notion of liberty related only to the freedom of English capitalists to exploit. His statements on unenclosed property are viewed as having justified the displacement of the Native Americans.

That Locke continues to be widely viewed as a beacon of enlightenment in America demonstrates how the writing of history in the United States does not reflect the perspective of one-state, one-nation but merely the perspective of the dominant Anglo-American majority.

This book seeks to address the problematic of the blending of the incompatibilities between the notions of enlightenment, and the actualities of enslavement, domestic colonialism and imperialism into a unique American concept of democracy.

* Martin Cohen, Philosophical Tales, (Blackwell 2008, p. 101)

OBSERVATION TWO

Political science can be said to be only a small part of religion or non-religious philosophy. If we put all of Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz’s presentations into an appropriate political framework, we find that although he did not finish his educational training, he was a great political thinker. One comes to understand that Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz did not believe that the US political system could be sufficiently changed without struggle. (Unlike the many who want to go to heaven, few are willing to die for it…) During the last days of Hajji Malik’s life, we were told by members of the OAAU (his bodyguards) how Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz stepped forward without sufficient bodyguards because he felt it was best for the benefit of African American liberation. Hajji Malik believed that God helps those who help themselves, or Surely, Allah changes not the condition of a people until they change themselves, Qur’an, Sura Al-Rad, ayat 11.

Perhaps different from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Barack Obama, he seems to have had no illusions about the American government system and how it would resist change, Thus Hajji Malik was great, not just because he was right, but also because he took pleasure in learning, and had the courage and integrity to reject anything he or his people did not feel was right. By any means necessary. Because of Hajji Malik, African Americans will shelter in the light. (After taking his wife, Sister Betty, to the New Moon Chinese restaurant shortly after his assassination, it was clear to us that their fire would remain even without a flame, and the guiding light for a new path to African American liberation from domestic colonialism had only been successfully delayed.)

After the assassination came the flyers by night (the House Negroes) each seeking with the help of their position in the Anglo-American pecking order as well as that of the African American community, to get whatever was left: the jobs, etc. that his name brought into existence. They restored his ancient automobile, but neglected his ideas and fail to mention the most important of his learning experiences, his trip to Mecca.

Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz’ understanding of the American system was as clear as that of any great political scientist such as Gabriel Almond.* This is why he appears to have understood the role of political parties, the House Negro, forced assimilation, propaganda, etc. within the US system. This is why he knew that to achieve the desired change, he would have to provide for the intervention of international human rights law.

*Hajji Malik understood how a political system is made up of institutions, such as interest groups, political parties, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and a bureaucratic machinery, and that interest groups serve to articulate political issues; parties then aggregate and express them in a coherent and meaningful way for the masses to address the majority interests. However, even those systems where the majority interest is uniquely addressed are never entirely self-contained; they exist in a dynamic relationship to other political systems and must continuously adapt to changing conditions in the larger information law (human rights law). This is one of the reasons that all systems can be changed by international cooperation with the struggles for human rights. Hajji Malik realized by his actions that the dominant majority controlled political socialization, the process by which a culture passes down civic values, beliefs, and habits of mind to succeeding generations. It is largely an unconscious process by which families, schools, communities, political parties and other agents of socialization inculcate the culture’s dominant Anglo-American political values. All recruitment of citizens is largely an unconscious process by which they become active participants in the political system. He viewed the reason for and role of the House Negro within this context The US government, like all governments, has inherent biases or normative implications. First, it is by its very nature conservative. Hajji Malik Al-Shabazz recognized that a political system’s first objective is to ensure its own survival, and that all political actors, black or white, and institutions within that system, are essentially used to assist or maintain the survival of that system. For this reason, it is not especially responsive to innovations and movements aimed at political change—that is, beyond those that strengthen its adaptiveness and resilience.

OBSERVATION THREE

African Americans were kidnapped in Africa and brought to the New World, where they were inflicted with cruel, inhuman and unnatural treatment, and endured an absolute terrorism which was expected to force them into becoming voluntary slaves of their kidnappers.

This was not a natural occurrence but a well-planned wicked experiment that used every form of mental, physical and sociological torture to achieve its objectives—such as forcing our Aunts to drop their babies into the fireplace because they were not wanted by their fathers. This was among the kinds of wicked and criminal acts for which no reconciliation in the manner proposed by President Obama can make amends or satisfy states’ obligations to provide redress for human rights violations.

Insofar as U.S. law is subservient to international law, this may require not just an apology but compensation, restitution, or rehabilitation for grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.*

*Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/34,

*

Introduction

The western world continues to lose its global leadership status due to its inability to institutionalize and take seriously the ideals, etc. that it, itself, has been so instrumental in developing and protecting. The Anglo-American empire¹ continues to struggle for the maintenance of what one might call domestic colonialism² in the new world (North America) and a new American form of neo-imperialism in developing states. Even after the legitimacy and practice of western European international colonization and imperialism has dimmed, the US policies and politic can be considered to result from what advocates of the American Century may consider the more successful colonialist model for global political hegemony through the tactic and model of domestic colonialism. Not only did the US model lead to politico-economic success, but it did so despite the fact that this success depended heavily on the US attempts at enslavement of captured Africans and the near ethnocide of the indigenous populations.

In modern history, however, the American model has been so successful at hiding under the banner of democracy that the world had come to view the US as the best hope for the protection of democracy, human rights, good governance, sustainable development, and war against global poverty. The most insightful writings of V.T. Rajshekar (as often appearing in the Bangalore bi-monthly, Dalit Voice³), which advise that for any of these hopes to be realized, the situation of the oppressed must be framed within the context of the struggle of nations within states to achieve social, cultural and economic equal status (collective or individual self-determination)⁴ merit our serious consideration. Otherwise, such hopes can be only for the few (the ruling classes).⁵

The neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism of domestic colonialism becomes most visible when observing the unique weaknesses of the economic, political and social institutions historically evolved for the equal status protection of peoples such as African-Americans, First Nations, Dalits, Roma, Kashmiris, etc. in the USA, India and elsewhere. All these political institutions and the socio-political philosophies that support them seem designed to forcibly incorporate or maintain such peoples into political units that are under the jurisdiction of descendants of the original European colonists or dominant (Brahmin) ruling majority, etc., who they seem to feel would keep them at the bottom of the pecking order and without socio-cultural equal status.⁶

Thus, the problematic of such systems is not only caused by economic factors, but equally by socio-cultural and political factors that operate to prevent or fail to find a way to provide socio-political and economic equal status to such groups, nations, communities or peoples by not providing them with their human rights, particularly their most important human right to self-determine so that they too can achieve equal status development. Instead, such governments prefer to see all issues from the point of view of the will of the majority, and encourage the development of political concepts that may exploit and damage the development potential of their minorities (particularly those minorities unsure of their internationally protected personalities).

While traditional colonialism profits from capitalism and imperialism, domestic colonialism seems to be more parasitical—in the sense that both the victim and the host are parties to the same state, which provides greater access for the purposes of exploitation to all aspects of the daily life skills and needs of the victim. We suggest that states like the US which practice domestic colonialism have better access to their victims for exploitation, making that exploitation less costly, and more efficient and effective. Thus self-determination, self-definition, and the right to be different is discouraged or blocked. The problematic for states becomes how to disguise, under the banner of democracy, a cultural, political and economic system that will permit this effective and efficient exploitation. In situations involving states and national minorities, it is politically fair to remember that a parasite cannot live alone. If the relationship between the majority and minorities is parasitic for whatever reason, the parasite, in order to exist, will need, for whatever reason, to maintain the existing status of the host in order to maintain its own status and identity. Historically it is important to take into consideration the fact that the US and much of the Anglo-American empire is different from most states in that the United States is not a nation seeking to become a state, but a state seeking to create a nation.

There is need for further research on the significance of the above as it relates to parasitic imperialism/domestic colonialism, and how this history influences US domestic and foreign policy. In such regard, the US policies of permanent US Congressional trusteeship under the legal control of the Minister of the Interior and Congress without democratic consent as it concerns the indigenous Americans, or forced assimilation without seeking the collective consent of the African Americans, etc., merit special notice. The placement of the German Americans in Midwestern states by Roosevelt, the use of Chinese Americans to build railroads, the internship of the Japanese Americans during the second world war, etc.—the effort to divide the nation into white, black and others who are still all the same—provide reasons to re-examine the nature of the type of nations that the Anglo-American elites are attempting to create.

Are these policies and their supporting institutionalized practices a sincere and democratic attempt to provide for the successful integration of all ethnic and minority communities into one (a new, single-nation state), or do they simply permit and encourage a type of what we will call parasitic relation between the dominant group and minorities, particularly the national minority. As the solution to the problematic posed by European powers competing for stakes in the new world, the Anglo