They're trying to take "Christ" out of "Christmas." 

It's not even December, but I'm already hearing that familiar cry of victimization. The phrase bothers me, to a lesser extent, because it assumes that just because one is not a Christian that he or she is automatically anti-Christian. To hear many Christians talk, one would presume that it is every non-Christian's aim to stamp out all references of Christ, or that we quail at the mere sight of a cross. But just because we left the religion doesn't mean that we hate everything that is connected with it. Heck, I still listen to Richard Smallwood and Kirk Franklin. So, yeah, I find it rather insulting that the church keeps sending the message that just because I'm an atheist, that I have nothing better to do with my time than to obsess about removing baby Jesus from their nativity scenes.

However, what annoys me the most about this phrase are the privileged connotations that go along with it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "Happy Holidays" condemned as an evil plot against Christianity just because it doesn't recognize Christianity as being supreme. Christians have such a sense of entitlement in America that they feel that every thing that does not acknowledge them is a direct attack. Do you celebrate Chanuka or Kwanzaa? Too bad. Jesus is the reason for the season, so your holidays cannot be recognized at all. Tell me, if Christianity is not a religion but instead is a personal relationship, why is it necessary to force it on everyone else? If Christmas is all about Jesus for you, fine, as it is your "personal relationship" after all, but stop trying to make others join it. I mean really, you don't see Jews protesting when business put up signs that say "Merry Christmas," but Christians protest holiday trees because it does not mention them. A lack of privilege over other religions is a sign of a oppression apparently.

This reminds me of how a couple of times I have heard Christians say that they are oppressed because they are not allowed to proselytize in public schools. It is as if they just cannot understand why someone would not want them to teach children about their religion, when they know that they would raise hell if a Muslim, Mormon, JW, etc. came on school grounds and did the exact same thing. However, because they are Christians, they feel as if they should get a pass.

Have you heard of the Christian movie "Christmas with a Capital C." It pretty much sums up the sentiment I described in this post.

Slavery and Religion

I don’t want to be one of those people—the anti-religious who think there are absolutely no redeeming qualities in religion, but reading things like this only help to alienate me from faith in general.

To make my position clear, I’ll first start by saying that I don’t believe that any religions are inspired. People create religions for primarily three reasons:
  1.  To get answers about things they do not understand, such as why the world works the way it does and were people go after they die
  2.  To promote their own agenda and to control the masses
  3. To gain inner peace and tranquility
Reasons one and two are the ones with which I have a problem; however, I will be focusing on two today. But, I probably should just start by saying what motivated this topic before post loses any sense of order.

What caused me to think about this topic today was Phillis Wheatley (1754?-1784), a talented Senegalese woman who was kidnapped and sold to John Wheatley when she was seven. He taught her to read and write. She used her knowledge to create poems that astonished Americans at the time. They didn’t believe that an African girl could be brilliant. She published Poems on Various Subjects; Religious and Moral in 1773, which was praised in both Europe and North America. With her prominence, it would be marvelous if she used her talents and influence to move others to understand the barbarism of slavery, helping to liberate her brothers and sisters, as Olaudah Equiano did for example. Instead, she created poetry like this. (I highlighted the most notable parts.)

Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
Taught my benighted soul to understand
That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
"Their colour is a diabolic die." 

Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,
May be refin'd and join the' angelic train

Two things are notable about this poem. The first is Wheatley’s praising slavery as an act of divine providence. The fact that anyone, especially someone whose race is a victim of it, could think that such cruelty and brutality is a gift from God is astonished me.  Being someone’s slave is worth it in the end because you will die and spend eternity worshiping a God who put you in that position to begin with?

The second piece of this poem that I found disturbing is the apologetic way that she refers to our race. If we are cleaned up and civilized, we can too can be permitted into heaven behind the Europeans. Oh, joy.

In addition, her reference to Cain is also interesting. Christians have long used the myth that Cain was cursed with black skin by God to advocate racism against Africans. She actually believes this lie, and thinks that we should be tolerated in spite of this fault. But, before I go on, I want to clarify I’m not blaming Wheatley personally for this. She was a victim of a society that has used religion as a medium of control. It disgusts me that not only did Americans use this reasoning to justify slavery, but also they were able to integrate it so much in our psyche that we even accepted inferiority—even to the point where we were
grateful for slavery. However, what is important is that this thinking still motivates our actions to this day.

How much does myth and superstition control African-Americans? Do you know someone who routinely wastes her money by throwing it away to preachers or and churches expecting God to “multiply her seed” so that she can “reap her harvest?” What about someone who continues to make foolish mistakes because “God will make a way” or will provide? Have you heard songs like this?

“Faithful Is Our God”
I'm reaping the harvest God promised me
Take back what the devil stole from me
And I rejoice today, for I shall recover it all

“The Blessing of Abraham”
You are the seed by faith receive
The blessing of Abraham
Wherever you are, where er' you go
Whatever you touch is anointed to grow

"God Will Make a Way"
God will make a way
Where there seems to be no way
He works in ways we cannot see
He will make a way for me

It’s about time that we learned that neither God nor prayer nor magic beans will grant prosperity. There is no force that trails  you, allows good things to  happen to you, or that mops up your messes up when things go wrong. Your life is entirely in your hands. If you seek opulence, then it will have to be through your hard work, determination, and education—not because you gave a seed of a hundred bucks to your preacher. This is just one example, but I look forward to when religion stops holding us back.

Minorities are the Borg

A great disadvantage of being a member of a minority is constantly being seen as only a part of a collective. For example, European-Americans are regarded as individuals, while a minority is just seen as a member of the racial or religious group to which he or she belongs. If John is EA, his actions are only seen as a representation of himself, and he is not expected to conform to any racial standard. However, as a minority, his every action would be evaluated on how closely he fit into a stereotypical mold, and if he did not, he would just be deemed an exception. I call this perception of minorities the "Borg Effect." We aren't expected to have our own voice, and the actions of a few are seen as the responsibility of all.

I saw the Borg Effect at work today after reading Sarah Palin's objections to a mosque being built two blocks away from Ground Zero. She tweets:
Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing
First, it's interesting that she addresses them as "peace-seeking," as if they by nature they are uncharacteristic. She must distinguish good Muslims from the supposed normal, violent Muslims. Secondly, she, and apparently many Americans, expect all Muslims to take responsibility for the attacks of 9/11. As one narrator said:
On Sept. 11, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans [as if Muslims aren't Americans too and none were victims of 9/11], they want to build a monstrous 13-story mosque at ground zero.
So, the responsibility of 9/11 does not rest on the suicide boomers head, or on the terrorist organizations, but on every single one of the one billion Muslims of the world. By this logic, should we forbid any European-Americans from operating near the location where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was bombed? Lovely.

The Colour of Beauty

I can't say that I was surprised by anything in this documentary, but there are interesting things that I would like to note.

"We want white girls dipped in chocolate"
I appreciate that they were honest and frank about that matter. There was no need to hide such an obvious truth. However, what got me was how the man described African features compared to European ones. To him ours are harsh, while Europeans' are "elegant." It was if the discrimination against African decent models was understandable because we are not naturally as lovely as European decent models. It is the discrimination against African decent models with European features that is the shame! Throughout the media, we have seen that AA women are accepted on the condition that we show our African ancestry to only a limited degree. If you don't pass the paper bag test, you aren't let through the door. This conditional permitted isn't true acceptance at all, and is designed to maintain the facade of diversity. We should not mistaken it as such. We also should not embrace tokenism. As one woman said, you see the same minority women over and over in the fashion industry. This is not progress, although the media attempts to use it to delude us into thinking that it is such.

We have to give 110%
My mother always told me that I have two strikes against me. 1. I am African-American. 2. I am a woman. Therefore, I have to do better than everyone else. This video pointed this principle out once again. As the models said, Euro women can make due with a few flaws, but Afro women have to be absolutely flawless to get a job. I think this is an important lesson that our community must keep in mind. Since we face greater opposition, working half-heartedly isn't acceptable. We can't simply be good or adequate. We must strive to be better.

How to end the discrimination?
The objective of any documentary is to bring attention to a problem so we can find a solution. The best way, I believe, that we can open doors for our sisters in the fashion industry is to be the leaders of it ourselves. We have to be the producers, directors, and the casting agents--the one's making decisions. If we were, we wouldn't have to beg the European-Americans to give us a chance.

It is not enough that she draws her morality from a book that contradicts itself a 1,000 times on basic moral concepts (Matthew 26:52; 1 Samuel 15:3) and over half of which some how doesn't count anymore, she feels as if she has the duty to force everyone else to share these beliefs as well. Why must Christians incessantly impose their personal beliefs on others? If you fell that it is wrong to be a homosexual, fine, but what gives you the right to dictate to others what their lives should be? People think that by just claiming that God mandates that something wrong, they are justified in denying people the right to make own choices. However, a nation cannot be run on people's opinions on what is the word of God.

What if the United States was suddenly a country made predominately of Jews and Muslims? What if Christians were the minority? Both of the previous religions believe that God commanded that they do not eat pork; however, Christians still do eat pork readily. Would the Jewish and Muslim majorities have the right to make the sale and consumption of pork illegal in the United States on the basis that "God said so?"

There are almost 40,000 denominations and countless of independent religions all serving as emissaries, telling us different messages of what God says. However, until God actually comes and gives an order himself, God's word remains man's opinion, and therefore cannot be forced upon rothers.

Should We Celebrate African-Americans' Independence Day?

Growing up, Independence Day was never a holiday that I was really able to get into. In the back of my mind, I always felt a bit foolish commemorating a holiday that celebrated my supposed freedom when I would have been enslaved and not even recognized as human at the time. The Fourth of July always left me feeling a bit left out.

Today, I am rather disappointed that the freedom of African-Americans is not celebrated. It's unfortunate that America still does not recognize the day when all Americans were officially declared free on December 6th, and I know that many people would censure the holiday as merely an attempt to placate African-Americans. However, the thirteenth amendment was a major civil rights victory that helped to end many atrocities in our country and brought us a major step forward to the dream where liberty and justice are available to all citizens, the dream that nation claimed to stand for. In short, because the thirteenth amendment was a triumph for human rights, I hope it would be seen as a holiday for all Americans as the 4th is now. Of course, considering the climate of our country right now, I think we are a bit away for that happening, but I wish that at least that we would recognize the day, if no one else does.

How you can support other African-Americans with cancer

Our community has a terrible shortage of bone marrow donors. Seven million people in total have registered as donors, but we make up only approximately 500,000 of that number. Because of the lack of minority donors, we have less than a 30 percent chance of finding someone who is a suitable match. If you would like to help a brother or sister with leukemia or another illness, please visit or and join the bone marrow registry.

American Evangelicals Promote Hate in Uganda

I saw this documentary a couple of days ago, and decided to post it here. It concerns American Evangelicals encouraging an anti-gay sentiment among Ugandans and the effects if their actions.

There are so many disappointing things about this video. First, the Americans should have taken some responsibility for the flaring of hatred against in Uganda. I can understand why they would feel betrayed. As usual, the Evangelicals portrayed homosexuality as one of the worst possible sins ever, and then they backpedal when they try to implement a crackdown in response. Interestingly, from many American Evangelicals' view point, their actions seem extreme; however, it is light in comparison to the Bible they follow (Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 18:22; 1 Corinthians 6:9). In their hearts, I believe that most American evangelicals know that most biblical practices are antiquated and do not coexist well with modern values. Unfortunately, regions outside the West continue to take these ancient beliefs and practices seriously because they are repeatedly told that that these spiritual text are the direct word of God. (But I am unfairly implying that this is just an Eastern problem. Americans are just as guilty of trying to govern from an obsolete perspective, but fortunately, we have a greater tendency to just ignore the nasty parts of our holy book.) In addition, another problem lies in that the Ugandans don't see hate and intolerance against homosexuals as a problem. In fact, they are proud of it, so the abhorrence with which Bible views homosexuals wouldn't bother them. In the US, we are expected to be more tolerant and homophobia is relatively looked down upon, so these, in addition to the other verses in which God calls for the stoning of people for minor infractions, have served to embarrass evangelicals here. As a result, the anti-gay message in the Bible would do more harm in Uganda, which is why evangelicals should have been more cautious with caustic message.

Another thing that stuck out to me was an Ugandan preacher's claim that if you had a problem with what he said, you were disagreeing with God, which brings up an interesting observation.

So far, I've only heard preacher's talking, people from the Middle East thousands of years ago talking, but no God talking. I'm sure if God had something to say, he would say it himself, in a more efficient manner no less. That way, we wouldn't have almost 40,000 denominations of Christianity and innumerable other religions all telling us what "God says." He himself would certainly clarify all of this confusion. However, as he has not, the world runs guessing the will of "the Picard. " (Reference to an episode of TNG where a race of people, assuming Picard was a god, were willing to do anything an desperate attempt to fulfill his will.) In any case, it is always dangerous when people believe that they must hate because a god told them to, and the Bible certainly can justify this. It can only be stopped when people understand that they cannot turn to their religious leaders or even their holy books to hear what God says. Religion may provide a useful moral guide, but when it is dogmatic, rigid, and absolute, it is dangerous. I hope Uganda does not allow their attempt to decipher the will of God to erode the rights of their citizens

Draw Muhummad Day

So today is "Draw Muhammad Day," and I'm saddened that this trend has taken off with such fervor. More importantly, it is disappointing how few people can see through this. This is not an exercise of speech but one of hatred. Those who deny that this is meant to disrespect Muslims are simply naive. If Muslims in turn burned the US flag to demonstrate their power of free speech, we can be certain that the people who are participating in this would feel threatened and would clearly see it as a proclamation of abhorrence to Americans. Likewise, by drawing their prophet in humiliating ways, Americans are announcing their animosity for Muslims and Islam. Americans are demonstrating their lack of tolerance for those who do not adhere to its definition of what is normal and acceptable. It is another declaration of the message "assimilate or else."

An example of this sentiment comes from Mark Steyn who expresses his fear of a West taken over by Muslims. Of course, a predominately Muslim country could have only the worst possible outcome.

Religion has many detrimental effects on societies period, but I do not see the growth of Islam in the West as an affront to my freedom. Steyn seems to forget that religion isn't stagnant but grows and evolves. Culture does not conform to religion, but religion to the culture. It is like water that takes the form of the glass it is in. In addition, Islamic countries around the world are being influenced by the West, and Islam most certainly will change as it enters Western nations.

Arizona is at it again...

Governor Jan Bewer is turning her guns ethnic study programs this time. According to Arizon's school chief Tom Horne, programs that teach Mexican-American students about their history "teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people." Bewer's spokesperson expressed similar sentiment, "The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people."

The best way I can express my reaction to yet another Arizona failure

But you know, what I really despise about this (besides the obvious bigotry that spawned this of course) is faulty reasoning behind it. The statements of these officials reflect a common sentiment among Americans: any gain of minorities is an affront to European-Americans. The looming prospect of an equal playing field makes many feel victimized. European-American students can enjoy an entire school system that revolves around them, but as we begin to extend this privilege to students of all races, they cry that they are under attack. I wish America would learn that when minorities advance in this system and work to make a better life for ourselves, it is not to the detriment of European-Americans. On the contrary, equality may eliminate white privilege, but ultimately everyone benefits. As Sean Arce noted in the article, "students perform better in school if they see in the curriculum people who look like them." If ethnic studies encourage minority students do work harder in school, which in turn results in a more educated population, then we should promote the programs rather than restricting on them; however, they cannot see that all of America will profit from furthering the interest of minorities.

There was a portion of this article that did make me laugh. A Republican running for attorney general has been attacking ethnic studies since he heard Dolores Huerta, a Hispanic civil right's activist, tell students in 2006 "Republicans hate Latinos." Way to prove her right! Republicans have always struggled with the racist connotations that are attached to their party, but in recent days it seems that they are really trying to fuel that fire. If they keep it up, they will alienate their rational supporters and will be identified with extremist.

The Prosperity Gospel: We've been suckered

It's distressing how many African-Americans have become the victim of the "Prosperity Gospel." Far too many of the naive and the poor believe that if they throw their money to some self-proclaimed prophet of God, they will get 10 to a 100 fold more. If they just plant a seed, God will open the windows of heaven and throw cash their way. How these people got this from Jesus who told the rich-young-ruler to give up his riches and follow him, store your riches in heaven, and praised the poor widow who gave everything away, I am not sure. Jesus, Paul, and any of his disciples lived the life of vagabonds, yet God's greatest concern is to lavish us with riches. These prosperity teachers do not even remotely resemble the founders of Christianity. However, African-Americans fail to see this and continue to chant the mantra that If they sow their financial seed, they will reap their harvest, as songs like "Faithful is Our God" and "Blessing of Abraham" show. I wish these people could understand that when they give their income to these "preachers," they aren't sowing their seed, they are buying a these people's jets. Why can't they open their eyes and see that their harvest has never come? You've given $500 bucks away, and not only have you not gotten $5,000, but you're still in the same debt as you used to be. African-American Christians need to understand there are no easy solutions or short cuts in this life. God is not a genie, nor is he your good-luck charm. Yet so many people delude themselves thinking that they can make bad decisions, listen to these prosperity sermons, and magically "God will provide." Your mess or success has nothing to do with God, but your own hard work (or lack of it) and decisions. It's time for many African-Americans to take that responsibility and stop looking into the clouds.

If you or someone you know believes in prosperity teaching, I would recommend reading Charismatic Chaos (John F. MacArthur) or A Different Gospel: Biblical and Historical Insights into the Word of Faith Movement (Dan R. Mcconnell).

A Christian was talking about Genesis 1. To shorten his overall point, he was saying that if humanity didn't believe Genesis we would be doomed. (His thesis basically was, if man was not made in the image of God, man would have no value. You could just kill someone like a bug because he would be the product of random chance instead of design. Christians freak me out with sort of thinking, but I digress.) In any case, I asked him if he could explain why God creates light, night, and day all before he creates any stars. After rambling on, he could not, and told me I could research this answer myself as it has been debated for a long time. However, I find it curious that Christians think that there is an answer at all. Even when faced with a problem that is as illogical as this, they still believe that there must be some, any explanation, just because it says so in the Bible. They ignore the fact that you can make up an explanation for anything! If the Bible had the following verse: "And God created the world as flat as unleavened bread," I could defend it by saying that the Bible didn't really mean the earth itself was flat. It was referring to the illusion made by the horizon line. Christians would accept this as true because it's the word of God, therefore, any and everything is justifiable. Genocide is justifiable. Slavery is justifiable. Talking donkeys and snakes are completely realistic. Likewise, it makes just as much since to believe that the day and the night are completley logical concepts without the sun. With the Bible, there is an answer to everything, we just haven't created it yet.

Dr. Lorne L. Dawson summarized this tendency of religions to deny the obvious in the study "When Prophecy Fails, Faith Persist"
It's no secret that African-American women have been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism in recent days. Study's have been released reporting how we all have herpes and only have a media wealth of $5. Films like Precious encourage our image of having broken, pathological lives. Chris Rock does his part by teaching the world that we have illogical, obsessive relationship with our hair. A plethora of news outlets report on how African-American women cannot find a man and are doomed to remain desperate and lonely. Fortunately for us, dozens of AA men have stepped up to highlight all of our flaws and teach us how if we could just get our act together all of our problems would just disappear. Apparently to America, the African-American woman is a wide eyed lost babe in the wood in need of direction, and everyone has the answers to what our "problems" are and is ready to show us the light.

Naturally, we are sick of this degradation, but it won't stop any time soon. African-American women's aggravation bubbled over last night when NightLine once again broadcast that we can't have successful relationships. I have to say, this didn't bother me too much as I do not watch it because I won't focus on things that are this ridiculously trite. However, this morning on Amazon I a book that was provoking. (The man is the author)

According to Amazon, it was published in February this year. Pettiford said, "Topics will range from: 1) The Media Stereotypes of Black Women, 2) Why Black Men Don’t Want Black Women, 3) The Dark History of Black Women in America, 4) The Weakness of The Strong Black Woman, 5) Why So Many Black Women Are Single, and so much more."

I am so tired of society's constant inspection of us, of all of us being reduced to a stereotypes, and of America self-righteous attitude, acting as if all problems reside within AA women. I'm ready for them to put down their stones and to stop this constant condemnation of us. African-American women need to move on from the position of being America's whipping boy

Assimilate or Face the Consequences

Two stories irritated me today. The first was about a woman who was denied a job because locks. Her supervisor considered locks to be an "extreme hairstyle." People who consider natural hair styles to be "extreme" our delusional. I wear an afro because that hair texture is what is dictated by my genetic code. There's nothing, odd, unusual or extreme about it. If our natural hair is extreme, so is our chocolate skin. However, it is our fault as African-Americans that this problem persist. We went through so much effort to forget about our afro hair in an attempt to assimilate that no one respects it as a racial trait. If we did not drop the ball in this area, deny someone of a job because her hair texture was not European enough would be seen as racist as telling someone that she was not light skinned enough to get a job. That's why I am so glad when I see other naturals. We must support natural hair to make America understand that our it is our genetic feature so that the discrimination and mockery of our hair will stop.

This derision of our features is in the same class as black face and is not acceptable.

The second unfortunate story I found today is regard's France's promotion of a bill the banning wearing a wearing a full Islamic veil in public. As I have said before, I believe that organized religion is detrimental and I would like to see it lose it's prominence, but this makes me sick. France has no right to deny people the ability to express themselves the way that they choose. These women are not hurting anyone, nor are they affecting anyone else by their choice of clothes. There is no excuse for this, and I hope it gets struck down. This is nothing but an out lash of hatred, but this is evident. The spokesperson for the president, Luc Chatel, said

"We're legislating for the future. Wearing a full veil is a sign of a community closing in on itself and a rejection of our values."

In other words, assimilate or face the consequences. Both of these stories are examples of people being threatened simply because others are different from them. Society must learn that just because someone does not conform doesn't mean they are automatically dangerous.

African-American Women and Dating Desperation

I cannot stand when African-American act so desperate on the internet. I feel so embarrassed. One can go online now to a plethora of blogs or YouTube videos can see countless AA women making slide shows and blog post expressing their devotion to men of other races. Do these women realize how they are degrading us. It is as if AA women are begging or pleading for any one love us, and it saddens me that we feel that we have to work so hard to get men to show us some attention. Furthermore, why don't AA women see that no one else is obsessing over us online at the volume that we do to others? If other men were so eager to start IR relationships with us, you wouldn't have to beg. This sort of behavior is nothing short of pathetic, and it needs to stop. It's only contributing to the destruction of our image.

Why do African-Americans Celebrate Mediocrity?

Yesterday, my college had an event that was supposed to commemorate the "Black high achievers" of the school. At first, I was elated. Society shines more light on AAs who do bad things rather than on those who work hard, so I was happy that the college took the time to praise those who did. So when I arrived at the school, I was immediately surprised by how many people are there. (Over 200 people showed up!) Since the name of the program was called "Black High Achievers," I expected the people on the President's list or, at the very least, the Dean's list to be invited. However, it seemed that every man and his brother showed up. Then later in the ceremony, the organizer of the event said that the ceremony was meant to recognize people with a GPA of 2.9 and higher. The rest of speakers went on and on about how hard we worked and so forth, but for the entire evening I was really ticked off. Here were AAs who were saying that for their own people, having a GPA of 2.9 is a high achievement! Instead of telling the students to get their act together and work harder, they praised them how they had arrived. How can we set the bar so for ourselves?! I have a problem with anyone who acts as if being mediocre is an achievement for AAs. You cannot praise someone for staying out of jail, taking care of their kids, etc., because that is what they are supposed to do. This only reinforces the mentality that it is our place to be subpar.

True Blood's Portrayal of African-American Women

For a moment, I was considering checking out the "True Blood" series, but gave up the idea after hearing about the African-American female character, Tara. I hated that she was simply an epitome of the trite AA woman stereotype: loud and rude, with no depth. Furthermore, I disliked how she was so readily and easily available for sex with the Caucasian male's character without any level of commitment, as if she wasn't worth having a real relationship with him. To compound matters even further the colorism in the casting of this woman was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Every American knows that a light skinned, mixed, or Latina woman will be the first to be cast for an African-American woman role. However, this rule reverses if the character is stereotypical or otherwise obnoxious. True Blood stayed true to that rule. Apparently, the first woman wasn't Black enough to be "ghetto."

Here's the first woman cast:

Here's the second and final:

African-Americans embrace all that is negative and destructive

They walk down the path of self-destruction...obliviously?

I was reading Clutch Magazine and was struck by an article talking about a writer at Grazia Daily UK describing afros as "ghetto fabulous." I hate hate hate when the word "ghetto" is used as a synonym for African-Americans, and even though I felt motivated to lash out at Caucasian ignorance, I realized that we share a significant part of the blame. It has become part of our culture to embrace and internalize negativity. It is as if we have a campaign to "claim" everything that is bad. We were called "nigger,"so instead of stomping our foot down and proclaiming, "No, I am too a man" we feel the need to "take back" the word. American's dehumanization of us caused us to be in poverty, but instead of saying "I am going to fight out of this quagmire," we accept the ghetto as our home and see it as something to be celebrated. I searched "ghetto" under song title at and found 108 songs glorifying life in the ghetto! Dang, it's like James and Florida fighting their whole life to get out of the projects just for J.J., Themla, and Michael wanting to stay in. How African-Americans have become so content with being third class citizens is beyond unsettling. How can we get ahead when we glamorize poverty and crime--when we don't even see that we are in trouble in the first place? That is what separated the African-Americans in the 60s and earlier from us today. They recognized they were drowning and were desperate to know how to swim. People to day have their head underwater but are too ignorant to fight to keep their head above. It is as if we look at others, such as our president and the prominent figures in African-American History Month, and use them to delude ourselves that we have equal status. Is it that our eyes are so focus on the past that we cannot see where are today? Has the illusion of a post-racial America made us believe that we are at dead end-- that there is no more to achieve? And most importantly, how can we slap ourselves out of this fantasy?

Using Interracial Dating as a Weapon

As people don't seem to read my post, but are making assumptions, here's a note so I don't have to say this over and over. This post is about African-Americans, not just AA women (2) this is not an anti-IR post. (3) This is directed at those who IR date because they have problems with AA (wo)men.
A picture says a thousand words

I just heard of this book by CW today. The cover pretty much sums up the depths of self-hated to which we have sunken. It's no secret that there is a gender war of sorts in the African-American community. Scores of us are verbally destroying our Brothers and Sisters in order to justify why we want to date anyone who isn't of our race. However, people who do this fail to realize that no matter how much they deride African-American (wo)men, they are pretty much shooting blanks as far as their argument is concerned. Here's why:

1. Let's just be honest. You just see European as better.
What all of these arguments come down to is a denial of racial bias. Rather acknowledging that they simply have a bias to Europeans, they put the blame on all of those of the opposite sex, saying that their in inadequacies forced them to find a mate outside their race. But anyone who is not in denial can see straight through this. We were all raised in this Euro-centric culture, so we know how you think. We were all trained to judged things by how white they are and only stop doing this when we recognize our behavior and work to correct it. But until we do, we chase after what closely matches the standard. I mean really, why choose an African-American, who doesn't come close to meeting the European Standard, when you can get the genuine item? Those who do this do not want to recognize their behavior, so in order to cover up their biases, they say that the other gender is responsible for their malicious feelings.

2. We come from the same origin.
I never understood how someone could rant about how terrible all African-American (wo)men were when we are raised in the same environments. It is not as if African-American women and men were born and raised on different planets. We grew up together in the same communities and cultures, so the bad soil that turned one of us rotten must have done the same to the other. Therefore, you can't act like the other gender is evil but yours is an innocent angel from heaven.

3. What Makes You Think the EA's Want You?
When you have so many problems with African-Americans, what makes you think that European-Americans wouldn't as well? If you don't respect African Americans, don't expect European-Americans to either.

4. Who made European-Americans demigods?
How can one find so many faults with African-Americans, but none with European-Americans at all? These African-American (wo)men bashers act as if choosing a EA for a mate will give them a flawless relationship straight out of a Disney movie and make their life complete. Their elevation of EA's to god-like perfection just illustrates their poor view of AA's. Secondly, since they love to talk about how superior EAs are a choice for mates, one must wonder what they do when talks about racism roll around. After all, it appears that EA's have more interest in AA's welfare than we do ourselves. They really have nothing to complain about.

What's truly ironic about this picture
Each time I hear someone insinuate that European-American men are better, such as in the cover of this book, the irony just sickens me. The author of this book says, "Black men are continuously being taught to disrespect, dishonor, and disregard the Black woman. The ugly, heartbreaking results manifest themselves with the 'baby mama' epidemic, video vixen mentality, enabling, denial, and other self-defeating behaviors." I agree with that statement, but what makes her think that EA men don't do the same? If your own people don't value you, why would you think that others do? In addition, who do does she think taught AA men to treat us this way? Who does she think taught us that EA women were valuable and worth protecting and reduced AA women to worthless objects? Who perpetuated, and continues to do so, this unbalanced image of EA and AA women in the media:

Choose your loyalties wisely.

As far as AA women bashing goes, it is shameful that men would turn their back on the only ones who stuck by them after 400 years of going through pure hell. How can anyone say such nasty things about AA women when their own sister and even their own mother is one. It reminded of a passage from the Adi Granth that criticizes this behavior well if you put it into the context of AA women:

We are born of woman,
we are conceived in the womb of woman,
we are engaged and married to woman.
We make friendship with woman
and the linage continued because of woman...
we are bound with the world though woman.
We grow up stronger and wiser having drunk milk from the breast of woman.
Why should we talk ill of her,
who gives birth to Kings?
The woman is born from woman;
there is none without her.
Only the One True Lord is without woman.

Black and White: The Bias Ingrained in our Language

I was reading a book a couple of months ago that mentioned the biases in English. It pointed out how although most words relating to humanity are masculine (mankind for example), the vast majority of those words that are negative are attributed to females. Obviously, the biases in our language are impressed upon our psyche as well, as women are judged more harshly than men in society. The book didn't mention English's bias regarding race, but of course, one has to take this in account as well. Calling Europeans "white" and calling Africans "black" for a life time must lead one to associate the races with the attributes that the words carry respectively. With this in mind, I will post the definition of each (from M-W).

White: free from spot or blemish: free from moral impurity : innocent: not intended to cause harm: : favorable, fortunate: marked by upright fairness: of, relating to, characteristic of, or consisting of white people or their culture from the former stereotypical association of good character with northern European descent (I find it a bit curious how it says "former." They are still associated with good because of this.)

Black: dirty, soiled; thoroughly sinister or evil : wicked: indicative of condemnation or discredit; connected with or invoking the supernatural and especially the devil; characterized by hostility or angry discontent: of or relating to the African-American people or their culture

I refuse to believe that the words we use to describe good and evil everyday has no affect when we use those same words to identify ourselves. I'm not outright condemning the usages of the words black and white entirely, but I'm giving you something to think about. Honestly, however, I look foward to the day when such biased language is not used to describe races.
I did an earlier post complaining about how the Conservatives had been crying that we need to start racially profiling people because of how the Muslims are all out to get us. But now today we have a white man smashing his plane into a Federal building because of his anger with the government. If his name were Abdul, we would have an uproar right now. Glenn Beck, Palin, and their minions would be waving this triumphantly as another example of why we need to stop being so "politically correct" and start racially profiling people to keep those scary dark sinned people at bay. However, since he has an "American name" (Beck should be happy about that), let's see what sort of reaction from them we get. Of course, so far he hasn't been labeled a terrorist. Apparently, if you are white and crash a plane into a building, you only want to commit suicide, but if you are Arab/Black and want to do the same, you are a terrorist. Well, since we have this rule, the Conservatives won't have to address yet another example of the fallacy of their reasoning. I know you may think this is unfair, but, you see, if we used this (and similar incidences) to prove that racially profiling is wrong, we would have to admit members of the white race can be terrorist just as minorities can be. And we just couldn't do that because then we be denying the principles that the Western society was founded on--that Europeans are superior to all other groups. Rejecting this fundamental value of our society would eliminate white privilege and might even help to bring equality to our land. That's why the actions of Joseph Andrew Stack could never be labeled an attack. If we started to acknowledge things like this, Western civilization could fall apart.

Another observation from this incident: Interesting how the Tea Partiers and their friends are so against the terrorist when they have so much in common: their disgruntlement with the American government, their extreme religious beliefs, and reverence of their martyrs (as the several Facebook and webpages that cropped up directly after Joseph Andrew Stack's attack suicide). You know, if they weren't so rabid, they might just hit it off.

Why Stereotypes Are Unbreakable

I'm bothered when European-Americans say or imply that the treatment that African-Americans receive is a direct cause of us behaving in stereotypical ways or, in other words, more often that not we live our lives in harmony with a stereotypical script. As a result, many African-Americans fervently hope that if one day we can stop all of us from behaving in a stereotypical way, we will have a better image. I wish for the day when all African-Americans will stop behaving stereotypically as well, but not for the hope that they will be eliminated completely because they never will. African-Americans will always be stereotyped as inferior in every aspect to European-Americans because this has been ingrained even before this country was founded and now is in the fabric of our culture. Successful African-Americans are thought of as being propserous in spite of their Blackness. They are an exception, an example of the positive outcomes of assimilation, or simply they "act white." In short, the more respectable or admirable an African-American is, the more white he or she will be perceived; and the more negative characteristics an African-American has, the more black he or she will be judged. A perfect article that illustrates how "Black" we are perceived based more on our actions rather than our skin color was released on Newsweek about how those who support Obama see him as lighter skinned, and those who view him negatively see him darker:

When it comes to the policies and politics of Barack Obama, it's no secret that liberals and conservatives don't see eye to eye. But according to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of both Obama--some of them secretly lightened and darkened--best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more you agree with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes. To discuss how political affinities influence perception--and how politicians and the press could take advantage of these findings--NEWSWEEK's Andrew Romano spoke to Caruso. Excerpts:

How did the study actually work?
Essentially we were interested in whether political party influences how people literally see the world, and how they may see different depictions of candidates as representative of who they really are. So to test this we gathered up a bunch of photos of Barack Obama and digitally altered them to create a version where his skin tone appeared a bit lighter and a version where his skin tone was a bit darker than it appeared in the original photograph. And then we just showed people several different photos and asked them to rate each one on how much they represented who he really is. What we found was that participants who told us that they had a liberal political orientation rated the lightened photographs as more representative of Obama than the darkened photographs, whereas participants who told us they had a more conservative ideology rated the darkened photographs as more representative of Obama than the lightened ones.

So how much of a difference between self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives did you find in the results?
It’s a little bit hard to quantify the difference because they were just rating on a 7-point scale of representativeness. So to make it a bit more concrete we looked, for each participant, at which photo they rated as the most representative. They gave us three different ratings—say 1, 4 and 6—and we picked the photo that they gave the highest number to. From there we saw that liberals were about five times as likely to rate a lightened version of Obama as the most representative compared to a darkened version, whereas conservatives were about twice as likely to rate a darkened version as most representative compared to the lightened version.

I’m no expert here, but you’re confident that it’s the skin tone that changes “representativeness” in the eyes of the voter, as opposed to something else about the photographs—like pose, or background, or facial expression?
That’s a great question. What we did was essentially take three different photos with three different poses, and created for each photo a lightened and a darkened version. And then we randomly selected the combination of pose and skin tone that we showed each participant.

So your findings about “representativeness” were consistent across poses—the conservative will be twice as likely to say a “darkened” Obama was representative, regardless of which image of Obama was being darkened?
Right. We were experimentally able to isolate the effect of skin tone because some people saw a lightened version of pose #1 and others saw a darkened version of pose #1—and independent of the pose the lightened versions seemed most representative to liberals and the darkened most representative to conservatives.

Were you surprised by the results?
A little bit. Some of my research deals with how people who have different views on a subject are able to try to understand the views of someone on the other side, and the general finding is that people aren’t particularly good at really coming to understand the perspective of someone with whom they disagree. Beyond that, though, I got interested in this notion of whether our beliefs can actually affect the way we see the world—of whether they can actually affect our perception of objects or people in our environment. And it turns out they can.

Ultimately, what does it mean that someone believes a lightened version of Obama is more representative of him than a darkened version, and vice versa? What are the larger implications of these differences in perception?
Partisanship can affect all sorts of beliefs. It’s not surprising that a liberal and a conservative who read the same health care bill would come to very different conclusions about its merits. But I think our work is more akin to having a liberal and conservative look at the exact same physical copy of a bill sitting on the desk in front of them and disagreeing over how thick it is. That is, even something that we feel we should be able to see similarly, like a person’s racial identity or physical characteristics, can be influenced by our desire to see that person favorably or unfavorably.

That’s fascinating. To extend that analogy, I guess you’d say that when a conservative looks at the current health care reform bill on the table, he sees it as really thick and interprets that thickness as meaning that the bill will create more red tape, more bureaucracy, more spending, whereas a liberal would see it as thinner and interpret that thinness as meaning that the bill will streamline an unwieldy system and reduce deficits over time. In other words, they’re seeing a physical attribute as a kind metaphor about the merits of whatever it is they’re looking at. How does that work with Obama and skin tone?
There’s a long history in Western society of associating lightness with good and darkness with bad. Throughout history, throughout literature, et cetera. And we know now that these associations sometimes apply to the color of a person’s skin, and in addition to associating goodness with white, there’s some recent research in implicit attitudes suggesting that at an unconscious level people have a strong tendency to associate America with white. Which means that liberals, who are going to think that Obama is generally good and generally American, may have these subtle associations linking him to the concept of white, which is reflected in their representativeness ratings. The opposite would be true of conservatives.

But isn’t there a chicken or egg relationship here? Do conservatives see Obama as darker and are thus prone to dislike him, or do they dislike him first and then see him as darker because of it?
That’s a great question. One of the things we’re trying to do now is experimentally try to tease those two options apart. Basically, what we have in our current paper, the one that’s out now, is correlational studies of Obama where we don’t really know what comes first or what’s causing what. The first study in the paper tries to address part of what you’re asking. If we get people to think about a novel candidate and simply manipulate whether they agree with a candidate or not, we can show that people who think this novel biracial candidate agrees with them later report that the lightened photos are more representative of him, suggesting that if you agree with someone then you may come to see him as lighter. From that we can speculate, exactly as you have, about the reverse path—and that is, seeing images of someone when his or her skin tone looks darker may cause people to like that person less than seeing images of that person with lighter skin tone.

Do you plan to study the second option?
We’ve actually just recently completed a new study that’s not in the current paper that looks at this question. We had people read about this new biracial candidate in the Department of Education, and for some participants we had them read this candidate’s biography with an unaltered picture accompanying the biography, while for some participants we had them read the biography with a picture of the candidate that had been lightened or darkened. Then we had them tell us how they felt about the six issues facing the Department of Education, and everyone was told the same thing—which was that this guy agrees with you on three of the six issues on the table, so it’s unclear really whether you like him or not. Then we asked them to tell us how much they supported him and how likely they’d be to vote for him if given the chance. And somewhat remarkably, the participants who’d seen a darkened photo just a few minutes earlier reported that they were less likely to vote for the candidate than those who’d seen the lightened photo.

Could you imagine political campaigns using this sort of research in the future—you know, as more minorities run for office?
I think our findings help explain the ways in which people may try to influence the level of support for, say, a biracial candidate. People have and may continue to strategically expose the public to images that alter certain characteristics of a person in the media spotlight. It reminds us of the Time magazine cover where an illustration had darkened an image of OJ Simpson following his arrest in 1994. Hillary Clinton’s campaign was actually accused of doing the exact same thing in the primary when it ran a television ad with a video of Obama during one of the debates in which the entire ad was artificially darkened. Although we didn’t find any direct evidence of this in our data, it’s possible that news directors may be susceptible to same sort of biases as our participants, without even really being aware of it, such that liberal and conservative media outlets may differ in the types of images of Obama that they tend to select and depict.

Which, in turn, could activate or reinforce whatever biases are already out there among voters as they see the candidates through the media filter—for example, an MSNBC viewer who is continually exposed to “lighter” images of Obama and who therefore tends to think of him as more “good” and more “American.”
I wouldn’t advocate that people strategically try to manipulate things, but certainly political campaigns and ideologically-driven media outlets will always try to show their candidates in the best possible light.

So to speak.
Right. It’s the same as scrutinizing haircuts and clothing to make people as appealing as possible to the voters. With the Clinton ad, the goal was to try to make Obama appear more ominous.

Madame C. J. Walker Passed Us the Ball. We Dropped It.

"I am a woman who came from the cotton fields of the South. From there I was promoted to the washtub. From there I was promoted to the cook kitchen. And from there I promoted myself into the business of manufacturing hair goods and preparations. I have built my own factory on my own ground." Madame CJ Walker

During this month as we recognize African-Americans' achievements, no doubt Madame C. J. Walker will be a prominent figure, as she indeed should be. She was born of former slaves and was orphaned at an early age. Yet despite her impoverished background, she founded her own company and became the first female to become a millionaire because of her own achievements.

Now, I suppose that if you lived in the days Madam C.J. Walker Manufacturing Company was founded, the future of industry for Black America would seem exceptionally bright. After all, an innovative African-American lady has already taken steps to establishing the hair care industry for us and has become a millionaire. With additional work, we could have a thriving economy. If you fast-forward to 2010, however, you can see that this magnificent dream was shattered because unfortunately, although Blacks didn't realize that big money was to be made in our hair care industry, others did. The Koreans and other ethnicities took over the Black hair care industry and helped turn it into the $9 billion dollar giant that it is today--money that could be used to reduce our poverty and further our own community. What makes this even more disturbing is that Madam C.J. Walker was able to achieve such success even though she was born in poverty and had to confront the enormous set backs of being both African-American and a woman (she even died before women had the right to vote for goodness sake). With all of the opportunities we have today, there is no excuse for us allowing others to takeover our own industry. We control where the money goes, and we are responsible for whether or helps us or lines another's pocket.

Madam C.J. Walker innovation is inspirational but it should certainly not ended. We must follow her example and control our own economies.

Our people have to be made to see that any time you take your dollar out of your community and spend it in a community where you don't live, the community where you live will get poorer and poorer, and the community where you spend your money will get richer and richer. Then you wonder why where you live is always a ghetto or a slum's time now for our people to be come conscious of the importance of controlling the economy of our community. If we own the stores, if we operate the businesses, if we try and establish some industry in our own community, then we're developing to the position where we are creating employment for our own kind. -- Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet. Read here or listen below

Black Owned Manufactures and Non-Black Owned Manufactures

Natural Hair: My Road to Acceptance

I have made a couple of post about African-American women and our hair issues, but I have yet to share my own journey regarding how I have come to feel the way I do about my hair. My relationship with my hair has taught me many valuable lessons but one that I shall share here is: do not fit a square peg into a round hole.

When I Hated my Hair
My hair has never been permed or straightened at any point in my life, so during my childhood I always felt that my natural hair, in its pigtails, was a curse. The highest point in my elementary school career, during the third grade, was when I got braids for the first time. I was so proud that my hair could swig like "it should." However, my elation didn't last. My hair wasn't long enough. I knew that I couldn't get a relaxer because I had been told that they fry hair to death, and I definitely didn't want to look like the scores of girls I'd seen with relaxers so bad that it looked like their hair had been set on fire. The only option left for me was to get long braid extensions. Those were great to me. I had the long flowing hair without the pain of a relaxer. But they didn't appeal to me completely because I knew they were not equal to the Standard. So when I got older I was determined to get a weave (although I had no idea how weaves actually worked). I thought my natural hair was too long to wear a weave and wanted to cut it short. My mom thought I was crazy, but my reasoning was if you never wear natural hair out what is the use of it anyway? Besides that, I felt painfully embarrassed by hair. I could not go outside with it loose without my head being covered with a scarf or a hooded jacket. The only time I thought you were supposed to see it was when it was being "done" between extensions. (Looking back I think it is so sad that I thought that Black hair was so worthless that I was willing to cut it.) But back to the point, the extensions I had at this time looked too natural (everyone thought I had really long dreadlocks). Subconsciously, I knew I wasn't close enough to the Standard so I took the final step that would bring me closer to perfection. I got a sew-in, which was an ego boost for me (everyone would fawn over "my" hair). I finally had the hair that I'd ask God to miraculously change in elementary school. At the time, I did not make any connection between my relationship with my hair and any biases or prejudices I had against African features. If I heard anyone questioning why African-American women perm/press/weave our hair, I joined in with the scores of women saying it was because of convenience or citing that white women wear weaves too. However, even though my European-styled hair made me feel complete, I still felt uncomfortable. My mind was always on whether my tracks were showing and the like. Even though I felt pretty, I never felt right.

Turning Point
I realized that I was on a spiraling down on a path to no where when I heard a question by Malcolm X , "Who taught you to hate yourself?"

My initial reaction to this and of all of the others who had suggested that Black women who perm/press/weave had a problem was to reject the suggestion altogether. After all hair was just hair. White women style it however they want to, so why couldn't Black women? However, after examining the relationship I had with my hair I realized that it was never the case. From the moment that I became aware of its distinctiveness, I wanted to change it to something straighter or longer. If it was just hair, why did I try to hide it so much? In short, this question caused me to reexamine not only my views on my hair but society as a whole, but at this point, I will expound upon a single lesson that I gained from accepting my natural hair:

Black women as a group are like square pegs created in a society that is designed for round ones. We spend the majority of our lives chipping ourselves down, damaging ourselves mentally and physically, trying to make ourselves fit into a standard that wasn't set for us. I never was happy with my hair because I could was never equal to the Standard. I finally became content when I understood that my hair isn't supposed to look long and straight--that the rules for straight hair were completely different than those for mine. When I stopped seeing myself by how well I fit into European views, my eyes opened to how beautiful natural hair was. When I looked in the mirror, I stopped worrying "How can I get this straighter" or "How can I get my curls more defined." I realized that this is the way my coils are supposed to look and I will never be content if I try to make my it anything less than it is.

We cannot be truly happy or content with our lives until we come to the realization that there is a hole designed specifically for us to fit. When we chip ourselves down to fit the standard for someone else, we are only damaging ourselves.

Pat Robertson and His Haiti Remark

I wasn't surprised by Pat Robertson's comments on Haiti considering that similarly he had concurred with a statement that America was being judged for abortion and homosexuals during 9/11. But I won't bother talking about his character (because he speaks for himself) but rather his words because they reflect the sentiment of many Americans. This is a bit of a continuation of "American Christianity"

I believe that the story Robertson references about Haiti asking Satan to lead them out of slavery is myth that was another attempt to degrade Africans through religion, such as the tale that Blacks are cursed for being the descendants of Ham was designed to do. The idea has been propagated to discredit the Haitians for their achievement of being the only slaves successful of taking their land back through a revolt in history. Instead of giving the Haiti's the credit they deserve for their courage and determination, the West would rather believe that it was Satan who just gave the Haitians their freedom. Dr. Jean R. Gelin describes how this developed here
Haitian pastor Frantz Lacombe identified a ‘dependence mentality’ in the leadership of the Haitian church, which resulted from the way the Christian faith was brought to the country, historically and through various denominations. Apparently, this unfortunate manner of thinking, which tends to emulate the worldview and culture of North American and European Christian missionaries, has permeated the general philosophy of the Haitian church on many levels, including church planting, church management, music and even missionary activities.

In that context, I would not be surprised if the satanic pact idea (followed by the divine curse message) was put together first by foreign missionaries and later on picked up by local leaders. On the other hand, it is equally possible that some Haitian church leaders developed the idea on their own using a theological framework borrowed from those same missionaries who subsequently propagated the message around the world. Either way, because of this message, Haiti has been portrayed as the country born out of Satan’s benevolence and goodwill toward mankind. Shouldn’t such a fantastic idea be tested for its historic validity and theological soundness? I invite you to take with me a closer and possibly different look at the available records.

He continues to describe where this idea came from in parts two and three of his message. But in any case, Robertson's actions also illustrate that, besides being racially charged, American Christianity is often too ignorant of its own its own history and beliefs. I get tired of hearing about how America is being or is going to be judged because of abortion and homosexuality. Today being a Christian means little more than checking off "I'm against abortion" and "I'm against homosexuality," even though, as Greg Boyd says, "Yet, while we have at most six verses in the Bible that mention homosexuality, we have around 3,000 passages that address greed, gluttony and the need to care for the poor. Not only this, but if there are any sins American Christians are most guilty of, they’re greed, gluttony and apathy toward the poor. And if there are any sins that demonstrably kill people, it’s these ones. Yet Christians go after gays . Why? One can’t help but suspect it might be because it’s one sin they can feel self-righteous in condemning." Besides that, for so many American Christians, sin in America began with Roe vs Wade and the gay and lesbian movements, but what before that? Instead of saying that American is being judged for those sins, why don't they ever take into account the centuries of injustices of Africans, Native Americans, and immigrants at the hands of America. If they are so sure that God is angry at this country for sin, why don't they think His memory extends to those hundreds of years of horror? Why don't they think God is judging America for it's adoration of money or neglect of the sick and poor? They assume that God doesn't care about those matters because they do not matter to them.
Finally, before making statements that God is judging anyone, they should take in account what He Himself said on the matter, verses that they so easily forget.

1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:1-5, New King James Version)