Because You Never Asked

     (The Million Man March took place somewhere in the mid 90's, which was when this essay was written.)

     When I was eight years old, Elvis Presley burst on the scene with the single "Heartbreak Hotel". Even then, at such a tender age, my formation as a human being was sufficient to be enamored of such music. Soon to follow were such classics as "Hound Dog", "Blue Suede Shoes", "Teddy Bear" and a few others from that era that now escape me. From that point on, the artistic quality of Elvis's work began to take on that mass produced, assembly line mediocrity so typical of huge stars with cash cow potential, while his legendary fame, which has now arrived to Deity-like proportions, continued to grow. That is why, in describing Elvis Presley, I have always said, "never has so much been made of so little."

     I have a similar feeling with regard to the "Million Man March", just completed in Washington.

     During the 60's and 70's, which could be dubbed the Golden Age of the Civil Rights Movement, as well as the finest moment for liberalism, there were a number of manifestations of this kind. Contrary to the conservative rhetoric that now abounds, this movement was not a "total failure". The further inclusion of large numbers of minorities into the mainstream of American life is living proof of this. Check the nearest television screen for just 5 minutes and you will see complexions, genders and facial structures in places never seen just 20 years before. Whether either liberals or conservatives can deal with the substantial problems that continue to haunt our society in these areas is still to be seen, but it is unfair to say that liberalism was (is) a waste of time. It would be more accurate to call it quite successful.

     The demonstrations of that era, unlike the "Million Man March", had a definite socio-political agenda. The participants knew what they wanted, who to petition, and why they had gathered in protest. The "Million Man March", remarkable for its size, organization and peaceful harmony (though harmony really wasn't the message), was lacking in focus. To bring together such an impressive mass of people for the sole purpose of telling them to go home and be "good fellas", without any specific agenda to make this a reality, is much ado about nothing.

     This manifestation was unique in its exclusion of women. I consider this a negative thing, but not for the reasons expressed by others with a similar attitude.

     Most people opposed to this exclusion felt as if women were being slighted by a sexist, macho leadership. In taking into account whatever this whole burlesque was trying to vaguely accomplish, such exclusion was detrimental for more cogent reasons. By excluding women, you are also letting them off the hook. By exonerating women from any blame for the Afro-American's condition in our society, you are ignoring some of the most basic facts of life. Men and women, "for better or worse, 'til death do us part", are married forever in the ecosystem of existence. The two sexes are always relating to each other in a mutual way, both encouraging and discouraging all kinds of behavior. If there are currently an unacceptable amount of black men with negative personality traits, who are prone to violence or shirk their responsibilities as fathers, husbands and citizens, the average black woman sharing his environment has done little to show her displeasure. She comfortably copulates with this man and demands very little in return. She is as much a part of the problem as he is and to not understand this is not to understand . period.

     In spite of everything just said above, I'd see no reason to oppose the "Million Man March" if not for the driving force behind it, the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhand. Without such leadership, even as a meaningless expression of some nebulous idea, it could do no harm. But someone like Mr. Farrakhand changes that.

     A demagogue is someone who simplifies complex issues in an elegant way so as to mislead throngs of people. (I would say America's foremost demagogue is Rush Limbaugh). Mr. Farrakhand is a slam-dunk demagogue that should not be appeased, cajoled, humored, or given any form of respectability or credibility. Let's "tell it like it is."

     Let's start with the fact that this articulate phony stood before the whole nation and claimed, without the least bit of shame or humility, that he was God's exclusive, hand-picked messenger on Earth. It's times like this when I'm reasonably certain that the human race would be better off if we could somehow put this concept "God" behind us. I defy anyone to show me how this omnipotent-force-ruling-over-us-from-afar idea has done us more good than harm. Speak to me of theological philosophy, tell me of ethical religious codes, spew forth some morality engendered by God, and I will reply that you have nothing but verbiage, fluff, nothing but unsubstantiated vapor that is easy to imagine but impossible to touch. In my weariness for this concept, I give you facts, numbers, undeniable truth. I give you wars, massacres, genocides, terrorists, assassinations and hate, all in the name of "God". God is just a synonym for insecurity. I mean really . if we weren't so hung up on this thing "God", Louis Farrakhand could not claim to be his messenger. Wouldn't that already be an improvement?

     Many people continue to say that much of the message is good and we should separate "the message from the messenger". This is somewhat reminiscent of Germany in the 1930's. There must have been scores of decent people who said to themselves, "gee, there's a lot about this guy Hitler I don't really like, but I sure would like to see a proud Germany once again. Let's give it a try." As I watched Farrakhand approach the bullet-proof podium to give his speech, with his uniformed paramilitary escort choreographed to perfection, I was struck by the whole show's resemblance to those Nazi days of yore; Hitler, his personal army of S.S. henchmen, the crowds, the passionate oratory of the Fuhrer .

     Farrakhand's attacks on the Jews are classic, big league demagoguery. He will generally spend substantial amounts of time giving us a history lesson on the unfortunate voyage the black man has had to endure in the New World: the inhumanity of slavery, the persecution, the chattel-like status, the lynchings, the lack of educational opportunity, the almost four centuries of the cruelest depravation and discrimination. He's right! So whom does he single out for the most blame? A group of people that make up an infinitesimal part of the country's population, a people who did not arrive here in substantial numbers until the 20^th century, a people who had virtually nothing to do with the black man's plight in America: The Jews!

     The saddest thing about this event is that it took someone like Louis Farrakhand to pull it off. We are living troubled times indeed.

     Relevant Material:

      "Complainer! Women don't understand men either!"

      "And you're telling me? Of course they don't understand us! Between you and us only the most strict principle of reciprocity reins." From the novel, "La Prueba del Laberinto", (The Test of the Labyrinth), by the Spaniard, Fernando Sanchez Drago.