PUB: Time Machine: A Posthumous Interview with a Deceased Musician Contest

Dead Rock Star Interview Writing Contest!

So you’re a big-time music journalist, and as such, you have been blessed with great powers, one of which is the ability to interview dead rock stars. Maybe you’d like to ask Jimi Hendrix if there are any good recording studios in the afterlife. Or inquire as to Kurt Cobain’s latest project with Ian Curtis. Or grill Billy Joel on his choice to record an album of Sinatra covers. (Wait, Billy Joel’s not dead – though a case could be made …)

Anyhoo, Xomba has teamed up with Filter music magazine (Filtermagazine.com) to present our latest writing contest. We’d like you to pick a dead rock star and create a mock interview. Yep, set it up just like a real interview: You ask the questions and make up their answers. Ask anything you like (and answer for them. They won’t mind; they’re dead.) The interview can be serious, humorous, insightful or incendiary. The more inventive, the better.

  • Entries must be at least 350 words.
  • Deadline for entries is midnight on Monday, Nov. 1.

The winning entry will be featured on Filter’s homepage for a week. If you’re not already a member of Xomba, sign up here and get writing.

Click Here To Submit Your Entry

PUB: The University of New Orleans - Bayou Magazine Submission Guidelines

Bayou 53

JAMES KNUDSEN EDITOR'S PRIZE

Submissions for the James Knudsen Editor’s Prize for Fiction will be accepted October 1- December 31 only. Any submissions received outside those times will be thrown away. Sorry, y'all. The winner will receive $500 and publication, and the finalists will be named on our website.

2009 JIM KNUDSEN FICTION CONTEST WINNER:

John Chattin “Call It Love, Name It Hate”

John Chattin’s characters in “Call It Love, Name It Hate” haunt the reader’s imagination. The landscape is dark, and the writing is crisp and at times beautifully brutal. This is the kind of story editors love to find. Look for Chattin's winning story in Issue 54.

2009 FINALISTS (in alphabetical order):

Frederic H. Decker “Welcome to the Loading Dock”
Marc Burgett “Armed and Dangerous”
Janet G. House “Faintly Falling Snow”
Mary Beth Leymaster Matteo “Grace on a Mission”
Elizabeth Moore “In Groups of Three or More”
Lynn Veach Sadler “Sometimes, You Just Got to Go Auditory”
Ron Yates “Spooky House”


 

Contest Guidelines:

  • The submission must be an original, previously unpublished work of FICTION and no longer than 7500 words.
  • Include a cover sheet with your name, address, phone number, email address, and the title of your submission. Please do not include your name on the pages of the actual story. Any story with identifying material will be disqualified.
  • Contest submissions must be postmarked no earlier than October 1 and no later than December 31.
  • The reading fee is $15 and includes a one-year subscription to Bayou Magazine.
  • You may enter more than one story, but each submission must arrive in a separate envelope with its own cover sheet and entry fee.
  • We accept simultaneous submissions, but please clearly indicate this on your cover sheet.
  • We accept novel excerpts so long as the excerpt can stand alone as a complete short story.
  • This contest is not open to current or former UNO students or faculty.
  • The winner of the contest will be published in Bayou Magazine, and all other entries will be considered for publication.
  • All manuscripts should be in 12pt Times New Roman and double spaced with standard 1” margins.
  • Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, folks. Follow directions.

 

To enter, send an original, previously unpublished work of fiction and a check for $15 made payable to UNO Foundation and mail to:

Bayou Magazine
2009 James Knudsen Editor’s Prize for Fiction
University of New Orleans
2000 Lakeshore Drive
New Orleans, LA 70148

About James Knudsen


James Knudsen served as Director of the Creative Writing Workshop at the University of New Jim KnudsenOrleans from 2001-2003. A beloved teacher, friend and colleague, Jim taught all levels of creative writing at UNO from 1977 until his death from cancer in 2004. He was author of the novels Playing Favorites and Just Friends, the story collection Evening of Wonders, and, with his friend and colleague, Joanna Leake, the textbooks The Illustrated Guide to Writing and The Illustrated Guide to College Composition.

 

 


 

Bayou Magazine adheres to the CLMP Contest Code of Ethics which states:

CLMP’s community of independent literary publishers believe that ethical contests serve our shared goal: to connect writers and readers by publishing exceptional writing. Intent to act ethically, clarity of guidelines, and transparency of process form the foundation of an ethical contest. To that end, we agree 1) to conduct our contests as ethically as possible and to address any unethical behavior on the part of our readers, judges, or editors; 2) to provide clear and specific contest guidelines—defining conflict of interest for all parties involved; and 3) to make the mechanics of our selection process available to the public. This Code recognizes that different contest models produce different results, but that each model can be run ethically. We have adopted this Code to reinforce our integrity and dedication as a publishing community and to ensure that our contests contribute to a vibrant literary heritage.

 

HAITI: Jean Jacques Dessalines - The women who influenced him, his ideals and legacy remembered

 

Jean Jacques Dessalines - The women who influenced him, his ideals and legacy remembered (born, September 20, 1758, assassinated October 17, 1806)

 

September 20th is the birthday of Haiti's founding father, Jean Jacques Dessalines. Born a slave under European ideology and put in chains to serve France and the European nations in worldwide power, he lived to change the course of humanity. He did what Spartacus couldn't and much more.

There is so much about our African and Haitian ancestors we don’t know because US/European modus operandi was about the destruction of Africa’s past, African identity and world history in order to build and create their own societies and future.

When I hear Haitians and now even some embolden foreigners, talk about Haitians must forget 1804 and the triumphs of Jean Jacques Dessalines, the general of the native army of Haiti, stop referring to them and look to the future; when I see on Haitian forums discussing the mistreatment of Haitians in the Dominican Republic the advice that Haitians ought to stop talking about the 30,000 Haitians that Trujillo had slaughtered in 1937, I am reminded that the destruction of our African past, our Haitian reality, what Haitians witness to every nanosecond of the day is still the global US/European modus operandi. Haitian self-determination is being destroyed by UN occupation, paternalism, privatization, free trade agreements, debt, wage slavery and forced assimilation.

Haitians are asked to copy and paste what whites and their overseers see as their reality, their experience, and their history. But Jean Jacques Dessalines, in creating the nation of Haiti, broke from that modus operandi. He did not copy and paste what white minds saw as civilization, justice and democracy. Jean Jacques Dessalines looked at his own world and day to day experiences, took in what he could see with his own two eyes, what he could hear with his own ears, what he could envision with his own precious heart, his own unbowed soul and created a nation, a Haiti, that reflected that reality, that vision and the future that would best serve his people. His legacy has yet to be herald. His great ideals still remain obscure, his humane vision of humanity and for peaceful and self-affirming co-existence still denied.

In fact, after the mulatto sons of France assassinated Dessalines, during both the administration of the mulatto generals, Petion and Boyer, Dessalines’ name was forbidden to be spoken in Haiti under threat of imprisonment. Dessalines' assassination, two years after the creation of Haiti, was the first foreign-influenced coup d’etat in Haiti. The 2004 bi-centennial coup d’etat of Bush the son, was the 33rd coup d’etat to try to eradicate the influence of the Haitian revolution, which legally abolished slavery, forced assimilation, direct colonialism and the Triangular Trade in Haiti.

At Ezili's HLLN we recapture Dessalines’ three major ideals, his law, his name for Haiti, its meaning, history, revelations and explain why Dessalines was so ahead of his time and so threatening to the white nations. In the Ezili’s Free Haiti Movement, we set out October 17th, the day of Dessalines’ assassination to discuss Dessalines’ life, vision, ideals and what he represents to Haiti and the world.

Our history was so destroyed that it is only fairly recently that Haitians actually had a date for Dessalines’ birthday. Before, all we were taught was the date of his death. But Haitian scholars have done more work and now in Haiti, we have this day to celebrate. It is so very important this recapturing of our history, our people, what they witnessed to, how they reacted, what they created. We still have so little information. Still must rebuild. Still must put flesh, bone, blood and soul to those who were so destroyed, so corralled into ships and sold as property.

We still don’t have enough information about Victoria Montou (known as "Toya"), the Haitian woman who taught the greatest warrior that ever lived how to fight in hand-to-hand combat and how to throw a knife. Gran Toya guided Dessalines in his youth and he called her "aunt." She was an extraordinary warrior and commanded her own indigenous army. We still know so little about her. We know only that she taught Dessalines the physical maneuvers of effective hand to hand combat, how to shoot and how to throw a knife. We know she was old because she is affectionately called Gran Toya. Imagine her life! Imagine the inspiration she could be today to our young Haitian women. No.

Imagine the inspiration she could be to the world’s women and men! But our Black history was destroyed so we could be enslaved, so we could find nothing good in ourselves, our forefathers, their thinking. And still today, I’m reading on Haitian forums we should not resurrect the past, but move on because only today matters, - with our collective Haitian persona so vilified, maligned and brutalized and with white heroes, white cultural hegemony ruling. On that ground, we are told we should deploy ourselves into this world.

This morning I was blessed to be a participant on a Radio Kajou interview celebrating the holy day that's the birthday of Haiti's forefather, Jean Jacques Dessalines and I learned from a colleague in that discussion that Dessalines’ mother was a woman named Marie Elisabeth. I did not know this. Until this morning's panel when Haitian historian and scholar, Jafrikayiti said this, I did not know the name of Dessalines’ mother or that this enslaved African-Ayisyen, founder of the nation of Haiti, even had a mother who could be positively identified. Most of us are told our African ancestors were enslaved, we were sold as property, families separated and thus it’s impossible to know who gave birth to the which child. And that is that.

But there are Haitian scholars unearthing our stories, our stolen identities and lives. This job is ours to do. I want to know more, to empower more. I want to know more about Marissainte Dédé Brazil, (known as Defile), the Haitian woman who gave Dessalines a proper burial after he was chopped up in pieces and left in the Pont Rouge bridge as garbage. The old historians of Haiti called her crazy Defile, as if who would give honor and burial to the father of a Black nation.

Yet, Defile, an enslaved woman who freed herself, thought for herself, took action even some warrior men may have been hesitant to take, and left us a legacy of courage. Manman Defile went against the mob violence and group thinking, preserved our nation's dignity, faced the powers of the mulatto generals, and faced France to honor our fallen founding father. Who was the woman named Defile? Really. How did she get so much focus, courage, and so much gumption? We want to know so we can tell the next generation of Haitian the non-colonial narrative on Haiti. (See, Kouwòn pou Defile.)

We want to know about Marie Claire Heureuse Félicité Bonheur, Dessalines’ wife.

We are told, she was so kind, so elegant, so gentle, so beautiful that even the murderers of her husband bowed down to her. The mulatto general, General Petion, who became President of Haiti after the assassination of Jean Jacques Dessalines, actually wrote to Dessalines’ wife, Marie Claire Heureuse, to tell her not to worry she would be the "adoptive spouse" of the nation and taken care of by the nation, for life. (See, Three Historical Documents on Dessalines' Assassination.) Why did this woman, the wife of General Petion's archenemy, deserve such notice, admiration, and accolades? Why? We want every Haitian child, every women in the world, to know more about Marie Claire Heureuse. The little history we know tell us that during the Haitian revolutionary war against colonialism, forced assimilation, the Triangular Trade, and slavery, Marie Claire Heureuse took care of the sick soldiers, of the prisoners of the Revolutionary War, that she rode out onto the battlefield and even the French stopped their canon firing while she ministered to the dying, the wounded on both sides of the battle.

It has been said that this black Haitian woman named Marie Claire Heureuse was the first Red Cross. The world needs to know more about this woman, this hero, her model for human interaction. We should want to teach our children that one of the greatest, fiercest warriors on planet earth - the African warrior General Jean Jacques Dessalines - whose very name still scares the hell out of US/Euro writers and history scholars, still horrifies enslavers, tyrants and despots everywhere, that this man was taught how to fight and throw a knife by a woman named Toya and that he married a woman, a healer, a pacifist, who insisted he not bring his weapons inside their home and he lovingly complied with his beloved wife’s request. This, in a time and at a place where the First World War was happening in the world, where all the nations-of-power had converged on small Haiti to annihilate it and Dessalines’ weapon was his life. Who was this man! This beautiful woman, this wife, lover, nurse, herbal healer and pacifist?

What you read in history books on Haiti of hundreds of pages will mostly not tell you, what I’ve just put down in these few paragraphs about the people of Haiti. No. For, how many of us know greater details about sergeant Suzanne Bélair, known as Sanit Belè, the fierce Haitian woman who taught the African warriors of Haiti how to die with dignity as the French executioner's bullets shattered her to shreds?

Sanit, fell into the hands of the French. In the hope of saving her life, her husband, Charles Belair, voluntarily gave himself up. But his chivalrous action went for naught. The two, husband and wife, were sentenced to death by firing squad and executed the same day. When her hateful executioners tried to blindfold her because she was a woman, Sanit refused. She considered it an insult to a woman's bravery and courage to be executed any differently than her husband. And, after watching unblinkingly while her husband was executed, Sanit Belè boldly presented her breast to receive the firing squad's fatal shots.

What more do we know about Marie-Jeanne Lamartinière, the fearless Haitian woman who stood tall and striking - wearing a long white floating dress, her waist knotted with a white sash, a red scarf around her head, saber strapped down her shoulders, and rifle in hand - as she urged forward to victory against the 12,000 French, the 1,000 outgunned and outnumbered indigenous Haitian army, on the bloody days at the famous and decisive battle of Crête-à-Pierrot?

It is rumored that after the murder of her husband, Brigade Commander Lamartinierre, Marie-Jeanne became the lover of the native General, Dessalines. Not much else is recorded. We just have her picture in our minds from the various paintings and oral stories, our Haitian lullabies, depicting Marie-Jeanne in the midst of the inferno, a wounded soldier at her feet, or in the line of fire outside the Crête-à-Pierrot fort, fighting alongside her officer husband, Lamartinière.

 

Mari-Jann and Lamartinière at Crête-à-Pierrot 

 

There is so much we need to know in order to know ourselves today. In order to know we need not copy and paste another’s history of ourself and engraft that hatred in our soul. There is so much we need to recover from the destruction of African people, life, culture.

When I read the neocolonial chorus of ‘let’s move on,” of reconciling with lies and injustice, lwa Desalin pran mwen vre – I remember that the destruction of the African identity was built on bitter, twisted lies that must be unearthed for the hidden and lost African body to rise untainted; I remember that Dessalines did not copy and paste what was considered the height of human development where slavery, forced assimilation and colonialism was the rule. Dessalines created a nation that rejected Bourgeois Freedom, forced assimilation, colonialism, and enslavement of all types - physical, psychological, economic. Dessalines’ legacy has still to be fully put into black and white papyrus form, but the Haitian masses, thank goodness, have never become zombies, carbon copies or phonies.

They've never had enough missionary/ecclesiastic schooling to be other than Dessalines’ descendants. They understand and live self-referral. That is why Haiti still exists, still struggles, still does not copy and paste. Se lan lekòl lavi nou pran leson. Se pa lan lespas nou apran. Se pa yon bagay ki soti o lè – yon bagay etranje – ki tonbe a tè ke nou ranmase kòm pa nou. Non. Ayisyen pran sa ki touprè yo, ki sòti lan yo, lan zantray yo, ki pou yo. Yo pa lan kopye kolè bagay esklavajist-kolyanist.

Haitians learn from the university of life. That’s where they get their lessons, their view of life, the world they create and extend. It’s not from some economic theory by some dead white guy overseas or, from Paul Collier, Bill Clinton, Ban Ki Moon, Condi Rice, Colin Powell or some Washington/Canadian/French think tank, foreign NGO or world renowned expert in humanitarian aid. No. Haiti’s masses mostly don’t even fight their arrogance; they smile, they agree, take what’s useful and then go about trying to live with what’s in their hands. Haiti still exists, despite two centuries of systemic, structural Euro-US impoverishment and destruction, because Haitians live with their environment and mold it towards the life-giving forces the best way they can. (See, Black is the Color of Liberty.)

 

***

 

>via: http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/Desalin09.html#janjak

INTERVIEW: Malcolm Shabazz on the three chapters missing from ‘The Autobiography of Malcolm X’ | San Francisco Bay View

Malcolm Shabazz on the three chapters missing from ‘The Autobiography of Malcolm X’

October 18, 2010

Interview by Minister of Information JR

Malcolm Shabazz visited Malcolm X College in Chicago when he was recently in the city for the Chairman Fred Hampton Streetz Party. – Photo: Minister of Information JR
MOI JR: You are listening to another edition of POCC Block Report Radio with the Minister of Information JR. Today we are going to be talking to Malcolm Shabazz, the grandson of El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, formerly known as Malcolm X. We are going to be talking specifically about the literary work, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” and this new attempt by opportunists – to say the least – to tarnish the legacy of our great Black leader of resistance.

 

Malcolm, how are you?

Malcolm Shabazz: Good, thank you. How are you doing?

MOI JR: I’m good.

Malcolm, can you tell us a little bit about this new ordeal with the autobiography of your grandfather, which has influenced so many people over generations? Can you tell us a little bit about this work?

Malcolm Shabazz: Basically, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” my grandfather, every time I read it, I get something out of it. It’s impacted so many individuals all over the world, including myself. I often get emotional when I read it. I’ve read it several times.

There are supposedly three chapters that were withheld from my grandfather’s autobiography and it’s being portrayed presently that it was withheld by the publishing company or by Alex Haley himself, which is not the case.

These three chapters were purchased back in 1992 for $1,000 from the Alex Haley estate by a man named Gregory Reed, who was an attorney out of Detroit. Unfortunately, this individual, Gregory Reed, doesn’t have the best interests of the Shabazz family at heart and he is not concerned with the preservation of my grandfather’s legacy. He is only in it for the money. He is trying to make a fast buck.

He’s had these three chapters since 1992. Someone would have to ask, “Why has he had them for so long and is only trying to make his profit now?” The thing is, he has had them for this long because a lot of publishers don’t want to mess with him. Because even though he purchased the three chapters, there is a controversy over the intellectual rights and the ownership rights – the right to publish. So even though he has these three chapters, there is a controversy over whether he has the right to actually publish them. So a lot of publishers do not want to deal with this individual.

He is trying to portray as if it was Alex Haley or the publishers that withheld these three chapters, which is not the case. My grandfather himself was actually the one who didn’t want these three chapters to be published. Reason being is because they were more reflective of him being the spokesperson for the Nation of Islam at that time. They were more reflective of a time when everything he said, he attributed to Elijah Muhammad. He would say, Elijah Muhammad teaches us thus and so – even when it wasn’t Elijah Muhammad. He was just doing this to show respect and so forth.

“My grandfather himself was actually the one who didn’t want these three chapters to be published.”-Malcolm Shabazz

So when he had a fallout with the Nation of Islam and was no longer speaking on their behalf, he made the decision that he wanted these three chapters to be taken out because he didn’t want his book to be reflective of that because he had moved on. He had grown. So it was my grandfather that made this decision to keep the three chapters out of the book, not Alex Haley and not the publishing agency.

MOI JR: Has this guy ever tried to contact the family?

Malcolm Shabazz: He has spoken to maybe one person out of my grandfather’s six daughters. But he hasn’t met with any key family members or even key supporters of my grandfather’s family. So you know, I would like to speak with him personally. My Aunt Ilyasah, they provided him with a platform to speak at the Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz Educational Center in Harlem just recently. That was an opportunity for him to say what was up or whatever. But what he did was he rambled on, taking up so much time that he ran right into the Q & A.

People were there that wanted to ask questions, but he just kept going and going and when it was time for the question and answer, he just got up out of there. He just took off. There were people that were supporters of my grandfather that were there with him, holding him down, that were there ready to ask this man some questions, and he didn’t even give them the time. He didn’t even stop to speak with them after the event was over. He got in his car and took off.

So he has not sat down with any key members or supporters of my grandfather’s family. The publishers don’t want to deal with him because of the controversy over the intellectual rights and the ownership rights – the right to publish. They feel like the whole deal is not clean cut. They don’t want to squabble or have to take it to court.

MOI JR: How do you personally feel about this ordeal?

Malcolm Shabazz: When I first heard about it, I had just come back from overseas. People were asking me about it and I didn’t know. So I called a few of my family members and family supporters and found out what was going on. At first, I was under the impression, because the way they are making it seem, as if Alex Haley had withheld the three chapters, or the publishers had withheld the three chapters, so I got angry. I felt that wasn’t right. They should put those out. But then as I started to find out more about this dude: He is shady. Gregory Reed, the attorney out of Detroit, is shady.

I’ve come to find that he is only in it for the money. He is not in it for the preservation of my grandfather’s legacy. He does not have the best interests of my family. Through more investigation, I came to find out that it was actually my grandfather himself who said that he didn’t want these three chapters included in the book. There is a distinction between what was reflective of him representing the Nation of Islam, speaking as a spokesperson for the Nation of Islam, and speaking for himself.

Malcolm Shabazz politicked with Prince Shondell, grandson of Chief Malik, formerly known as Jeff Fort, at the 2010 Chairman Fred Hampton Streetz Party in Chicago. – Photo: Minister of Information JR
He didn’t want anything to be reflective of him representing the Nation of Islam. So that is why he asked for these three chapters to be excluded. I actually have a letter between my grandfather and Alex Haley stating why he didn’t want these three chapters included in the book. I have the actual letter that I got from A. Peter Bailey, who was an original OAUU member – one of my grandfather’s top supporters. He was also a pallbearer.

 

MOI JR: What do you feel the impact of the book is at this point and how do you feel it would change if someone was to try and put these three chapters that your grandfather did not want in the book – in the book?

Malcolm Shabazz: First of all, I feel that anybody that respects the autobiography and respects my grandfather should not want these three chapters to be included.

MOI JR: Right.

Malcolm Shabazz: Because my grandfather himself stated he didn’t want it in there. Out of all due respect, we shouldn’t support it then. We shouldn’t support the inclusion of something he didn’t want. I mean, I think that the three chapters are probably very interesting but he didn’t want them in there so I feel we shouldn’t support the inclusion of them.

MOI JR: No doubt. I agree 100 percent. We shouldn’t support the inclusion of it.

What is the impact of your grandfather’s book overseas among people that knew who he was?

Malcolm Shabazz: I was born in France, but I hadn’t been back since I was 3 years old. So I went back for the first time last December. It was amazing to me. Because of “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” so many people in Europe are conscious of who my grandfather is and of his legacy. Even also the movie as well.

More people were aware there in like the Algerian and Moroccan Muslim community than here in the United States. They were very excited when I stepped off the plane. There was a warm welcome. They even had a red carpet out. I was staying at the hotel. They played “Malcolm X,” the movie, on the TV all night. When I went out to eat, they shut down the restaurant for me and all my people.

They just showed a lot of respect. I was really humbled. But because that autobiography of my grandfather had such an impact, so many people have changed their lives.

Even when a lot of people went to prison, they may have been out in the street, ripping and running, living reckless and they ended up in prison and read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” It changed their lives. I’ve met a lot of people like that. It opened up a door for them to read more books and to start to explore, broaden and expand their mind into other areas. This had an impact on me. I’ve read it several times and every time I get something different out of it.

MOI JR: What are some of your favorite parts of the book?

Malcolm Shabazz: Some of my favorite parts in the book are when he went to prison and made his transformation. That was one of my favorite parts because the transformation that he made showed all the things that he went through in his life. It was in stages. Throughout our lives, we all go through these stages. Stages and phases, I will call them. After so many stages, we go into the next phase.

Everyone speaks about being a revolutionary; I often say that my grandfather was the perfect example and epitome of what it is to be a true revolutionary. A true revolutionary is one that constantly strives to evolve and re-evolve into greater stages of maturity.

When you read his book, you will see that he was on this constant search for truth. He was never set in his ways. He was always looking for the truth. If he found it, he wasn’t unwilling to say that he was wrong and correct his errors. He didn’t have too much pride.

My favorite part is when he went to prison because after all the things he went through – running in the streets, running numbers, drug dealing, using drugs and burglarizing homes – he went to prison and started to read and become more conscious of himself and his surroundings.

It is just amazing what was produced out of it. He said himself that he got his Master’s Degree at UCLA – the University Corner of Lennox Avenue in Harlem – and that he got his Ph.D. in prison. It’s very interesting because he didn’t even go to high school. He dropped out of school in the eighth grade.

“A true revolutionary is one that constantly strives to evolve and re-evolve into greater stages of maturity.” – Malcolm Shabazz

When he really started to become the man we know as Malcolm X was in prison. That is when that transformation started. When he came out of prison, he would go on to give lectures and debate brothers at top Ivy League universities all over the world, like Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Oxford.

And it’s interesting, my grandfather’s FBI file started before he was with the Nation of Islam. It started before he was a Muslim. His FBI file started when he was in prison and stated that he would no longer eat pork. When he said that he would no longer eat pork, that is when his FBI file started. That’s an interesting thing as well.

MOI JR: Well definitely, man, I just want to say again to our supporters, do not support the inclusion of the three chapters that were left out of “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” by this Detroit attorney, by the name of

Malcolm Shabazz: Gregory Reed.

MOI JR: Malcolm is there anything else that you want to say about this prolific literary work about your grandfather?

Malcolm Shabazz: Just all praises due to God. That book has had such an impact on so many individuals, so many brothers and sisters out there, including myself. It shouldn’t be tampered with. Nothing needs to be added to it or taken away from it. When I first heard about it – just to say again – I was under the impression it was being withheld by Alex Haley or the publishers at that time, and that is not the case. That is what they are trying to portray in order for you to promote it and rally for it to come out.

They are trying to create this buzz, this controversy. It’s not the case. It was withheld by grandfather. He had written a letter to Alex Haley. I have the letter, stating that he did not want these three chapters to be included within the autobiography because he felt that they were more reflective of his position as a spokesperson in the Nation of Islam. At the time, when his book came out, he no longer was and had grown above and beyond that. At that point, he was speaking for himself. So he, my grandfather himself, decided that these three chapters should not be added.

MOI JR: You were just listening to the voice of Malcolm Shabazz, the grandson of the late great El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, otherwise known as Malcolm X. We were talking about “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” and the supposed three chapters that Gregory Reed, a Detroit attorney, is trying to get included in the book and have it re-published.

Don’t believe the hype. Don’t support it. And all supporters of El Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, otherwise known as Malcolm X and our resistance struggle, do not support it. This is the Minister of Information JR. Until next time, what’s the call? Free ‘em all!

Malcolm Shabazz: Free ‘em all!

Email POCC Minister of Information JR, Bay View associate editor, at blockreportradio@gmail.com and visit www.blockreportradio.com.

 

VIDEO INTERVIEW: Angela Davis on the Prison Abolishment Movement, Frederick Douglass, the 40th Anniversary of Her Arrest and President Obama's First Two Years

Angela Davis on the Prison Abolishment Movement, Frederick Douglass, the 40th Anniversary of Her Arrest and President Obama’s First Two Years
Angela-davis-dn

For over four decades, Angela Davis has been one of most influential activists and intellectuals in the United States. An icon of the 1970s black liberation movement, her work around issues of gender, race, class and prisons has influenced critical thought and social movements for years. She is a leading advocate for prison abolition, a position informed by her own experience as a fugitive on the FBI’s Top 10 most wanted list forty years ago. Davis rose to national attention in 1969 when she was fired as a professor from UCLA as a result of her membership in the Communist party and her leading a campaign to defend three black prisoners at Soledad prison. Today she is a university professor and the founder of the group Critical Resistance, a grassroots effort to end the prison-industrial complex. This year she edited a new edition of Frederick Douglass’ classic work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. We spend the hour with Angela Davis and play rare archival footage of her. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Angela Davis, professor emerita of history of consciousness and feminist studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a visiting distinguished professor at Syracuse University. She is a founder of the group Critical Resistance, a grassroots effort to end the prison-industrial complex. She has just edited a new edition of Frederick Douglass’s classic work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself (City Lights). She will be appearing with the author Toni Morrison at the New York Public Library on Oct. 27 for an event titled 'Frederick Douglass: Literacy, Libraries, and Liberation'.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Related Links


Related Democracy Now! Stories

AMY GOODMAN: Over four decades, Angela Davis has been one of most influential activists and intellectuals in the United States. An icon of the 1970s black liberation movement, her work around issues of gender, race, class and prisons has influenced critical thought and social movements across several generations. She is a leading advocate for prison abolition, a position informed by her own experience as a fugitive on the FBI’s top-ten most wanted list forty years ago.

Angela Davis rose to national attention in 1969 when she was fired as a professor from UCLA. It was Ronald Reagan who had her fired as a result of her membership in the Communist party and her leading a campaign to defend three black prisoners at Soledad prison. This is a clip from an NBC newscast in 1969 after the UCLA Board of Regents voted to fire her. It begins with then California Governor Ronald Reagan explaining why he pushed for her ouster.

GOV. RONALD REAGAN: Academic freedom does not include attacks on other faculty members or on the administration of the university or speaking to incite trouble on other campuses. Now, I think, once again, in this particular case, we’re talking simply about an issue of whether to hire or not. And this comes up a great many times, and there are many people who are decided not to hire, and it does not become a great case in which publicly there has to be a debate as to why we chose someone else instead of this other individual.

NBC NEWS: While the Regents were voting, Ms. Davis was a few blocks away in a rally, protesting the treatment of black prisoners in Soledad State Prison. She sees her dismissal as a case of political repression, which she may or may not challenge.

ANGELA DAVIS: I’m going to keep on struggling to free the Soledad Brothers and all political prisoners, because I think that what has happened to me is only a very tiny, minute example of what is happening to them. I suppose I just lost that job at UCLA as a result of my political opinions and activities.

AMY GOODMAN: In 1970, Angela Davis was charged with murder after guns used in a botched kidnapping attempt to free the prisoners were alleged to be hers. Davis briefly escaped capture before her arrest here in New York City forty years ago this month. In an interview from prison then, she talked about the role of prisons in the black liberation struggle.

ANGELA DAVIS: There came a point where the revolutionary forces at work in the black community began to express themselves in jails and prisons. However, unlike, say, the campuses, unlike any other area in the society, even the armed forces, the room for any kind of meaningful political activity is so narrow that obviously, as soon as the prison officials became aware of what was happening, they would confront these new developments with the most devastating kind of repression imaginable. And this is why, when I was involved in all of the problems at UCLA surrounding my membership in the Communist party and when I was fighting for my job, I had just become aware of what was happening in the prisons, and I always insisted that people who were supporting me in my fight to retain my job, regardless of what my political beliefs and political activities were, had to look at the prisons.

AMY GOODMAN: Angela Davis, speaking from prison forty years ago. In 1972, she was acquitted of all charges in a trial that drew international attention.

Instead of shying away from public life, Davis resumed her academic work and social activism. Today she is professor emerita of history of consciousness and feminist studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a visiting distinguished professor at Syracuse University. She is founder of the group Critical Resistance, a grassroots effort to end the prison-industrial complex.

Her books include Women, Race and Class, Abolition Democracy, Blues Legacies and Black Feminism, Are Prisons Obsolete? This year she came out with a new critical edition of Frederick Douglass’s classic work Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. She will be appearing with the author Toni Morrison at the New York Public Library on October 27th for an event called "Frederick Douglass: Literacy, Libraries, and Liberation."

Professor Angela Davis joins me now for an extended conversation from Ithaca, New York.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Angela Davis.

ANGELA DAVIS: Thank you very much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we have just taken not only listeners and viewers, but you, as well, on a journey through your life. It was quite remarkable to see then-Governor Ronald Reagan speaking about you. Why was he so intent on preventing you from taking on your assistant professorship at UCLA?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, I’ve always thought that it was not so much about me as an individual as it was about discovering a scapegoat who could be targeted in order to frighten people away from the radical movement at that time, and especially the black liberation movement. You know, one of the points that I became aware of after I was arrested was that literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of black women were stopped and arrested. And, of course, not all of them could have looked like me. So, yeah, I think this was a part of a strategy of terror designed to prevent people from getting involved in movements at that time.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, of course, it only mobilized people. He put pressure on the California Regents. They fired you before you could even teach your first class, except you did. What did you have? Something like 150 people enrolled in the class? But 1,500 people came out as you decided to teach it anyway, even though you were fired?

ANGELA DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah, that was really a marvelous display of solidarity. I, myself, was really shocked to see so many people. And it was interesting, because that first class was in a course that I had designed to—a course by the title of "Recurring Philosophical Themes in Black Literature." I was teaching in the Philosophy Department, but we did not have at that time a field called black philosophy or African philosophy or African American philosophy. So I was improvising, attempting to address some issues that would also be relevant for the contemporary period.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to a break, and we’re going to come back. And we want to talk about your life, and we also want to talk about this very interesting new critical edition of the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Written by Himself, with essays that—written by you, Angela, as well as your lectures on liberation. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "Angela" by John and Yoko. That’s right, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Plastic Ono Band. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Our guest for the hour is Angela Davis.

Angela, does that song bring back memories?

ANGELA DAVIS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely, it does, yes. I can hardly believe that forty years have gone by, four decades. And it’s interesting because on October 13th, a couple of days ago, someone said, "Isn’t this the anniversary of your arrest?" And I thought about it, and I said, "Yes." The person said, "Isn’t it the thirtieth anniversary of your arrest?" And I said, "Actually, it is. But it’s not the thirtieth, it’s the fortieth." And I had to explain that I generally remember the date of my liberation, but I try—I think I repress the date of my arrest.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s talk about that. So, you went from, well, first getting a job to be an assistant professor at UCLA to Ronald Reagan, then governor, having you fired, to teaching 1,500 people anyway, because they came out in solidarity, students and professors, to ending up in jail. How did you wind up in jail?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, while I was teaching at UCLA, I received threats literally every day, death threats. As a matter of fact, someone even came into the Philosophy Department looking for me. I was not there. And they attacked, physically attacked, Professor Kalish, who was the chair of Philosophy Department at that time. So it was necessary for me to have security, and during those days it was armed security. On the campus, the UCLA police accompanied me to each class, and they searched my car each day to make sure there had not been a bomb planted, and so forth. And I also had to have people who were doing security for me in my house and wherever I went. I should say the—I always like to point out that the UCLA police did a marvelous job of doing security on the campus, but they waved goodbye to me every day as I exited the campus. And I used to like to say that UCLA wanted to make sure that I wasn’t killed on the campus; they really didn’t care what happened after I left the campus.

But in any event, I purchased a number of weapons. And people who did security for me used those weapons. One of the persons was the younger brother of George Jackson, Jonathan Jackson. And on August 7th, 1970, he took those weapons and went into a courtroom in Marin County, San Rafael, California. And Jonathan was killed in the process, as were a number of prisoners. You know, Jonathan was very young and very passionately involved with his brother’s situation, George Jackson. He really wanted to see his brother free. And while he was active in the campaign to free him, as many of us were, I don’t think that Jonathan recognized that perhaps we could indeed free them through our activities, organizing activities, the building of a mass movement. In any event, as a result of the event on August 7th, I was charged with murder, kidnapping and conspiracy, because the guns that were used were registered in my name. And after that, of course, I was placed on the FBI’s ten most wanted list. I was underground for several months, until I was arrested in New York City on October 13th, 1970.

AMY GOODMAN: And you were held for more than a year in prison.

ANGELA DAVIS: I was held for sixteen months. I was released on bail before my trial took place. So the whole ordeal lasted about eighteen months. I was arrested in October of 1970, and my trial concluded with an acquittal at the beginning of June, on June 4th, 1972.

AMY GOODMAN: How did your experience in prison and going through what you went through then shape you today and your work in these forty years, in these four decades?

ANGELA DAVIS: Of course, one always creates narratives of one’s life in retrospect. And I do think that the period of time I spent behind bars helped to consolidate an interest which was already there, namely, working around cases involving political prisoners. George Jackson, of course, helped us to understand that it wassn’t just a question of freeing political prisoners, but it was a question of looking at the institution of the prison and its repressive role and its role in shoring up and reproducing a racism.

Actually, I can talk about the fact that my mother was involved in campaigns to free political prisoners. She was a very active member of the National United Committee to Free Angela Davis, but she had been involved as a college student in the campaign to free the Scottsboro 9. So, I had actually, in a sense, followed in the footsteps—

AMY GOODMAN: And the Scottsboro 9? The Scottsboro 9 were...? The young men who were accused of rape.

ANGELA DAVIS: Nine young black men who were accused of rape in Alabama and who were arrested and held in prison for many years, some charged with death. And the last Scottsboro defendant was not released until the 1980s.

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve mentioned your—

ANGELA DAVIS: And so, I was saying that that—

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead.

ANGELA DAVIS: No, I was saying that, in a sense, that work around political prisoners is, in part, an aspect of the way I grew up. It was, in a sense, in my blood already, when I began to work on cases such as the campaign to free Nelson Mandela, the campaign to free Lolita Lebrón and the Puerto Rican political prisoners, and of course the Attica Brothers and many others.

AMY GOODMAN: You were born, Angela Davis, in Birmingham, Alabama, home of Bull Connor. Interestingly, Condoleezza Rice just came out with a memoir of her time in Birmingham, her civil rights growing up, as she describes it.

ANGELA DAVIS: Yes. We were—we grew up in the same area. I didn’t know Condoleezza Rice. She lived in a different part of the city, and she’s somewhat younger than I. But it’s always interesting to see how trajectories can be so markedly different, even though one had what one might consider to be a similar upbringing.

AMY GOODMAN: Very interesting. And we can have a longer discussion about that. Maybe we’ll have you and Condoleezza Rice on.

ANGELA DAVIS: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: And it would be a very interesting time of reminiscence.

ANGELA DAVIS: I’m not sure about that, but...

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting. Recently we had Michelle Alexander on, the author of The New Jim Crow, and she said there are more African Americans under correctional control today, in prison or jail, on probation or parole, than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began, which is an interesting way to link your work today around the issue of prisons—the US has more prisoners than anywhere in the world—back to the middle of the nineteenth century, when Frederick Douglass was enslaved, your newest book.

ANGELA DAVIS: Absolutely. And, of course, any of us who are interested in African American history, and particularly the black liberation movement, have to address Frederick Douglass, the system of slavery. And we’ve come to think about the prison-industrial complex as linked very much to slavery, as revealing the sediments and the vestiges of slavery, as providing evidence that the slavery we may have thought was abolished with the Thirteenth Amendment is still very much with us. It haunts us, especially in the form of this vast prison-industrial complex, a prison system within the US that holds something like 2.5 million people, more people in prison than anywhere else in the world, more people per capita, as well. The rate of incarceration, one in 100 adults in the US is behind bars. And that’s really only because of the disproportionate number of black people and people of color whose lives have been claimed by the prison system.

As a matter of fact, it’s very interesting that we think about the history of the prison system in this country as grounded largely in the northeastern penitentiaries, the Auburn system here in New York, not very far from where I am teaching, and the Philadelphia system. And as a matter of fact, Robert Perkinson has written an interesting new book called Texas Tough, in which he argues that the Southern system, which emerged in the aftermath of slavery, which made use of the violent forms of repression that were linked to slavery, is as much a part of the genealogy of punishment in the US as the New York and the Pennsylvania penitentiaries.

AMY GOODMAN: We, by the way—I want to let our viewers and listeners know—have a Facebook page, facebook.com/democracynow, where you can post questions for Professor Angela Davis. She’s speaking to us from Ithaca College in Ithaca, New York—and a shout-out to our friends at Ithaca College—and has written a new critical edition that features her lectures on liberation, along with the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. And I would like to go there now with you, Angela Davis, the idea of the plantation-to-prison pipeline. Let’s start from the beginning. And why now, at this point in your work, in your activism, in your life, you’ve chosen to go back to, to bring out once again and give us your critical perspective on Frederick Douglass? Why was he so significant. And tell us about his life, as you respond to that question.

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, Frederick Douglass is, of course, the germinal figure in the history of African American liberation. But Frederick Douglass is also an absolutely central figure in US history. And I think that it is important to understand his contributions, particularly given the fact that we constantly refer to him. And in my introduction, I pointed out that when Barack Obama was campaigning for office, he very frequently referred to that—perhaps the most famous passage in Frederick Douglass’s work, which was a speech that he gave on West Indian Day. And it begins, "If there is no struggle, there is no progress."

I thought that it might be important to think about Frederick Douglass from the vantage point of where we are in the twenty-first century, particularly given the feminist contributions, given the contributions of black feminism, particularly because, historically, the conceptualization of freedom has been linked to manhood, the conceptualization of black freedom to black manhood. And I refer to that passage that everyone who has read Frederick Douglass knows, about his confrontation with the slave breaker Covey. And in the aftermath of this physical altercation, in which Frederick Douglass emerges as the winner, he realizes that he has, in the process, defended his manhood. But that is his way of experiencing the possibilities of freedom. So I ask in that introduction, you know, what about women? What is the trajectory of freedom for women? And in the nineteenth century, of course, at least within the literary genre of the sentimental novel, that trajectory ended with marriage. So marriage was the equivalent form of freedom for women. And I also refer to Harriet Jacobs’ wonderful narrative, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, in which she makes a point of pointing out that her story does not end with marriage, but rather with freedom. So the question is, how can we recognize the masculinist dimensions of our conception of freedom and move on from there here in the twenty-first century?

AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about the significance of Frederick Douglass being enslaved as a youth, as a teenager in St. Michaels? Interestingly, Covey’s property in St. Michaels is called Mount Misery, is now owned by, well, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. That’s his vacation home. He bought it in 2003 to be near his close friend Vice President Dick Cheney. But—

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, it’s very interesting. Go ahead.

AMY GOODMAN: I don’t know if there’s a "but" there, but if you can talk about how Frederick Douglass—what his role in the abolition movement was and how the abolition movement shaped not just Black America, shaped America?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, Frederick Douglass was the most prominent black abolitionist—the most prominent abolitionist, I would argue, because such an amazing figure as William Lloyd Garrison, the great white abolitionist, also had his problems. And then I would like to perhaps point out that we have still not come to grips with the fact that John Brown was a part of that abolitionist movement. He was during that time referred to as insane, and many people treat him today as if he must have been mentally disordered in order to devote his life in that way to the struggle for freedom for black slaves. Frederick Douglass was the germinal figure of the abolitionist movement.

And abolition—the abolitionist movement is important for us today, because it continues—well, it has its contemporary presence in what we call the twenty-first century abolitionist movement, which attempts to, first of all, of course, abolish the death penalty—and I’m thinking of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who is such an important figure in that abolitionist movement—and to abolish the prison-industrial complex. We see the effort to abolish imprisonment as the dominant mode of punishment and to shift resources from punishment to education, to housing, etc., in a way that is very similar to what Frederick Douglass might have argued with respect to the abolition of slavery. And, of course, here, we also have to mention W.E.B. DuBois, who called for—whose notion of abolition democracy is very much an inspiration for those of us who are struggling to abolish the prison-industrial complex today.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, and then we’re going to come back. Angela Davis is our guest. Professor Davis is now teaching at Syracuse University. She is professor emerita of University of California, Santa Cruz. She is an author and activist. Her latest book is the release of a critical edition of the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, Written by Himself. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Oh, yes, Ma Rainey, here on Democracy Now!, certainly ties in to an earlier book of Angela Davis, Blues Legacies and Black Feminism. Gertrude "Ma" Rainey met Bessie Smith and Billie Holiday. In fact, if we can be a little stream of consciousness here, Angela Davis, our guest for the hour, how would you tie in Ma Rainey with the resistance movement that we’re talking about today?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, I think that the blues women, blues men, but especially blues women, gave expression to a whole range of social issues from the vantage point of working-class black women. And I came to study women and the blues because I was dissatisfied with what was available in the written archives regarding the history of black women’s feminist approaches. So I made an argument in that book that many of the issues that we claim as feminist issues—violence against women, for example, the relationship between intimate violence and institutional violence—could be discovered in the lyrics of the blues, in the work of Ma Rainey and, of course, Bessie Smith and Victoria Spivey and many others.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Davis, we’ve just gotten a Facebook question. Folks going to facebook.com/democracynow. Daniel Chard writes, “In your book Abolition Democracy, you briefly discuss the US prison system as a form of state terrorism. In what ways do prisons function as a form of terrorism?”

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, prisons create the assumption that those who are a threat to our safety and security are behind bars, but in actuality, the techniques of violence, the techniques of terror that are most dangerous, are the ones used within the system itself. And I would say that it’s not simply a question of racist repression. It’s also a question of gender repression. It’s also a question of repression of sexualities. You know, one of the—as I’ve been pointing out, one of the most interesting developments within the anti-prison movement looks at the way in which the prison itself serves as a gendering apparatus, looks at the violence inflicted on people who do not identify as male or female in the conventional sense, who identify as transgender or as gender-nonconforming, the violence that is inflicted on people who do not subscribe to compulsory heterosexuality, violence against lesbians, violence against gay men, so that you might say that the prison is this institution that is grounded, in so many ways, in violence.

And the violence of slavery, which we assume was abolished with the Thirteenth Amendment and afterwards, is very much at work within US prison institutions. And because the prison has been marketed on the global capitalist circuit, we discover these prisons, the US-style prisons now, all over the world, in the Global North as well as the Global South.

AMY GOODMAN: How would you like to see them changed? You’re a founder of the Critical Resistance movement in this country. You talk about the abolition of the prison-industrial complex. What would you want to see in this country?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, I would like to see, as Fay Honey Knopp, who was an abolitionist during the '70s and the ’80s and one of the co-authors of a wonderful book called Instead of Prisons: An Abolitionist Handbook, you know, I would like to see an emphasis on decarceration, an emphasis on ex-carceration. You know, I would like to see us examine the ways in which the criminalization of certain behaviors, such as drug use and drug trafficking, has allowed the prison system to expand the way that it has. The vast majority of women who are behind bars are in prison in relation to a drug charge. I would like to see us decriminalize drug use, for example. I would like to see us engage in a national conversation on true alternatives to incarceration. I'm not speaking about house arrest and probation and parole and so forth. I’m talking about ways of addressing social problems that are entirely disconnected from law enforcement.

And that would mean an emphasis on education. As Frederick Douglass pointed out, education is indeed the way to liberation. Frederick Douglass taught himself how to read and write, because he recognized that there could be no liberation without education. Now there seems to be a greater emphasis on incarceration than education. So we have to say, "Education, not incarceration." And then, of course, healthcare, physical healthcare, mental healthcare. And, you know, even though we should be happy that some kind of healthcare bill was passed, but it doesn’t even begin to address the real problems that people have in this country. Mental healthcare, the prison system serves as a receptacle for those who are unable to find—poor people who are unable to find treatment for mental and emotional disorders. So, in a sense, you might say that the abolitionist movement, the prison abolitionist movement, is a movement for a better world, for a different society, for a world that doesn’t need to depend on prisons, because the kinds of institutions that provide—that serve people’s needs will be available.

And in this sense, we have to return to the notion of abolition democracy. There were those who were struggling to simply get rid of freedom—sorry, there those who were struggling to simply get rid of prisons and assuming that freedom would be the negation of slavery. There were those who were struggling to simply get rid of slavery, assuming that freedom would be the negation of slavery. But there were those who recognized that there could be no freedom without economic equality, without political equality, without educational institutions. And even though we are under the impression that we abolished slavery, we’re still living with those vestiges, the lack of an educational system that serves all people regardless of their economic background, the lack of a healthcare system, the lack of access to housing. And this is in large part the role that the prison has played. It has become a receptacle for those who have not been able to find a place in society. And this is true not only in the US, but literally all over the world. This is why we are experiencing an expansion of the prison system in Europe, in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America. And this is very much connected to the rise in global capitalism. So, prison abolition is about building a new world.

AMY GOODMAN: Angela Davis, I wanted to ask you about building a new world and ask you about your thoughts on the eve of the election of President Obama, what you were thinking, the hopes you had at the time, and now, two years later, where we stand today. I mean, November 4th, 2008, this remarkable moment, an African American man elected in a land with the legacy of slavery, you know, the land of Frederick Douglass. Where we came from then and where we are today, Professor Davis?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, of course, initially, few people believed that a figure like Barack Obama could ever be elected to the presidency of the United States, and because there were those who persisted, and, you know, largely young people, who helped to build this movement to elect Barack Obama, making use of all of the new technologies of communication. And so, on that day, November 4th, 2008, when Obama was elected, this was a world historical event. People celebrated literally all over the world—in Africa, in Europe, in Asia, in South America, in the Caribbean, in the US. I was in Oakland, and there was literally dancing in the street. I didn’t—I don’t remember any other moment that can compare to that collective euphoria that gripped people all over the world.

Now, here we are two years later, and many people are treating this as if it were business as usual. As a matter of fact, many people are dissatisfied with the Obama administration, because they fail to fulfill all of our dreams. And, you know, one of the points that I frequently make is that we have to beware of our tendency here in this country to look for messiahs and to project our own possible potential power on to others. What really disturbs me is that we have failed. Well, of course, I’m dissatisfied with many of the things that Obama has done. The war in Afghanistan needs to end right now. The healthcare bill could have been much stronger than it turned out to be. There are many issues about which we can be critical of Obama, but at the same time, I think we need to be critical of ourselves for not generating the kind of mass pressure to compel the Obama administration to move in a more progressive direction, remembering that the election was, in large part, primarily the result of just such a mass movement that was created by ordinary people all over the country.

AMY GOODMAN: That issue of movements versus a person, that certainly brings us back to Frederick Douglass, while such a significant person within the abolitionist movement, needing that movement to change America, and where you see movements today and also the power of money. We’re just about to come into another election day, midterm elections, with money drowning politics now, unleashed throughout the United States. Also the money and the power of the prison lobby in this country, how prisons stay not because of the logic of prisons necessarily, but because now they are big business, and the privatization of prisons. Can you talk about how movements are affected by money and the power of the corporation today, how you think movements can take on this corporate money?

ANGELA DAVIS: Well, of course, it is far more difficult than it has ever been to engage in and move successfully in the direction of progressive change, and this has to do with the fact that capitalism has really consolidated its influence on so many levels, and as you pointed out, privatization, not only privatization of prisons, but privatization of educations. I think of, you know, Looking for Superman and the move away from struggling for a public education system, which is what we need, that will satisfy the needs of all the people. So, privatization, corporatization, global capitalism, but again, I don’t think that we can assume that we are entirely powerless if we have no access to that money.

AMY GOODMAN: We have fifteen seconds.

ANGELA DAVIS: Again, I would return to the election of Barack Obama. Barack Obama was elected despite that kind of a lobby, despite the power of money. And so, we have to continue the campaign for a better world, drawing upon all of our resources.

AMY GOODMAN: Angela Davis, I want to thank you very much for being with us. We didn’t have enough time. You can go to our website at democracynow.org.

ANGELA DAVIS: Thank you very much, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much for joining us.

 

REVIEW: Books—Dispatches from Dream City: Zadie Smith and Barack Obama | The Outlet

Dispatches from Dream City: Zadie Smith and Barack Obama

I

Reading and re-reading Zadie Smith’s spookily empathetic essay about Dreams of My Father and the natural linguistic flexibility of the biracial, upwardly mobile figure, the inevitable thought occurred to me: Is Zadie Smith the Barack Obama of literature?

Consider the parallels between the two: both are biracial (Zadie Smith had a white English father and a black Jamaican mother). Both are precocious strivers who came from somewhat déclassé origins and rose to become shining examples of their respective countries’ meritocratic aspirations (Zadie Smith grew up in a council flat, the English equivalent of a housing project, and received a scholarship to Oxford). Both give evidence of having been closer to their white parent. Both seem to promise liberation from the bad faith that has existed on both sides of the color line since the start of the post-civil rights era. Both are figures who because they smoothly speak the language of progressivism (in Smith’s case, the language of progressivism is the language of avant-garde literature and abstruse academic theory) appear–or in the case of Obama, appeared–less cautious and conservative than they really are. Changing My Mind is the title of Zadie Smith’s collection of what she calls ‘occasional essays;’ it might as well be titled ‘Only Connect,’ to use the credo of her beloved E.M.Forster’s Howards End–like Forster and like Obama, Zadie Smith is a builder of bridges and a reconciler of the seemingly irreconcilable.

There is a remarkable essay, “Two Directions for the Novel,” which is a kind of Beer Summit for contemporary fiction: on one side of the table is Joseph O’Neill, author of the Gatsbyesque 9/11 novel Netherland, on the other side is Tom McCarthy, writer of manifestos (still, after a century, a prerequisite for avant-garde credentials) and author of the astringently difficult novel Remainder.
It can be said that—

 

II

Let me interrupt my own rather tendentious exercise in extended parallelism for a second to make the case for why Zadie Smith matters. Here, this collection makes amply evident, is not just a first-rate writer, but a writer who is first–rate at everything she does. Changing My Mind is full of first-rate travel pieces energized with jittery nerves and telling details, first-rate capsule movie reviews which humorously make the case why movies are simultaneously unworthy of serious critical reflection and enrapturing, first-rate celebrity mash notes that give a disarming glimpse into the writer’s private pantheon, first-rate autobiographical memoirs that manage to be intimate and discreet at the same time, first-rate academic criticism that shows that Smith has the tools to be another Stephen Greenblatt. The obvious comparison is to the virtuosic all-arounders, writers like Joyce Carol Oates or John Updike. But unlike Oates, whose criticism reads like the slightly impersonal work of the perennial A-student, or Updike, who whether the subject was Doris Day, Borges, or the penis, often slathered every topic with the same lyrical impasto, Smith’s writing is intensely personal but at the same time fitted to the demands of its subject with a bespoke snugness.

Smith’s writing inspires not just the reader but the writer. For the would-be writer, reading someone like Nabokov is a shock-and-awe experience that leaves him feeling his talents might be better suited to say, real estate. The prose in Changing My Mind, despite the wide reading and deep intelligence it displays, has that disarming and encouraging quality as rare in a good writer as it is in a politician—the common touch.

The common touch: even the most mandarin of writers is not immune to attempting it. For James Wolcott, the attempt is displayed in his habit of incorporating up-to-the minute (and soon to be outdated) popular usages (like employing ‘genius’ as an adjective). For someone like George Will, it comes out in his groan-inducing public love for baseball, in pseudo-populist lucubration that gives the impression of a statue stiffly descending from its plinth to mingle with the alarmed populace.

Smith’s is a self-deprecating, confidence-sharing, distinctively feminine kind of approachability (a sex-specific trait, as playfully acknowledged by her book):

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat backstage with a line of novelists at some festival, all of us with red pens in hand, frantically editing our published novels into fit form so that we might go onstage and read them. It’s an unfortunate thing, but it turns out that the perfect state of mind to edit your novel is two years after it was published, ten minutes before you go on stage at a literary festival. At that moment every redundant phrase, each show-off, pointless metaphor, all the pieces of deadwood , stupidity, vanity and tedium are distressingly obvious to you.

Like another follower of Dickens, Martin Amis, she is at her funniest when she isn’t trying to be antically comic.

III

It is a truism that the critical writings of novelists are doubly interesting because they shed light not just on their ostensible subjects but on the novelists themselves and their struggles with age-old aesthetic problems. In fact, the struggle with aesthetic problems—which is synonymous with the struggle to write itself–is one that Smith chronicles with unusual frankness.

In her essay, “That Crafty Feeling,” a funny and candid exploration of the many strategies the novelist develops to trick herself into completing a long work of fiction, she describes the use of ‘scaffolding:’

Each time I’ve written a long piece of fiction I’ve felt the need for an enormous amount of scaffolding…The only way to write this novel is to divide it into three sections of ten chapters each…Or the answer is to read the Old Testament and model each chapter on the books of the prophets, Or the divisions of the Bhagavad Gita…Or Ulysses. Or the songs of Public Enemy…

If you are writing a novel at the moment and putting up scaffolding, well, I hope it helps you, but don’t forget to dismantle it later…

This is wishful thinking, of course–in most cases, the scaffolding cannot be dismantled without tearing down the building because it has become part of the edifice itself.

In On Beauty, Smith’s Forsterian novel, the scaffolding is most noticeable in the form of the multiple references to and borrowings from Howards End: like Forster’s novel, On Beauty is set in motion by an awkward, and quickly terminated, infatuation between the young adult children of two ill-matched families; instead of the seemingly impulsive gift of a house from a terminally ill older woman to a younger one, there is the gift of a valuable painting; instead of the novelist’s impressionistic musings on a concert of Beethoven’s’ Fifth, there is a writerly passage on the Mozart Requiem; instead of the awkward autodidact Leonard Bast, there is the striving rapper Carl; and so on.

Because On Beauty differs from Howards End in many ways (though it appropriates Forster’s cozy and insistent editorializing voice), the reader looks for a pattern to Smith’s borrowings, and realizes with a sense of disappointment that there is none. The knowing references—which seem simultaneously to be a tribute backwards to Forster and a postmodern nod towards what Kristeva called ‘intertextuality’– become a series of distractions, like those awkward ‘homages’ directors used to love to insert in their movies.

The canny Forster wrote that a lack of all-around intelligence is a sure sign of creative power, suggesting that excessive intelligence of the kind that Smith possesses might hobble the writer of fiction, and that hyper awareness is no guarantee that the writer will create a living, breathing work of art.

Smith has abundant gifts as a writer of fiction—a knack for characterization, a good ear for dialect and idiolect, a naturally dramatic imagination, a strong sense of the present—but her effort to triangulate between postmodernism and what a Leavisite would call the Great Tradition has not so far produced a successful work of fiction. In her first novel , White Teeth, the attempt to forge a style that marries the comic realism of Dickens’s with what the critic James Woods calls the ‘Hysterical Realism’ of Foster Wallace, Rushdie etc shows how ultimately irreconcilable these two styles are.

IV

But let’s return to Obama. In the essay “Speaking in Tongues,” originally a talk delivered shortly after Obama’s election, Smith discusses her acquired flexibility of voice, the consequence of imposing the Cambridge English voice “with its rounded vowels and consonants in more or less the right place” on the voice of her childhood  home, working-class North London. She ruefully admits that the two voices have narrowed into one, the educated voice, and that people are in general suspicious of voice-shifters:

We feel that our voices are who we are, and to have more than one, or to use different versions of a voice for different occasions, represents, at best. A Janus –faced duplicity, and at worst, the loss of our very souls.

This leads to Shaw’s Pygmalion, nominally “the unambiguous tale of a girl who changes her voice and loses her  self…undercut by the fact of the play itself, which is an orchestra of many voices, simultaneously  and perfectly rendered.”  Another orchestra of many voices is the skillful memoir of the new President, Dreams of my Father:

For Obama, having more than one voice in your ear is not a burden, or not solely a burden—it is also a gift.

 

She quotes Obama on his parents’ failed marriage: “I occupied the place where their dreams had been.” Occupying a dream space is the job of the movie star; another voice shifter was the Englishman Pauline Kael called The Man from Dream City, Cary Grant, who transformed his voice into a voice neither English nor American,  neither posh nor working class. Everyone wants to Cary Grant, even I want to be Cary Grant, Grant was quoted as saying.

It is not hard to imagine Obama having that same thought;…hearing his name chanted by the multitude.
Everyone wants to be Barack Obama. Even I want to be Barack Obama.

Obama was born in [Dream City]. So was I. When your personal multiplicity is printed on your face, in a almost too obviously thematic manner, in your DNA, in your hair and in the neither-this-nor-that beige of your skin—well, anyone can see you come from Dream City…You have no choice but to cross borders and speak in tongues. That’s how you get from your mother to your father, from talking to one set of folks who think you’re not black enough to another who figure you insufficiently white.

Speaking in one voice to an audience in Iowa and in another voice to an audience in North Philly, is not just a necessary talent of the politician, it is also a way of insisting on the multiplicity that many of us feel.

That Obama would publicly criticize the black community and incur the wrath of Jesse Jackson “goes to the heart of a generational conflict…concerning what we will say in public and what will say in private.”

Here, it’s probably worth contrasting the pronouncements on race by Smith and those of America’s perhaps most famous biracial literary artist, August Wilson. The enormous difference between Wilson’s scorched–earth statements—expressing solidarity with the notorious anti-Semite and black separatist Amiri Baraka, refusing to let a white director film his play Fences, insisting, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that little has changed for Black Americans in the last fifty years—and the more equivocal views Smith gives can to some degree be accounted for by the difference between growing up in 1950s Pittsburg and 1980s North London. But the rest has to with a difference in temperament–the difference in temperament between the prophet and the mediator.

To me, the instruction “keep it real’”is a sort of prison cell…It made Blackness a quality each individual black person was constantly in danger of losing…

To keep it real means to speak in one voice, adhere to one set of prohibitions, which seems absurd, “not because we live in a post-racial world-we don’t–but because…black reality has diversified.”

For reasons that are obscure to me, those qualities we cherish in our artists we condemn in our politicians, In our artist we look for the many-colored voice, the multiple sensibility…the lack of allegiance in Shakespeare’s art…allowed him to do what civic officers and politicians can’t seem to: speak simultaneous truths.

Yes, but the lack of allegiance in politics means something different than lack of allegiance in art, doesn’t it?
Smith concludes on a cautious note of admittedly naïve optimism:

I believe that flexibility of voice leads to a flexibility in all things. My audacious hope in Obama is based, I’m afraid, on precisely such flimsy premises.

V

Flexibility of voice—or a good prose style, for that matter—is no guarantor of a good president.  Lincoln had, like Obama, a wonderful y expressive prose style and a terrific sense of humor. Grant, by some estimates our greatest writer-president, was a disaster in office.

Almost halfway into Obama’s term, there are few people left who cherish the audacious hope Smith so eloquently expressed. When society has abandoned the center, and with it the belief in mediation, in compromise, in building bridges, in civility, then the fate of the mediator is not to bring opposites together but to be hated by both ends of the spectrum. Two years in, Obama looks–despite his self-awareness, his energy, his wit  his nimble intelligence—less and less like Lincoln and more and more like Jimmy Carter.

It seems more likely every day that Obama’s legacy will be not for what he succeeded or failed to do in office, but for a work of the imagination; I don’t mean Dreams of My Father, though it’s possible that book will still be read when Obama is just a memory–I mean the presidential campaign. The campaign was as cynically crafted as any of Karl Rove’s, as full of wooly promises and focus-group tested buzzwords as any in recent times (in the saloon across the street from where I work, patrons who watched the presidential debates on the TV above the bar were given a free shot every time a candidate used the word ‘change’). Yet the campaign’s greater meaning—that if we don’t live in a post–racial America, large groups of Americans ardently wish that we did—will not be forgotten.

VI

Literature, of course, is different from politics. Few politicians can succeed in the long term without a broad consensus and a firm political identity. A writer, though, can change and change, and also fail and fail, and still find a way to seep into posterity. The canon is full of failures—works of literature that were ignored` in their own time and large parts of which are unreadable, awkward, wooly, obscure, lost in the fog of history.

 

VII

In ‘Two Directions for the Novel’, which is, like most of the literary essays in this collection, a winningly transparent act of self-persuasion, Smith suggests a Third Way for the bewildered novelist, “the path hewed by extraordinary writers claimed by both sides [i.e., the traditionalists and the avant garde]: Melville , Conrad , Kafka, Beckett, Joyce, Nabokov.”

VIII

“Much of the excitement of a novel lies in repudiation of the one written before,” Smith writes in ‘That Crafty Feeling.’  She continues,“My God, I was a different person!” “I think many writers think this, from book to book. A new novel, begun in hope and enthusiasm, grows shameful and strange soon enough. After each book is done, you forward to hating it (and you never have to wait long); there is a weird, inverse confidence to be had from feeling destroyed, because being destroyed, having to start again, means you have space in front of you, somewhere to go.”

Perhaps that path is the road to Dream City: the space where the writer doesn’t’ t self-consciously try to build a bridge between Forster and Wallace, but tricks herself into forgetting about both of them.

* * *

John Broening’s Column Note.

—John Broening is a chef and writer based in Denver, Colorado. His work has appeared in the Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore City PaperGastronomicaEdible Front Range, and the Denver Post, for whom he writes a weekly column about food.

 

PUB: Center for Black Literature: Call For Papers

The Center for Black Literature

at Medgar Evers College of the City University of New York

CALL FOR PAPERS

HONORING THE LIFE AND WORK OF

AUGUST WILSON


SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL BLACK WRITERS CONFERENCE

BIANNUAL SYMPOSIUM

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Founders Auditorium, Medgar Evers College

10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

 

Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright August Wilson was a major contributor to the canon of  American literature. From Jitney to Joe Turner’s Come and Gone to Radio Golf, Wilson’s legacy consists of a cycle of 10 powerful plays that depict the African-American experience in the 20th century, each set in a different decade.

We invite proposals on one of the following areas:

(1) The impact of the historical and cultural themes in August Wilson’s works on the African-American experience.

(2) The literary parallels between the work of August Wilson and the work of Black writers in the Harlem Renaissance or the Black Arts Movement.

(3) The impact of the work of August Wilson on the American literary canon.

Interested faculty, independent researchers, and students should forward a one to two- page proposal with literature references by January 15, 2011 to:  writers@mec.cuny.edu

Dr. Brenda M. Greene

The Center for Black Literature at Medgar Evers College

1650 Bedford Ave.

Brooklyn, New York 11225

718-804-8883

Notifications of acceptance will be sent to presenters by February 15, 2011.

 

 

 

The Center for Black Literature

Biannual Symposium

Honoring the Work and Life of Award-Winning Playwright

August Wilson

Panels & Presentations

Saturday, March 26, 2011

10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.

 

The Center for Black Literature

1650 Bedford Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11225

Phone: 718-804-8883

E-mail: writers@mec.cuny.edu

Web site: www.centerforblackliterature.org

Join us on Facebook!

Search “Center for Black Literature” on Facebook.com

For more information, visit

www.nationalblackwritersconference.org

 

OP-ED: Scared Straight: High HIV Rates Among Black NYC Women Frighten a Health Reporter

Scared Straight: High HIV Rates Among Black NYC Women Frighten a Health Reporter


My longtime lover and I were driving through Harlem when we passed a billboard that made me want to slam on the brakes and pull the car over. On it were two women--one Black and one Latina--their pretty, youthful faces in lights. But under their pictures was a statistic that sucker-punched me: 93.4 percent.

As in, 93.4 of all new HIV cases among women in NYC occur among Black and Latina women.

As in a mere six-plus percentage points away from 100?

"Oh, hell no!" I thought, and then turned to my boo and asked, "When was the last time you took an HIV test, again?"

Letting Down Our Guard

Sadly, the question I posed--which I certainly haven't always--is one that not enough of us are asking our partners. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a majority of the newest reported infections among women in that city were obtained during heterosexual sex. And the number of newly infected Black women is on the rise: The latest count (which covers the first half of 2009) is up nearly 2 percent from 2008.

The astronomical figure hits even closer to home for me: Not only do Black women account for more than 66 percent of all new cases (beating Latinas two to one), but the group of sistas getting infected fastest are 30 to 39 years old--an age when many of us are getting married or are trying to be married. When many of us are having children. When many of us--myself included--figure, hell, I've been in this long-term relationship for a while . . . I can let down my guard and trust my partner. Right?

Clearly, wrong.

Three days later, I got my second HIV test of the year.

I went because even though my sexual partner and I have assured each other of our negative statuses, I have never actually seen his paperwork; nor has he seen mine. Plus, even though I'm pretty sure he's not an IV-drug user, and I don't think he's slept with (or is sleeping with) men, I don't know that for sure--particularly since we are not in a committed relationship. To put it simply, I am at risk. If I hadn't seen that billboard and then thought enough to call the Department of Health to learn more, I don't think I would have fully understood at just how much risk I actually am.

Getting Infected During Our 30s

That made me think: If I write HIV-related stories for a living and I'm not fully informed about my risk, how informed is the average sista?

To find out, I hit up a friend who runs a Facebook community called Married to Me, a mostly Black, women-only group that advocates for healthy living--mentally, physically and spiritually.

We posed this question to its membership of 2,000-plus women, mostly in their 30s and 40s:  Which group has the fastest-growing rate of infections in New York City? The options were Black women, 16-25; Latina women, 35-44; Black women, 30-39; and Latina women, 18-27.

Only seven women ventured to guess, and all of them got it wrong.

The answer is C, but all of them said A, mistakenly believing, as many media messages suggest, that this is a youth-driven epidemic. But because the topic was broached in a safe, nonjudgmental community space, scores of women now have the right answer and are armed, in turn, to empower others. (Interestingly, all four brothers who answered the same question on the male version of the site--Married to Me for Men--got it right.)

Real Talk

For me the issue is how am I going to better protect myself, knowing what I now know. Fortunately, my most recent HIV test came back negative, but since a few of my trysts have been unprotected, I have scheduled a follow-up, since HIV sometimes takes up to six months to detect. I have also instituted a firm no-condom, no-love policy with my lover. He is cool with that and even smiled when I opened a conversation recently with, "No more guest appearances for Mr. Condom--he's here to stay."

My boo says he was tested less than six months ago, but I plan on telling him, "I'll show you my paperwork if you show me yours" the next time we're together. And I've decided that safer sex is a topic I can and need to bring up with other sisters I trust, since it's a part of everyday life. Besides, I can use the encouragement to continue making safe, healthy choices regarding my sexual health.

In the end, I'm realizing, we must be our sisters' keepers. We've got to have these discussions on social-media sites as well as in our living rooms, at the bus stop, in the workplace and at the nail salon. We need to have real talks that include facts and figures. Just as we babysit each other's kids, cook for each other when we're sick and listen to each other's relationship problems, sometimes we just need to ask our sister-friends, Do you know your HIV status? Are you protecting yourself?

Tomika Anderson is a freelance writer based in Brooklyn, N.Y. Her work has appeared in Essence, POZ, Real Health and Ebony magazines, among others.

 

VIDEO: CHARLES LLOYD

The Song My Lady Sings

1964
Cannonball Adderley - alto sax
Nat Adderley - trumpet
Charles Lloyd - tenor sax & composer
Joe Zawinul - piano
Sam Jones - bass
Louis Hayes - drums

The Song My Lady Sings
Molde Jazz Festival 1966. 
rare and degenerated footage of the legendary Charles Lloyd Quartet, with

Charles Lloyd - ts
Keith Jarrett - p
Cecil McBee - b
Jack DeJohnette - dr

You Are So Beautiful
Charles Lloyd 4tet - You are so beautiful (live Marciac, France 2002).
Charles Lloyd (tenor sax), Geri Allen (piano), Bob Hurst (bass), Billy Hart (drums)

Charles Lloyd "Mirror"
Charles Lloyd and his "New Quartet" with Jason Moran, Reuben Rogers, and Eric Harland light up the ethers with transcendent music and commentary from Lloyd. "Mirror" Lloyd's latest recording for ECM will be released in the US on September 14, Germany and Switzerland September 17, UK September 29, France October 10

 

VIDEO: 1995-10-19 / in memory of don cherry - uzine's preposterous

1995-10-19 / in memory of don cherry