Tuesday, May 22, 2012

USA: African-American, It's No Longer About Race

"Got one foot out the door." Gaddafi wanted supremecy over the USA, the United States of Africa, and he had bigger plans before he went down. We then saw parts of Africa reborn, and the wigs sworn into office. Yes, they wore wigs just like the historic American wigs. Now that has all been established, it changed what "African-American" meant (and what it means for "ag-").

Consider the question of the hyphenated loyalties. There is no USAA metaverse except what Gaddafi preached. Many of his movements, from his reign of power, affected America, and it was hard when we shrugged them off because of how the racial influences confused the real source of pain. We knew it was no longer the black and white issue when the source was neither. He influcenced the pain felt in American; he played his last card.

People often treated American Indians as if they were all the same. That is one of the reasons why I loved artwork that displayed highly contrastive tribal events; it proved that most people did not know what are the native colors. I have seen too many times so-and-so said someone is either white or black, yet if said someone is native and was put into the line-up of white or blacks that it clearly revealed that said someone is not like the others. Was it that hard? In such sense, people mistook the diversity in American Indians, by those that harp on racial issues, as the majority race. It is the traditional lifestyle that created the famous American Indian look, yet that does not mean all practice every aspect of that traditional lifestyle, the same, since there are now many conventional lifestyles.

African-Americans had their own convention, and that overcame the pain onced expressed as the minority under said lack of diversity. At one point, I was told I was the majority, yet it clearly showed in the line-up of "those like me" that I was not of that said majority. It is also clear I am not of the African, Mexican, Asian, European, or other like majorities. From my viewpoint, it never made sense for any of them to have said they are the minority, yet I was taught to agree anyways. Why should I claim tribal decent when you know by American History that the tribe was said wiped-out? You know the issue was more about shared conventions than color of skin, but can you "teach the [new] dog [old] tricks?" How DNA reproduces proved there is no "percentage of" blood trick; otherwise, there no longer would be yesterday's "African" in today's American citizen.

[Note: When I was younger, my class made the differences in our ears signifigant. Despite our likenesses, we alienated each other that way, like by attached or detached earlobe length, not by color of skin. The other day, I heard one family uproar about the differences in their eyes, like one baby daddy was upset that the color of the baby's eyes did not match his own. One had brown and the other had black. I thought diverse eye color in families was normal.]

Blood constitution, of some race or tribe, does not magically go away over time. Some aspects of the DNA surface every generation and some do not. With that in mind, newborn citizens never needed any devout racial affiliation to the history of their DNA origins. If we did, then what makes the origins of American Indians different from the origins of the rest of the world? We never heard of the "African-American Indian" minority. What makes them citizens just like anybody else? Maybe it is only that origin that differs, yet citizenship and loyalty to one's country does not.

Maybe that loyalty is where American Indians wanted acknowledgment only as Americans and not of some loyalty to another country by any racial affiliation, nor white, nor black. If not just Americans, than how about residents of Earth, or how about this expression: Native American. How long does it take for African-Americans to think of themselves as either Native Africans or Native Americans? I know that status of natural born citizen means something.

It has been no secret, but maybe the pain drowned-out the obvious. When I received questions about my race, like on EOE cards, none of the listed choices matched unless I could fill-in more than one. Those cards made it obvious to everybody. What did you fill-in?

"You must be new here, to Earth," if you can fill-in one or have filled-in only one. "Other?" If I did go by percentage of blood, it then is something like "this one-third of my blood" took over the world; and, "this one-third of my blood" also took over the world; and, "this one-third of my blood" has been taken over, today, by you. That is what I meant by "native," and by my experience, native versus native never happened despite the stories found in American History (by what other countries wrote). My blood has never been in war with itself, and we are not the alien race.

Two races? In "African-American," is that one-half African and one-half American? That is like one foot inside and the other foot out the door. Maybe you meant that is now one-third American, so where is your loyalty of the other two-thirds, if one of the other two-thirds is not native? I think majority is its own race case, and it did not take that much on how freedom was won. It has been and is an easier example, the majority.

With Gaddafi out, there is no direct union between the two USAs, like how he wanted. There already is the UN, and there are many metaversal "un"-words, like unsure of your loyalties here. Unsure of who feeds who on Earth.

Who needs sun-screen when there is the traditional lifestyle of baked-on skin? Conventional wisdom is not always the wisest. Ancient civilizations did not mine for gold, as it fell off our human body under the sun; you know gold gave you that sense of security, so no more details, like how, need be said about that. Those highly contrastive artworks (with gold), mentioned above, revealed much peace existed, on Earth, between "us."