I am deeply moved and impressed with the efforts of many to combat the injustice system that overwhelms America. Where ever I read about planned and past events, the resolution with which activists aspire to reach their objectives, I am positively impressed and excited. There is so much undauntable energy in these writings and announcements, that readers and hearers, I feel, must be compelled to act on them in some way. And, of course, this is the desired effect. Consequently, when I read of attempts of others to thwart these legitimate goals, and how, conversely, sincere but misguided people are targets of repercussions, I perceive a need. This weekly is a proposal in which my interpretation of this need is presented together with a possible remedy. First, let me explain my perception with some examples.

Unfortunately, Mr. Shakur, the black African American that awaited the death penalty in the midst of international protests in a Texas prison on death row, was killed there. This fact provided ample substance for describing the situation I am referring to.

I’m sure that many would agree that it would obviously be ignorant to assume that every Texas policeman was in favor of legally lynching Mr. Shakur on the 23 of June, 2000. Many would also agree that it would be equally ignorant to believe that every white Texan discriminates by skin color or sex. But, more importantly, it cannot be proven that every Texan profits from discrimination, not even indirectly.

As an example, when a person of color is discriminated against by a law enforcement officer in Texas, there is no evidence to support an assumption that this same officer would allow a white person more leniency when in the same or similar situation, as a direct result. Let me put it differently. With few exceptions, when a person of color loses their job in a Texas department store, an unemployed white person applying for a job at the same store would not receive that now vacant position. The most obvious reason is that the vacant position wouldn't typically be of the kind that a white seeks, since people of color are apt to be offered specific types of jobs, in specific categories of work areas and are typically not on the same employee level as a white. This predicament is of course not only restricted to Texas, as we know.
 

Respectively, when a person of color applies for a scholarship at a white university in Texas and is turned down, this won't mean that the unissued scholarship will now be available to the next white enrollee. I contend that the official number of scholarships that can be issued to the general public (this is every one else), will, in most cases, have no significance to the number of white students to which scholarships may be issued. Which, in turn, has no relationship to the number of white students who have a necessity for a scholarship.

The "system", which I'll expand on later, has successfully assured that the needs of whites are not equivalent to that of people of color. So the question is, when a white discriminates against someone of color, what, if anything, does that person gain? Is it a sort of collectivity that some whites adhere to, wherein they are merely protecting what they've already secured for themselves? Right off hand, you would assume that it is. But, when you look deeper, you'll realize that it isn't.

I mentioned Mr. Shakur’s murder and some of the events surrounding it because it is both tragic, and expounds my point. When Bush Jr. allowed the murder of Mr. Shakur, it wasn’t because he believed that his chances of securing the presidential election would increase. I suppose he didn’t even get a pat on the back. He may have subconsciously envisioned a sort of collective gain, or triumph, but I disbelieve that he nor anyone else that agreed with his decision, with certainty, believed that there would be less black African Americans in Texas that whites would need to fear, after Mr. Shakur was killed. Why? Mr. Bush Jr. knows that there are more people of color in Texas jails and prisons than there are whites, for crimes ranging, in essence, from serious offenses to being a person of color. He and every one else knows that a significant level of injustice has been in affect in states like Texas for decades. He and everyone interested can discover that the very composition of the Texan political and economics systems have prevented augmentation for people of color in these arenas for decades, with almost no significant change, no significant challenges or reprisals.

The point is that the injustice system in Texas has believed for a number of decades that it is anchored in a sturdy and effective foundation that stands adamant to fear of uprisings of any kind, from any peoples! The system obviously also believes it has a direct influence on the number of people of color in Texas that have the opportunity to exert fear on the whites there. On the contrary. Mr. Shakur's murder was, in this respect, absolutely trifling for Bush Jr. and Texas, from the political stand point. The political power structure in Texas, after witnessing the 133’rd legal lynching under Bush Jr., after the submission of global protests, is more than likely content that they’ll be carrying out this sort of injustice in decades to come.

Looking deeper will also convince you that Mr. Shakur’s 18 year story served two purposes for the power structures in America: It kept the world concerned about the "triviality" of an injustice to this one person, which distracted from the injustices that America performs daily as part of it national and international agenda. It also offered evidence to support the myth that the power structures throughout the world are their own "masters". So with this being the current state of things in Texas and throughout the US...is the real enemy apparent?

To my knowledge, after all the evidence available to Mr. Shakur’s attorneys was examined, it was asserted by many that there was significant evidence to support the juristic point of view that a retrial was necessary. Yet the American power structure denied to grant the implementation of this assertion. As a result, Mr. Shakur was killed. Is the American power structure then the enemy?

Comparatively, the exploitation of many poor countries has caused the disruption of economical and cultural structures in regions of the world, in which thousands now die as a result each day. It can be observed that the American government and that of most european countries (France, Great Britain, Holland, Belgian, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria, to name a few) are actively involved in perpetuating this situation as well as securing covert political power to ensure the stability of the world political system they are nurturing. Therefore, all these countries are content that the public and political oppositions concern themselves with a legal lynching, the killing of whales, the pollution of the seas, etc., rather than their government constitutions, the manipulation and exploitation of other weaker nations, hunger in the world, poverty in the world, sickness and disease in the world! Countries that share these interests have effectively convinced all opposition as well as the public conscious’ that solving these problems will bring happiness the world over.

When we challenge this with some questions and ask: Unless the whale is saved from being slaughtered at sea so that its wealth of meat can be used to feed the starving, why should we be more concerned about their slaughter than the slaughter of whales? Or, Unless companies should be prevented from dumping harmful chemicals wastes, in the attempt to cause an end to the production of such chemicals so that concentration can be directed toward the production of medicine to be used in the healing of the sick in poor and needy countries, why should we be concerned about stopping this as long as people are dying? Shouldn’t we wish to hear and see Greenpeace barricading a G7 meeting, to prevent participants from leaving because they hadn’t reached an agreement on how they plan to end world suffering? But, generally, we the misguided public and opposition will say, "efforts that simply fall short or fail to recognizing the ultimate goal, are not vain and must be continued. What cannot be tolerated is the exercision and acceptance of these activities."

And that is really where we are wrong. The real enemy is not the government bodies, political power structures, or covert organizations that devise means of making things like this possible. The real enemy is the current value system, and those who support it!

What is the current value system? At one extreme, it contains that consciousness in which people are willing to perform the atrocities that have become common in our world. It contains the belief that there will be some terrestrial relief, godly savior that will right all wrongs. It contains the belief that "good", by definition, will triumph eventually. It contains the concept that the problems of certain peoples are not the problems of all. It contains the belief that the concept of political and economical isolation exist. It contains the belief that people, as human, do not share a collectivity.

At the other extreme, it contains that belief that people exist with inherently more rights, more knowledge, more strength, more fundament, and more heritage than others. It contains the belief that, that people have an inherent destiny, a pre-destination that exceeds all reality, all predominance. It contains the belief that we are what we know. It contains the belief that reality is an individual creativity. It contains the belief that commonalties are selective. It contains the believe that people, as humans, do not share a collectivity!

I was by chance viewing a documentary on television about island life in the Caribbic. The words of a restaurant owner in that documentary never left my mind. When asked how the tourists had influenced life on the island, he replied, "Life on our island changed on the day that an English man paid for something that we had up till that day always given each other for free." This statement lends information to my explanations. It marks the subtle beginnings of a new value system. It can be scaled, this transaction or transformation.

Money could be placed at the lowest point on the scale. This is the level at which people will do anything for a sum of "dollars", and everything has a monetary value. For me this has become the most dangerous entity in the current value system. It has created some people who really believe that, what money can’t buy, they don’t need. Next on the totem is ideology or loyalty. At this level, it’s the organization or the institution itself that represents the most important entity. A religion, a club, a sorority, an organization receives the utmost commitment from its followers, members, etc. An implementation of this, for example, is not that a policeman or a gang member working and living in the Bronx, Watts, or East LA, would not hesitate to shoot a person of color in the Bronx, Watts, or East LA, its rather that the value of a life in places like these is often no more than that of a bullet.

Its not that a male person of color, who doesn't have an education nor a job, would take the risk of getting a teenaged girl of color in the same social situation pregnant or infected with AIDS, its rather that he doesn't value himself or her enough to accept and exercise the fact that having sex is more than a sexual act.

But, you could just as easily apply these values to killing whales, chopping down trees in our emerald forests, letting millions starve while throwing away food and wasting water, killing animals for sport, polluting water, modern day slavery, illegally selling weapons to warring countries, dictatorship, building trillion dollar satellites and telescopes to further mankind, when the same monies could be used to feed the masses, etc., etc.

There is a people in an African Nation, who’s daily objective is to find water...and only to find water. In this society, the life’s perspective is quite realistic. If they had guns, they would use them to shoot holes in the ground where the would expect to find water. If they had chemicals, the would try to use them to transform the moisture in vegetation to water. If they had prisons, they would not be used because they cannot afford to restrict anyone from the search for water.

It is up to us to accept or reject the current value system and to build a new one out of old values. We must place ourselves not as mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands or wives, but as humans before all other values. We should not uphold any law, support any government, agree with any treatise or discipline that does not hold this to be of utmost importance. We must recognize our collectivity, as humans, void of monetary, historical, political, academic, transcendental, or terrestrial standing. We must deny our support in the subduction and destruction of lives, at the cost of our lives, for the sake of our lives, collectively.