Caesar hating!

I hate Shakespeare. I did so bad on those things except for one question that helped me pass English in the 9th grade. Did Brutus have a good reason to kill Caesar and why? Why I understood the character of Brutus in Julius Caesar is beyond me. I remember every day after school, I passed out and then get up and watched TV around 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. Then dinner. After that, I try to do my homework and make sure its done in the last minute. Around 9:30, I would try to exhaust myself or be too hyper to study.

Yet with Brutus, I identified with him somewhat. He thought Caesar was getting too powerful and needed to put him in his place. I'm a mean guy, I like that. Both Brutus was an intellect but he was forced to be a conspirator due to his personal life. Well, me. Whatever?

Yet some twenty years later after taking Mrs. Thomas class. I see a lot of middle-man folk who try the "aw shucks" routine or try to weed me out of restaurants, jobs, or social circles. Before I think about the killing these "weeders", I always think who is Caesar and who is Brutus? Sometimes, I ask the question out-loud. Is it my pride, divide or conquer, really I want to know, or the truth is so close that I can taste it. Ah, Shakespeare.

Funny thing, I didn't know the story, the plot or what happened (Yes, I knew Caesar was killed) but it didn't seem to concern me till I read a book by Ralph David Abernathy and his work in civil rights for black people. He talked about working with his friend, Martin Luther King. The book's hype mention MLK's womanizing which no other MLK bios did before this book came out around 1990. What I remember about the book is him growing up in a Alabama farm, his sister calling him Ralph David when his real name was just David, and his reference to Shakespeare. He would mention it here and there but to me, I was wondering why a preacher would make references to Shakespeare. I have heard that religious folks particularly leaders abstain from Shakespeare like alcohol, sex, and drugs.

While others focused on white racism including him, I felt this rage throughout the book that he was at war against light-skinned blacks. What flickered my impression, he opposed violence against vicious whites who were willing to kill his wife and children but against light-skinned blacks who did no harm but simply were viewed higher than dark-skin folks like him, it seemed like a gray area. This seemed to be his premise to join the civil rights movement.

The incident that in my mind set the tone for the book and his life (funny, he never had to repeat that one except when he talked about priorities) in the army. He mentioned about how hard he worked to get an education and that his intellect was a high as anybody else; yet, light-skinned black soldiers would get many chances to move up to officer programs or other higher schools (excuse my military ignorance) while he only got one shot and only asked to do menial work despite his education and his reputation of due diligence.

He mentioned that he was pure black with no other ancestry. Yet, his father was a sharecropper who saved money, bought land and became a prosperous farmer, was able to vote, be on school board for an African-American high school, and first black to serve on a jury. While Ralph was a DJ at a white radio station in Birmingham and improved conditions at Alabama State (white government run) due to his writing skills to the college newspaper and president that spurned action. His point is that you don't need to have white or light skin to be of influence to do it the Christian way.

One thing that bothered me about Ralph is how he got to meet J. Edgar Hoover to "plead with him"to protect civil right groups from harm like the Klan, George Wallace, and other institutional racism like the police that were violent towards blacks. Yet, J. Edgar was racking up some files on Martin Luther King as well as Ralph. He viewed King a a menace and a Communist. His stance on the Vietnam War is considered responsible for getting him assassinated by Hoover and other government agencies (no proof of evidence exists). Not to mention wiretapping and prying on his personal lives. I want to know how and why J. Edgar was amiable enough to have meetings with Ralph and Martin? J. Edgar was known to return phone calls to folks he considered to be communists?

Ralph mentioned about the constant harassment from J. Edgar that he received more than Martin after he took over his leadership. Yet, evidence proves that Martin got about 16,000 reports compared to Ralph's 1,600. The only thing they found on Ralph is his affair with a girl since she was 15 years old and another lady in San Francisco who accused him of one. As for Martin according to Ralph, he was with three women before his death which the FBI claimed but never proved of who the ladies were. While according to the King family, Ralph was right about 2 women but he was passed out drunk in his hotel room when the supposed Kentucky woman got into an altercation with King before his death.

All this is fine with me, Ralph could be just telling the truth about his best friend and want to set the record straight. Or he could just be an "ugly Betty" that is just a gatekeeper to whites who appear to be a gatekeeper to blacks. We will never know. What bothers me is that he never mentioned about his vices while mentioning others. He appeared to portray himself as the perfect pure, gatekeeper. He talked about the problems when he took over the leadership after MLK but no fault of his but circumstance. He mentions about his pride and neglect of his family but it was for the "greater cause"(military! go to the ones that are need most than the least. His words).

Read about Israel Shahak about people who talk about history with no faults. Shakespeare again. I wonder if he knew that MLK had Irish ancestry? Then again, what did Hoover know about Abernathy? Was Ralph trying to tell us something?

Throw the Old Testament at the Jensens

I'm remember hearing a story about a chief minister from the State of Tamilnadu named Kamaraj. A temple elephant got loose and was running wild through the street, getting ready to stampede the folks in the town. Kamaraj alertly picked up the chain from the temple, threw it where the elephant could see and hear. As a result, the elephant stopped and went "soft and lame." That is how I feel about these so called "Westernized folks."

Most of them will always be prejudiced in how they judge minorities but if you give a certain reference to the Old Testament regardless of their religious beliefs, they get lame real quick. Doesn't matter if it is a drunk at a bar giving you a hard time, another minority trying to test your prejudicial tolerance, biased neighbor playing head games, or a cheating tennis player. Make a symbol from the Old Testament remark, they shut up real quick and lose their fire. Dick Butkus comes to mind. Chris Evert comes to mind.

I don't know the Bible, so they don't have to worry about me. However in college, I noticed street Bible preachers that appeared in campuses and bars, they seem to know where to hit them: the heart. Didn't matter the size of the person or beliefs. I saw them battle Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and others regardless of their level or view point of their perspective. Eventually, they always come to this line after the conversation banter. It was always "Israel belong to...... Most of them would say Jews, Christians or both very rarely Muslims or all. It just to seems to work regardless of the type of people or what circumstance is my conclusion.

It is fun to watch people trip over this like those running elephants that Kamaraj stopped but if they aren't temple trained, you are out of luck. However, in my own experience, most have or have the yearning to reach for the Christian spiritual if they aren't successful. Most don't want to embrace their own pagan ancestry due to the fact that most are converted. Therefore, there is not entitlement effect to their previous or convert religion. Very few can trace their family of three generations and most were not Christians per say.

You can say that they are lost. But most lost people put down others who are lost. I call it hypocrisy. However, by them doing that, it reveals that they don't want to go back to the pagan ideals but aren't quite Christian enough to put a hold for themselves before losing roots to other denominations, religions, or beliefs. The fact is: these folks didn't come from Israel but converts to it. I did once hear that only Jews can be Christians and not pagans (but who are the Jews and where? Likewise, what is a pagan and where?).

They can say they aren't into religion but why bully or are so prejudiced to others? Yet, you mention Israel and who the land belongs to. They have opinions. I feel that Westerners are trained in a Judeo-Christian way through our schools, entertainment, literature, and institutions through the passage, structure, message, and its conclusion in how things should be done. Regardless of what you feel and believe, the Old Testament attitude prevails. Light and dark.

The converts can only earn their way to the light with or without reward but the old can choose but are entitled to the light with reward. This is the attitude that trips everybody up including me.