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?