A Menace to Society! Or How An Uppity Black Man Got Banned From Cody’s Bookstore, Berkeley

The following are TWO SECTIONS NOT IN THE ABRIDGED "KONCH" VERSION — but published elsewhere; in part, in CounterPunch Political Magazine. IT'S THICK, BUT IT'S JUICY!:


On "The Bad Nigger" List.
An Uppity Nigger, You See: “A Menace to Society”


Upon reflection, it appears to me that the seeds of this "banning" may have been planted during two much earlier events, which might have put me on "the bad nigger list" of the white events staff at Cody’s:


• One: Bill Maher, “Mr. Politically Incorrect”

The first was back in 2002, when Bill Maher of the TV show "Politically Incorrect" appeared. He was well known for taking a populist white male hubris in the fact that, well, finally, no subject would be too “politically incorrect” to discuss on his show - especially when it came to race. (A sort of white, male, ‘How ya like me now!?’)

Maher had even seriously and strenuously argued on his show that whites ought to be free to - openly, that is - call Blacks “nigger,” since, he said, Blacks often call each other “nigger.” That’s an example of the kind of white-supremacist racial arrogance that thinks that white males ought to own or control absolutely everything, even ethnically-intimate terms - let alone nonwhites’ thinking - within white-oppressed ethnic groups. (Maher obviously doesn’t know the difference between “nigger” - a white racist epithet - and “nigga,” a multicontextual term - even one, as Langston Hughes once said, of endearment.)

Thus, given Maher’s “Politically Incorrect” history, I attempted to ask him, very politely, about the anti-Arab bigotries he’s expressed on his show. (Why be rude, when I’m trying to see if he’s educable?)

Afterwards, the star-struck, celebrity-chasing events staffers at Cody’s were much more preoccupied with garnering Maher’s autographs and posing for pictures with him, than with his anti-Arab racism. Thus, they attempted to interrupt me and shield him from my brief, respectful follow-up comments, though ‘tough’ “Mr. Politically Incorrect” was rather defensive with this Black guy (me) even gently quoting Gandhi, Einstein, King, and Mandela in response to his expressed anti-Palestinian bigotries.

‘Oh! One of those *educated* niggers!,’ he probably thought.

We Black folks know that what’s really “politically incorrect” is all usually a matter of what white hand is holding the whip and that Massa or his surrogates are the self-designated arbiters. And I guess it’s politically incorrect to ask Maher about his racism.


• Two: Anne Garrels, NPR neo-imperialist mouthpiece. Or, “We’re Tired of Your Black shit!”

The second incident, which took place back in 2003, involved a Cody’s-sponsored book interview of Anne Garrels, NPR’s Iraq celebrity war reporter, "off-site" (at a nearby church hall). I didn’t even bother to attend this totally worthless event by this NPR establishment mouthpiece for U.S. foreign policy, but swung by afterwards to pick up a friend who did attend (and confirmed its general, orchestrated mediocrity).

Garrels had recently made a scandalously unconscionable (except in white society) statement about the U.S. military killing of a prominent Palestinian reporter in Baghdad, saying that, ‘he got what was expected, because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.’ (Yet, Garrels subsequently claims - somehow in order to cover her remarks - to have been “a good friend” of the slain reporter. I say, gee, with ‘good white friends’ like Garrels, what Palestinian needs the Israeli army!?”)

The Palestinian reporter, Tareq Ayoub, was killed (assassinated?) when a U.S. military fighter-jet leisurely - not at all in ‘the fog of war’ - fired two missiles: one…, then, the jet circling in a few minutes…, another one…, directly at Al-Jazeera’s building, with Ayoub on the roof.

[Tareq Ayoub was an award-winning journalist, featured in the recent prominent documentary movie "Control Room," about al-Jazeera news agency. Muckraking journalist Greg Palast (a Zionist Jew) called al-Jazeera, "TNN: Terrorist News Network", so I guess Palast would have considered Tareq Ayoub to be a "terrorist." (See http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/1657614.php ) Ask Greg about it, the next time you see him. This writer did. The "journalist" ran away! MLK said that, "I cannot segregate my morality", and neither will this writer, despite Palast's good work on the past Florida presidential elections scandal.]

This was a leisurely attack that many people in the Middle East said was deliberate - except U.S. military officials and, thus, of course, most white-American reporters. It was yet another U.S. military attack on an al-Jazeera building or reporter widely publicized to the military authorities in order to prevent this ‘mistake.’ I - and far from alone in the nonwhite world - considered Garrels’ remark to be an egregiously racist statement. So, when I saw Garrels afterwards, I asked her about it.

The events coordinator woman tried to tell me that I couldn’t even ask Garrels - remember, now, a journalist - on a public sidewalk next to the hall (you know, some white folks think they exclusively own everything). And, of course, some Cody’s loyal house negro tried to physically run interference against me, without even a verbal command from ‘Lady Massa,’ or rather, ‘Miss Melissa.’ And he’s got the nerve to have some Afro-Centric name.

(The house Negro - the one with the Afrocentric name - once even took it upon himself, at my friend, popular former UC Berkeley Professor of Education, and question-receptive Pedro Noguera’s in-store book lecture, to walk around, person-to-person, and rigidly regiment almost every questioners’ time like some overseer, saying, "Wrap it up." This was something I’ve never seen before - anywhere - especially for the much smaller Cody’s audience of Pedro’s then second recent Berkeley appearance in April, after his earlier much larger one elsewhere. I was with a longtime Black community activist and professional music promoter friend who couldn’t believe the staffer’s behavior.)

I civilly, but frankly told Garrels - merely performing what logicians call a substitution analysis - that she never would have said such a thing about “journalist” Daniel Pearl, for example. Pearl, as you would recall, was the white media-mourned (all Pearl, all the time, then) Jewish white-American reporter killed in Pakistan. This was when Pearl - working for the editorially very conservative Wall Street Journal (!) - went looking for people he *knew* to have connections to the formerly U.S.-supported (and later betrayed) al-Qaeda, during the U.S. war and bombing in Afghanistan, within which al-Qaeda had bases!

Most importantly, Pearl was well-believed, or well-suspected, by many as having direct connections to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad! (Simply put, of being a CIA/Mossad informant or spy.) Thus, it was Pearl who - even much more arguably - ‘got what was expected, because he really shouldn't have been there in the first place.’

[It turns out that Anne Garrels' husband is a "former" CIA agent! Does *that* represent any conflict of interest in NPR (Nat'l Pentagon Radio) having Garrel's as its star foreign correspondent? Who's information (or perhaps disinformation) is she feeding to the public?]

At that point, the event interview host, Sandy Tolan, UC Berkeley Journalism School lecturer - and husband of Palestinian immigrant journalist Lamis Andoni - scornfully told me that my comparison of Pearl vis-à-vis the Al-Jazeera reporter was “deeply anti-Semitic.” In fact, my friend who attended the event told me that Tolan - remember, now, a journalist - had slyly pre-empted, right from the start of the event he hosted, any possible audience questions about Garrels’ remarks. So much for that white Journalism School lecturer’s respect for free inquiry.

However, Tolan, for all his concerns about anti-Semitism, apparently doesn't care much about other forms of racism. Tolan, suddenly, angrily, shouted to me, “We’re tired of all your Black shit!”

Quoi…!??? That’s French for, ‘Say what…!???’

Amazingly, this is Tolan - one of those white liberals who apparently only respects Black turn-the-other-cheek sports celebrities (or perhaps safely dead Black historical figures) - who wrote an entire book about all the white shit even baseball great Hank Aaron had to put up with.

But then, conservative wack George Will’s greatest hero was Willie Mays. Will even wanted his first grandson named after Willie:

“Willie Wills”!

That’s right! You can’t make that shit up!)

I later asked several Jewish-American activists for Palestinian human rights, as well as leading Palestinian activists, whether they found my comparison between the two reporters to be anti-Semitic. They all, in their respective ways, replied that Tolan’s accusation - but, especially, his Palestinian journalist wife’s support of it - was nonsense.

Lamis Andoni vehemently supported her husband’s accusation and his behavior - and later on, this supposed friend of mine - and especially Ayoub! - (Lamis) who for years highly regarded me, lashed out at me, brooking absolutely no discussion. I suspect that this is because Andoni has been and is a reporter for several major white-American newspapers, as well as a recurring visiting lecturer, too (typically on one year, possibly renewable, contracts), in the same journalism school.

What’s The Connection? You Step Outta Ya Place…, A Cracka’s All Up in Yo' Face!

CHECK THIS OUT!:

"NPR Reporter Has CIA Connection At Home" !

http://www.unknownnews.net/030917a-g.html


"On NPR's Fresh Air [freshair.npr.org/] a few days ago, we learned that Garrels' husband, Vint Lawrence, WHO WROTE PORTIONS OF HER BOOK, is a "former" CIA AGENT."

"Lawrence dryly explained that he had been a CIA agent..."


Well, well, well...

That explains a *lot*!

You know, the CIA is like the Mafia (by a different name) -- no one is ever really a "former" CIA agent, until they die (or so, like old CIA skulduggery chief Bill Casey, the CIA 'claims' he died).

How do we know that Garrels' reports on NPR are *NOT* CIA propaganda (or disinformation)?

Gee, I wonder if Anne Garrels and her CIA husband Vint Lawrence *knew* that the U.S. military was going to assassinate the Palestinian reporter (Tareq Ayoub) with two missles and blow up the well-known al-Jazeea building in Bagdad? Anne Garrels did say that Tareq Ayoub "got what was expected"!

Given that your premises about Daniel Pearl (CIA/Mossad ties) are absolutely false and would constitute libel were he alive to sue you (I am sure you whooped and cheered when hearing about his brutal slaying). Furthermore your friendship with Holocaust deniers Jeff Blankfort and Wendy Campbell is a matter of record.

An israeli who I worked with in Berkeley moved to England and he says if Bush is reelected, he will have to boycott the USA and not come to a conference being held here this winter. Pretty much every jewish person I know are the most politically active on antiwar or middle east issues. Joe Webb drove this guy out of the city's most active Iraq sanctions group before Fall 2001 by saying he was suspect of split loyalties. http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000054.html

SEE ABOVE: "I later asked several Jewish-American activists for Palestinian human rights, ... whether they found my comparison between the two reporters to be anti-Semitic. They all, in their respective ways, replied that Tolan’s accusation - but, especially, his Palestinian journalist wife’s support of it - was nonsense."

In fact, it was RACIST (ANTI-PALESTINIAN ANTI-SEMITISM) for ANNE GARRELS to say that Tareq Ayoub "got what was expected", when she didn't -- and *woudn't* *ever* -- say that about Daniel Pearl.

And in fact, I've previously emailed my article to a whole list of over 100 people, including many Jews (and that including Jewish professors, scholars, and experts on the Middle East) whom I know well. Not one of them told me my comparison was anti-Semitic. Indeed, most people recognize that in a racist U.S., the contrast and comparison is reality. In fact, one Jewish expert said that, "Daniel Pearl was an idiot!," for thinking that he - of all people - could go hunt up some al-Qaeda officials/leaders in Afghanistan or Pakistan, given his position and the circumstances.

Annnd, I go to the monthly meetings of the Jewish Voice for Peace organization. No one there has ever told me that my comparison was anti-Jewish anti-Semitism.

As for a "libel" suit, Daniel Pearl doesn't have to be alive to sue me for libel. If my words are libelous, his family could readily sue me.

So, your scummy attempts to score cheap points with cheap smear tactics MEAN *NOTHING*!

Let's face it. Pearl was quoted as saying he went there because he wanted to know "why they hate us". If he had to ask, he was reallllllly stupid or he was realllllly lying. Probably both, actually!

"Reed, incidentally, asked witnesses for comment or refutation of Joe's description, and received no response." — Alexander Cockburn

Ishmael Reed (who's had bookreadings before at Cody's and has his picture placed up on the wall there of prominent authors - well, at least he used to) repeatedly tried to contact, especially, Andy Ross, owner of Cody's, Melissa Mytinger, Cody's Events Coordinator, any supervisor, or any other official or employee of Cody's, for any refutation of my remarks. Reed called, and I supplied him (and Alexander Cockburn) with all their email addresses (including Lamis Andoni's and the UC Berkeley Journalism School reference for Sandy Tolan). In fact, I believe that Ishmael was finally able to personally reach Andy Ross. No refutations were forthcoming. Now, Cody's also audio records all their major author events. If I were disruptive, they could easily prove it.

I've never had problems at Black Oak Books, Modern Times, City Lights, Book Passage, Walden Pond Bookstore, Diesel Bookstore, Stacey's Books, Alexander Books, Booksmith, Clean Well-Lighted Place Bookstore, Barnes & Noble (in Berkeley, Oakland, and Walnut Creek), the Commonwealth Club author events, Layfayette Bookstore, etc., etc., where I'm a regular; Midnight Special (in L.A.), Duttons (in L.A.), where I've travelled back and forth, staying in Santa Monica and Brentwood, and bookstores in Washington, D.C. and New York.

"As for a "libel" suit, Daniel Pearl doesn't have to be alive to sue me for libel. If my words are libelous, his family could readily sue me."

JA, I think you are dead wrong about this. I'm not a lawyer, have no formal legal trainig, but I believe it is a principle of law that you cannot "libel" a dead person and that the family cannot sue you.

That does not make it good manners to do so, say things about him or her you know to be false (or in reckless disregard of their truth) just because nobody can sue you. And it is DEFINITELY wrong to use the arguement "what I say must be true, if not, I would be sued for libel" because as indicated above, I am pretty sure in the case of someboidy who is dead, not possible (no matter how libelous your statemnts would be were they alive).

Mike: "JA, I think you are dead wrong..."

Hahaha! Is that a pun!?

Mike: "what I say must be true, if not, I would be sued for libel"

Of course, that's not what I said. I don't mean to offend you Mike, but I hate it when people come after me (not that you are -- but the Zionists) for lack of their *basic* reading comprehension.

I have to do this all the time -- CUT & PASTE(!) FROM MY ARTICLE -- even with the most formally well-educated (read, supposedly university-educated) persons (even, sometimes, professors!) who, nonetheless, have a bias to not read what I have objectively and logically written. Note:

"Pearl was well-believed, or well-suspected, by many as having direct connections to the CIA and Israel’s Mossad! (Simply put, of being a CIA/Mossad informant or spy.)"

That statement is -- in fact -- true. (Especially in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East.)


(Daniel Pearl also had close family members in *Israel*, where, I believe, he travelled often. Thus, Daniel Pearl, being a Zionist too, also may have availed himself of dual Israeli and American citizenship -- and I believe that Israel is the only *general*, *automatic* and *national* exception where the U.S. recognizes dual citizenship, unless perhaps a child may have been born on U.S. soil, but has foreign parents, or one parent is American and the other parent is foreign, but I'm not up on that issue.

PEARL MIGHT AS WELL HAVE BEEN WALKING AROUND PAKISTAN WITH A "KIDNAP AND KILL ME!!" SIGN ON HIS BACK! That's why -- contrary to the anti-Palestinian Anne Garrels and Berkeley journalism lecturer Sandy Tolan -- one expert, professional Jewish friend of mine said, "DANIEL PEARL WAS AN IDIOT!"

But, the *REAL* racists and anti-Semites (anti-Palestinian), Garrels or Tolan would *never* say that "Pearl *REALLY* shouldn't have been there in the first place and *REALLY* got what was expected.")


Mike: "...about this. I'm not a lawyer, have no formal legal trainig,..."

That's right: you are not a lawyer (but you play one on indybay)! Haha! (Jes' pokin' fun at 'cha, Mike!) But, one of my housemates is.

Mike: "...but I believe it is a principle of law that you cannot "libel" a dead person and that the family cannot sue you."


Though the dead per se have no legal rights -- and, of course, Daniel Pearl himself cannot sue me for libel -- criminal and/or civil law regards a libel (defamation) upon the dead as a possible cause of action, but that too only when its libel is in truth and/or result an attack upon the interests of the deceased's surviving family.

The deceased's reputation is protected to a certain extent. It is a general rule that, with regard to the deceased, their living relatives can have a certain protection under the law for such defamation. The law does not protect the deceased per se -- in so far as they have no rights or legal "personhood" status in society (i.e., they cannot demand civil rights, enter into contracts, not *legally* vote, cannot get/renew a driver's license, etc.) -- but the interests to the relatives of the deceased family member are taken into account by law.

Therefore it may amount to defamation to impute anything to a dead person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person, if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of the deceased's surviving family or other near relatives. It is for the protection of the living members of the family of their deceased member that the law provides this remedy.

So, especially if the living family members can show that someone has libelously harmed the tangible, financial, or estate -- in short, existing -- interests that their deceased family member continues to accrue to the benefit of the surviving family -- especially via his/her reputation -- they may have a cause of action.


I hope I have been of some help. Is there anything else I can offer on this point?

What all of this proves is that Daniel Pearl-far from being an innocent "victim" of an unprovoked Muslim attack- utterly *DESERVED!* his fate. And that would be true of *ANY* Zionist Jew who so insinuated himself in that situation. Maybe its time that this cheating, immoral race of parasites finally looked at themselves in the mirror and changed their ways *WHILE THERE'S STILL TIME*!

See forgery above:

An additional Clarification
by 'JA' Sunday, Sep. 19, 2004 at 8:14 PM.


That's what teentsie-brained Zionists do when they have no viable or legitimate counter-arguments.

Gee, if I were in Israel they could just bomb me -- and all the other people in my house or apartment building or on my block. Or maybe they could lure my and my neighborhood kids out with misogynists taunts about the kids mothers and then the Zionists soldiers could shoot the kids for sport! Or maybe the Zionists (like the Israeli Mossad) could plant a car bomb like the ones they often planted in Beirut and other cities/towns of Lebanon in front of my church/mosque and hope to kill me along with maybe up to 100 other civilians (like the CIA also did in 1985). Or maybe they might even get so *BOLD* -- since they can get away with anything in Palestine (and have our govt & media cover for the Israelis) -- by starting to plant bombs against their targets in the U.S. like the Zionist Jews who were caught by the FBI planning to plant bombs (weren't they going to bomb mosques?) in L.A.!

Oh, well..., the little Zionist morons here are left -- so far -- to *desperate*, *simple-minded*, *moronic* forgery against those who are so articulate and incisive in their support of Palestinian human rights (and the human rights of all people) and those so articulate and incisive against oppressive, racist, state ideologies (like, of course, Zionism) that Zionists honor those people with such attention.

Gee, you Zionists make me blush!!

:-)

You Zionists could also threaten, with crude answering machine messages, to assassinate me right here in America (not just kill/maim ISM volunteers in Palestine), as you once did (and probably still regularly do) the director and good folks at the respective organizations

"If Americans Knew":

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

(run by Alison Weir)


or at the Middle East Children's Alliance:

http://www.mecaforpeace.org/

(run by a pro-Palestinian human rights
anti-Zionist Jew, Barbara Lubin)


Both organizations are right here in Berkeley.

Just like the Zionists. Only racistly concerned about what happens to Zionist Jews, not about _anyone_ else (including other Jews). Such Zionists have nothing to say about the U.S. missile-murdered Palestinian journalist or Garrels contemptible remarks about his getting "what was expected".

Here we witness bev seizing on an "opportunity" she found, in the image of a forger, to make another idiotic and baseless generalization about all Zionists.

Okay, 'CT', let's see what _you_ have to say about the U.S. military murder of an innocent Palestinian journalist? And let's see what _you_ have to say about how bright Daniel Pearl was, especially at the time, for going into Pakistan to hunt for al-Qaeda leaders? And let's see what _you_ have to say about Anne Garrels' remark about the Palestinian journalist getting "what was expected"? (P.S. I'm glad that you finally admitted that you or one of your Zionist lot posted a forgery in 'JA's' name.)

You have no business diverting attention from your goof by challenging me about questions which aren't even relevant to this thread's topic. Let's see you first plainly admit your mistake above. No apology necessary.


P.S.: I'm not the forger above and also had nothing to admit. I stated the obvious fact of the forgery.

Daniel Pearl wasn't in Pakistan hunting for al-Qaeda leaders. What he wanted to find out is why those terrorists were doing what they were doing and their way of thinking. He believed some people who took him to those leaders, but it was a trap.

U DUN MAKE ME PROUD AS A BLACK MAY-ON! U E-IS N EXCELLENT SPOKESMEN FO' OWA PEEPILS! DON LET DEM CRACKA-ASS HONKY DEBILS B' TIMIDATIN U O STOP U IN YO' PATH! PUT A CAP UP DEY ASS! POWER 2 DE PEEPILS!

"You have no business diverting attention from your goof"

< The only goof here is you, 'CT'. >

< Another _excellent_ example, just above, is another one of your Zionist sandbox _goofs_ (used as a noun), just above. You see you childish Zionists have no critical response, so the only thing your lot can possibly do in the absense of that is the verbal equivalent of sticking out your tongues, wiggling your fingers next to your ears, and making your mental fart sounds through your mouths, while you engage in further racist invective. I don't expect anything more from you Zionists. >

"by challenging me about questions which aren't even relevant to this thread's topic."

< You make my job of making you look so stupid too easy! Note, the thread's topic includes anti-Palestinian racism. Quote, from the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd section of "Anne Garrels, NPR neo-imperialist mouthpiece", above. Now with your attention deficit disorder 'CT', let alone your reading comprehension disorder, I know that you didn't get that far. I know that with children, as I said before, you have to constantly repeat things to them because you children lose attention so easily: (Cut & Paste) "Garrels had recently made a scandalously unconscionable (except in white society) statement about the U.S. military killing of a prominent Palestinian reporter in Baghdad, saying that, ‘he got what was expected, because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.’ " >

"Let's see you first plainly admit your mistake above."

< Let's see _you_ do so. (I don't expect an apology.) >

< Now, _once again_ I know that with children, one has to repeat the questions, due to their natural attention deficits: Cut & Paste) "A challenge to 'CT': Okay, 'CT', let's see what _you_ have to say about the U.S. military murder of an innocent Palestinian journalist? And let's see what _you_ have to say about how bright Daniel Pearl was, especially at the time, for going into Pakistan to hunt for al-Qaeda leaders? And let's see what _you_ have to say about Anne Garrels' remark about the Palestinian journalist getting "what was expected"? (P.S. I'm glad that you finally admitted that you or one of your Zionist lot posted a forgery in 'JA's' name.)" >

'bev', you strayed from the topic. First, admit you were wrong to generalize about all Zionists the way you did (hint: saying "okay" doesn't do), then I might engage your puerile stuff. Till then, I won't sit down to play with you.

I_am_the_smaaaaartest_person_in this-website_and_anywhere.

I_know_everything. You_name_it.

And I_am_sooooooo_beautiful. I_am_not_amazed that all_the_guys want to know my_full_name_and_city with the intention to track_me_down and stalk_me. Look at Davie. But he_is_not_the_only_one. It_happens_to_me with every_guy_I_meet. So I_don't_know_what_to_do. Because I_am_sooooooooo_brilliant, I_cannot_go_out with whatever_guy. Einstein_would_not_be_enough for my_level.

So don't you all stalk_me please.

'CT': "Till then, I won't sit down to play with you."

(Hmm, I wonder what lame-brained, verbally crippled Zionist forged me above, hmm Sefarad?)

What's the matter with you?

~

http://ishmaelreedpub.com/articles/anderson4.htm

~

Joseph Anderson is the outspoken author of a number of analytical commentaries (available online) criticizing the racist stereotyping and pathologizing of Black males from young to old – and sometimes even by those particular *Black* authors, filmmakers and documentary makers eagerly given financing, contracts, royalties, grants, distribution, or platforms by white corporations and institutions to do so. This, attitudinally and regularly, leads to the legalized, collectively *serial* murders of unarmed Black males by cops, or by white (or even 'honorary white') wanna-be cops (like George Zimmerman) and other racist assailants all over this country, as well as to the systematic incarceration of Black males. This important, exemplified, 'vintage' article, asked for and published by the literary journal "Konch", by the internationally famous African American author and UC Berkeley professor emeritus, Ishmael Reed, REVISITS and DETAILS some of Anderson's own experience with, and reflections upon, this sad state of attitudinal affairs – including, especially, white liberal racism. Unfortunately, like all prophetic writing, these reflections are all too true even today.

-

"A MENACE TO SOCIETY: OR HOW AN UPPITY BLACK MAN GOT BANNED FROM CODY'S BOOKSTORE IN BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA"

– by Joseph Anderson

~

Prologue

~

Readers of Konch may recall that I have been very critical of what I think is egregious Black male-bashing by feminist icon, literary lovvve guru, and pretentious non-user of the shift key in her egotistical feigned humbleness, bell hooks. (Please reference my earlier Konch article, “Right Hook at the Bell: Bell Hooks’ Black Male-Bashing,” with supporting audiofile record.)

Now, my willingness to stand up civilly and offer the briefest, but incisive, intellectual and moral criticism of Hooks’ eccentric anti-Black male theories has gotten me stamped "BANNED" – from that literary bastion and ‘champion’ of "free expression," Cody’s Bookstore: Berkeley’s foremost white literary landmark.

Cody’s certainly champions people’s right – white, or non-white (all the better!) – to bash people of color and further make whites feel smugly superior. This was famously done so with India-Orientalizing Salman Rushdie, years ago, even against bomb threats.

Unfortunately, nowadays, anti-intellectualism and hypocrisy are so pervasive, and almost cherished, in America that it even pervades the liberal literary atmosphere of Cody’s. Even there, celebrity fawning and liberal style over critical substance often reign among many in its book lecture audiences. I’ve come to realize that, especially, major author events at Cody’s are often just commercial exercises in relative superficiality with no inherent responsibility other than for the store to promote and defend its transient promoter (the author).

Cody’s is not a forum to necessarily provide any responsible true critical dialogue between the author and “the people” (at least those who are intellectually serious), as is the pretense. There’s something about Cody’s that seems to make it worse than the other Bay Area white-owned independents. It seems to – but not always – attract a more superficial crowd, in general. I think that’s because Cody’s hosts more big-name celebrities and thus people there engage in, well, celebrityism (actually, a widespread mental contagion in this country).

It’s often a forum where the celebrity “oracle” orates and, afterwards, audience members who wish are consented about a 60-seconds (or so) – and thus intellectually delimited – token soundbite question; this, so that, hopefully, no minimally developed, serious, contextual questions are actually posed. (I’m surprised that they just don’t pass out small notepad slips for questions.) Ask a critically serious question longer than about 60 seconds and the celebrity fawners slowly start to rumble, then grumble – personally offended – in behalf of the star.

Generally, no incisive, real intellectual work is actually meant to be even broached at a Cody’s celebrity author event, by author or audience. Many, respectively, have come to resent any interloper who thought otherwise – particularly from a, deeper, authentic, nonwhite perspective, and especially on any issue of racism. (‘Oh, my God, aren’t we all past that!?: it’s ssso unseemly! He’d actually try to make us think [in more than one color]’: eyes roll.) And liberals keep wondering why, in general, they have been politically sliding behind. There are authors who are politically conscious exceptions to this now-acceptable ruse, but they’re increasingly rare.

Below follows my ordeal with white liberal pretensions at Cody’s Bookstore. And let this be a lesson to any other socioculturally self-respecting “Uppity Black Male”: white liberals – even in Berkeley – don't like you contesting their white-lauded author heroes and certainly don’t like you making whites uncomfortable with all that “Black shit.”

~

Here We Go: In the Center of White Liberal Berkeley

~

Case in point: Back in February (’04), I attended a book reading at Cody’s by the predominantly white liberals’ feminist hero, Bell Hooks. During Q&A, I morally and intellectually challenged her, civilly, about her grossly stereotypical, anti-Black male statements and eccentric behavioral theories. Her basic idea (confirmed by her in response to my very specific question) is that, indeed, Black men are particularly, virulently, and pathologically misogynist – exceptionally so, above any other men.

Furthermore, this is all due, she categorically asserts, to rampant childhood sexual abuse of boys in the Black community. Yet another psychosexual theory – typically invented by racist white pundits – to exclusively explain and pathologize Black male behavior. Hooks further lashed out, with great indignation, that any Black male who disagrees with her (of course, especially moi) is “a prime example” of a totally unreconstructed, patriarchal Black male misogynist.

I pointed out to Hooks and the predominantly white liberal Berkeley audience the sheer blanket stereotyping of her statement: a blanket kind of pathological ethnic theory which, I posited, would never be tolerated by the same white liberal audience against any white ethnic group, and especially against – yes – Jewish males. This had not the slightest moderating effect on her or her large, adoring audience, including, the dozen or so “sorry and conditioned neegroes” (as we would say in the ’hood). (‘You know,’ some Blacks are ‘white-supremacists’ too!) In fact, my point had the opposite effect: Hooks diatribed even more about how awful Black men are, and her audience applauded even louder, lapping it up!

Ahhh, if only “to just be treated as a human being,” as James Baldwin would say; not as a miscreant. But from “Birth of a Nation” to Bell Hooks, we Black men are always ultimately labeled – ‘born from birth’ – by what rapper Ice Cube simply named one of his albums: “Predator.”

This is from Hooks, who even sharply attacked – as, in effect, an oblivious, if not sexist, patriarchal male – the prominent and incisive African American, prolific sociocultural author, commentator, and public lecturer Michael Eric Dyson. Go read any of his books and judge for yourself. This occurred in a joint interview on a white “liberal” San Francisco PBS radio station, with the glib, pseudo-liberal racist-in-his-own-right, but most of all, white-beloved host Michael Krasny of KQED-FM’s “Forum” show. To borrow a quote from the great Louis Armstrong about a similar case, “Most white [Bay Arean, (pun intended)] folks love his dirty drawers,” and seem to have all the cultural blinders and racial double standards that he has. And most Black progressives around the Bay are glad I told you; the others are secretly glad. I can also tell you that Dyson has been a lot more verbally gracious to Hooks, than she was to him.

I morally objected to Hooks’ wholesale, negative stereotyping of Black males (even children!), but would obviously never be given the opportunity by her to, even briefly, support my argument in a forum she aggressively controlled. To let herself be accountable to “the people” (and here I’m speaking of conscious grassroots Black folks) and subject her theory to public intellectual examination?: Not Hooks! So, finally, I simply turned my back to her as a silent, public protest, near the back of the room where I was standing. I made no disruptions and did not interfere with her punditry (and continued pillorying of me throughout the rest of her lecture) or anyone else’s ability to participate in the Q&A session. But my protest was pointed and I hoped effective.

This feminist guru of lovvve sharply attacked and tactically accused me – as my being a quintessential patriarchal male – of “repeatedly interrupting” her aggressive, purposely-designed, filibuster reply (with undoubtedly frustratingly unavoidable pauses to avoid suffocation, where someone could get a corrective word in edgewise) – sealed with her plan to abruptly proceed to the next questioner.

Amazingly enough, Hooks then repeatedly and aggressively interrupted the questioner immediately after me, a white woman, who was timidly trying to express some tepid misgivings about something else Hooks said, until Hooks herself persistently interrupted the woman into submission. No luvvving patience there! (I was hoping that someday a wider audience would hear the event tape and discuss it.) I would have thought that white women were representative of Hooks’ primary audience, not any for her to abuse: the ones she really wants to sell books too, thus, providing a substitute white feminist target, Black men instead of white men, and gaining general white accolades for herself!

A couple of the audience members approached me after the Hooks lecture and conceded that I was correct with regard to my concerns. (Why such people are always too afraid to support the legitimacy of my questions publicly, when and where it counts, rather than safely afterwards, in private, is a mystery to me.) Further afterwards, a white woman, all secure in her white domain, nastily sniped at me, as I, slipping by her, said, “Excuse me,” as I was downstairs browsing books. “Oh, now he’s polite!,” she sneered. (I know Black women who would have smacked the taste from her mouth if she had made a crack like that to them.) I surprised her by tersely, abruptly snapping right back that, ‘if she had any intellectual aptitude she could read my Konch essay (referenced in my comment about Hooks’ theory during Q&A); otherwise, I didn’t need her nasty little white arrogance.’ She shut up. Quite evidently, anything other than the adulation of white-lauded feminist heroes, like Bell Hooks, who trash Black men, is by definition “rude.”

~

Did I Mention Alice? (A Brief Digression)

~

Hooks is reminiscent to me of another Black feminist, Alice Walker: yet another lovvve guru with a major ego. Walker once lashed out at me in a different place and time for my literary panel sociological question to her, white lesbian author Susan Griffin, and Chinese-American author Maxine Hong Kingston, about how people of color are usually only accepted by white liberals to the extent that those people of color – myself included – at least appear to act and think (Euro-Amerocentrically) “white.”

But, as one rather professionally successful “model minority” (why can’t they ever be called “model American”?) Asian friend told me, “You still generally can only be accepted as among them [whites], not really as one ‘of’ them.” And even Kingston once warned that some whites were wrongly taking smug, racist interpretations from aspects of her Chinese folktale novels. Alice waited until long after she made millions off her movie to finally say anything like that.

Anyway, the late, prominent UC Berkeley professor and feminist writer, and casual friend, Barbara Christian, who had (thank God!) witnessed this exchange, told me frankly, afterwards, that, “Alice probably doesn’t even really know how to talk with today’s Black men because she has become so socioculturally isolated way up in the [Marin?] woods; she needs to come back down to the real world.”

~

What Happened After That? The Usual Double Standards.

~

I attended at least a couple of Cody’s events after that without any incident. Then, however, I went to another Cody’s event, this time held at a nearby church. To my surprise (well, nothing really surprises me anymore about a lot of white “liberals”), the white female Cody’s "Events Coordinator" refused to allow me entry, and brusquely informed me that I was not allowed to attend Cody’s "off-site" events. I was not even told why [high-pitched, snooty voice]: “You’re just not allowed to.” Actually, I didn’t even bother to ask ‘Miss Snoot,’ a.k.a. Melissa Mytinger, and surmised it must have something to do with my silent protest at the Hooks book lecture.

Realizing that this white woman had a grudge bug up her butt (according to an Asian friend of mine, in her teaching experience, “White girls never let go”), I went later that evening to see Andy Ross, the owner of Cody’s, at his store. I explained what had happened, and surmised that it proximately stemmed from the Hooks book lecture. I pointed out to him that I was neither rude nor boisterous at that event, and that he could listen to Cody’s event recording for himself, since he was not there.

He first gave me a little roundabout ‘song and dance’ (such whites always do), but I asked him, given Hooks’ anti-Black male racist theories, “You mean a Black man can’t even just stand in one spot, interfering with no one, and even silently protest such racist garbage?” Otherwise, I said, even a white liberal audience could comfortably use Hooks as cover to perpetuate such gross anti-Black male gender and sexual stereotypes, actually dangerous to Black men. People like racist white cops and various officials in different settings seriously act on that kind of psychosexual stereotyping!

I also pointed out to Ross that if Hooks had pathologically theorized (double entendre intended) about males of any white ethnic group – especially Jews – Cody’s would have rightly had an event overrun with loud, angry white protesters – Jewish and non-Jewish alike – and that my silent, symbolic "back-turning" protest was, in fact, quite innocuous by comparison. Ross (I was later informed, Jewish himself) did not dispute this; he didn’t even so much as suggest I was anti-Semitic for saying so.

After some amicable dialogue about these topics, Ross agreed that it was not inappropriate to engage in a silent, visible, but nondisruptive protest. In fact, he informed me that he has advised authors on the national book circuit that, ‘This is Berkeley and, thus, they have to expect the possibility of being challenged from the audience here. Furthermore, that Cody’s respects an audience member’s right to do so if he/she is not being disruptive,’ which Ross then agreed I had not been. We parted on rather friendly terms, and I thought that was that.

The real question would be, why are even white liberals so receptive to such theories against Black men?

Liberal white women friendly acquaintances with no real Black personal friends at all have had the nerve to ask me before, their making me “the exception”: “Why are Black men so misogynist?” You know, like: ‘Your being Black, you would know!’ This, even as so many white women or girls get the emotional or physical hell beaten out of them – or worse – every day by either white boyfriends, husbands, or even fathers. This is reported almost daily on one or another TV newsmagazine or talk show.

Recently, flipping channels, I saw a part of an episode of a cable TV fictional white gangster drama (fictional, so the scriptwriters can conceive the lines they want, right?): indeed, a “critically-acclaimed,” white-celebrated, gangster “family film,” ‘humanized’ (if you can believe that), with all the ‘middle-class’ problems of any working family, right? (‘Doo wese wack Vinny to-day or toomorrrow?’) This was “The Sopranos,” where, in one scene, a fictional white male character shouts, “Fucking c---!!,” just before he shoots a terrified woman in the head. Now whites watch this show for vicarious entertainment! Did you hear of any white (especially feminist) protests about that line? You would have, if it had been Black gangsta rapper Scarface’s verse: ‘Fuckin’ c---!! Here’s a cap I’m gonna pump!’

~

Then What Happened - With Michael Eric Dyson. Or, You Step Outta Ya Place…, A Cracka’s All Up in Yo' Face!

~

Then in May (’04), I arrived at Cody’s to attend a book lecture by my friend Michael Eric Dyson, who has publicly expressed great respect for my incisive comments and analyses. On my way through the bookstore, I passed by two female Cody’s employees, one white woman (the Events Coordinator) and one Black (her defending lackey). The white woman gave me a sarcastic “Hi, Joseph,” which I ignored.

I went upstairs to sit down, peacefully minding my own business, when, later, another Cody’s employee – a relatively tall, moderately big white male (whom I casually knew), boldly dressed in his usual all-black, symbolically ‘independent-thinking,’ wanna-be anarchist garb – approached me and said in a highly officious manner, “I am the agent of Andy Ross.” He demanded that I leave the events area. Ross’s “agent” told me – contrary to the assurances I had received from Ross himself - that I was not allowed to attend any Cody’s book reading events – at all. Now, not even at the "in-store" events. He then claimed, falsely, that I had been specifically informed of this by Andy Ross himself. I told him that Ross definitely had not, and that Michael was a friend of mine. “It doesn’t matter,” he said.

Annoyed by the conflicting statements by Ross, on the one hand, and his events employees, on the other, I went outside to wait for Michael at the nearby corner. Somehow missing Michael when he entered, I went back inside and approached him at the upstairs lecture area as he was just beginning – as Ross’s “agent” was frantically running and stomping to literally chase me down like a white Southern sheriff. I announced to Michael and the audience what was going on. I said that the Cody’s events staff had evidently issued against me what racist white bosses and officials in the Jim Crow South used to circulate and call a “KEEP THAT NIGGER RUNNING!” notice.

Michael intervened and made it clear that I could stay. He also alluded to me (as “Brotha Anderson”) respectfully, both intellectually and sociologically, more than once during his book lecture. He said that as a guest book lecturer he didn’t want to disrespect Cody’s as his inviter, but that he also didn’t want Cody’s to disrespect me, single me out, and paint me as ‘some crazy Negro’ – because this, Michael said, was what Black males who stand up for their intellectual integrity commonly have to put up with from certain white people.

This is a manifestation of why I have such great respect for Dyson: it would have been all too easy for him to bite his tongue, roll over for the local white Bossman (and even the intellectually nobody underlings) and “go along to get along.” I dare say, regretfully, that most Black book lecturers – even of Dyson’s national status – would have. (Y’all grassroots Black folks know what I mean.)

So, I attended Dyson’s always socioculturally incisive and enlivening book lecture and spoke for a time with him afterwards. (What he privately shared with me from his own similar experiences with some white people I will not publicly repeat.) Ross, undoubtedly then called at home, ‘snuck’ into the Dyson event, ‘hiding out’ in back, without even being man enough to come right up and talk to Dyson and myself after he finished signing books.

Then, after Michael had gone off to collect a few books that Cody’s pro forma offers book lecturers from the stacks, Andy Ross came up to me and told me, squawking with his nasally little voice, just like the white grown-up characters in the “Charlie Brown” TV cartoon shows: “Ohhhh, youuu've done it noww, Joseph! Youuu've really, really, really done it nowww! From nowww on, you're compleeetely BANNED from the entire store!”

~

On "The Bad Nigger" List. An Uppity Nigger, You See: “A Menace to Society”

~

I’ve long endured the lilliputian intellects of: liberal racist white bosses (ironically, insecure white women) in the most ‘cultured/intellectual’ of workplaces, liberal racist white administrators, liberal racist white teachers, liberal racist white co-workers, liberal racist white schoolmates, crazy liberal racist white girls/women, homicidally racist white cops, and even dealt with potentially homicidal racist white guys (on several occasions in the Midwest and South). Every day in the lion’s den. Nothing any different from most Blacks. And all the stakes get progressively higher from Black childhood throughout Black adulthood, where whites wanna play for keeps! (Certainly NOT that all whites are racist.)

But, now, I’m not going to be allowed into Cody’s corner bookstore! BANNED from all 12,000 square feet (and the quarter that I actually might use) of Cody’s retail space by this two-faced, liberal racist white storeowner!? Now I’m crushed! Can you imagine that!?: I can more safely travel throughout the entire world of some 52 million square miles of land (not including Antarctica) than Andy Ross can as a white-American man, and yet he pronounced his banishment of me from Cody’s as though my not being able to go in to his corner store would, indeed, be like being banished from the earth! This so, instead of just some simply petty behavior by some white storeowner whose ego has gotten the better of him. So what!: I’m headed to Barnes & Noble with my Christmas list of books next season – and so are my housemates.

Of course, it doesn’t matter, otherwise, how well-educated, how intellectual, how well-read, how well-spoken, how civil, how internationally-traveled one might be; and, most importantly, it doesn’t matter what the intellectual or moral merits of one’s critiques are: as Brotha Malcolm (or rapper Ice T in his song “Straight-Up Nigga”) said, if you’re Black – and don’t know ‘your place’ – you’re still just a “Nigger.”

Well, too bad. I'm not going to "make nice" and not disturb any hypocritical sensibilities of such liberal whites in my even civilly addressing racism when it’s a logically demonstrable and thus valid criticism. And if it gets me banned from liberal white intellectual masturbation and celebrity-fawning sessions like certain major Cody’s events often are – especially where people of color are egregiously slurred by whites or their ‘colored’ stand-ins without any challenges permitted – then so be it.

Among white conservatives, Blacks aren’t really wanted at all, and among many white liberals/progressives, Blacks are often only accepted within the parameters of how the latter whites themselves want to view and articulate the world: either way, white privilege still triumphs. In fact, one “liberal” white male UC Berkeley journalism lecturer (and even author of the book, “Me and Hank”) once lashed out at me, “We’re tired of all your black shit!!” That pretty much says it all.

~

Denouement: White Weasels and Black Bootlickers

~

I think that I can somehow go on living, being banned from Cody’s. In fact, I won’t support an establishment where the owner, Andy Ross, behaves in such a racially two-faced, weaselly way: playing nice and reaching friendly personal understandings on the one hand, but alternately allowing/instructing his self-important events coordinator to be spiteful in his absence.

Nor am I very surprised by the fact that there were two black Cody’s events staffers who more than willingly reinforced these whites’ behavior. (You know, as Ice Cube rapped and as James Baldwin wrote, “Black po-lice showin’ out for the white cops!”) We Black folks know that there are always going to be one or two ingratiating, quick-steppin’, ever-loyal house negroes willing to snort 'n 'tort, in effect, “Don’t be sassin’!! Massa done tollldjas ta ggit now, ya heayah!?”

Ironically, I’ve always had very good store relations with other Cody’s employees who were not part of the events staff. This particularly included the big, ‘bad’, black-clad, ‘politically iconoclastic,’ ‘anti-establishment,’ anarchist-wannabe store supervisor – apparently just a poser.

But, you see, like a prime example of many such “convenient white liberals” – from Andy Ross on up and down – who don’t really want to be racially discomforted (even they prefer fiction over friction), especially when it’s too close to ‘home,’ he’s no threat to the system at all.

Finally, for America to sustain its racial or national myths, even the myth of liberal white superiority (which often likes to evade legitimate issues of white racism too: “it’s really classism”), America ultimately has to be anti-intellectual and hypocritical – and always tired of any nigger “making trouble.”

Peace Out

------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Anderson is a resident of Berkeley, CA, an occasional contributing political columnist/essayist, occasional KPFA-FM radio guest, a local media monitor and grassroots progressive political activist.

http://ishmaelreedpub.com/articles/anderson4.htm

[After Andy Ross, of Berkeley, sold Cody's Bookstore, its new Asian owners, as well as new staff, readily invited Anderson back in – as Anderson has always been heartily welcomed at Berkeley's other Asian-owned bookstore, "Eastwind Books", as well as the rest of the Bay Area's bookstores and book lectures.]

Also check out (online) by Anderson:

"PBS Documentary on Hip-Hop Neglects the Role of White Corporate Media and Blame Blacks" - at AfricaResource

and

"Right Hook at the Bell: Bell Hooks Black Male-Bashing" - at BlackCommentator

and

"The Selling of Precious" - at CounterPunch - by Ishmael Reed