I'm going to be honest.....the past I had around me no longer exists, especially in this city. I came up at a time where my HS principal got Mandela, who when he first stepped foot on US soil came STRAIGHT to my HS to speak to a gathering of 10,000 of us on the football field because no group of people wrote him while he was doing his bid in a south african prison more than BLACK NEW YORKERS. Or having TV shows like "
Like It Is" ran by Gil Noble which as a public affairs television program focusing on issues relevant to the
African-American community, in New York City between 1968 and 2011 and was one of the longest-running, locally produced programs of its kind in television history. Or going to hear Ivan Van Sertima speak at a nearby college.
Those men were REAL. Those men were AUTHENTIC and driven by the struggle. Those days are OVER. These buffoons on social media are driven by the spectacle they create, are phony and unread as fukk. Not sure how it can be revived but it's going to have to come from young people living in this new world of social media. The world I came out of is GONE, and I can't tell you the ways I came up because they don't apply. what I will say is to READ READ READ. Care enough about Black people to READ from our past scholars.
This. When I was growing up our leaders were academics, scholars, historians, writers, and real activists. No easily digestible social media bs for content creation. No needless contrarianism and ignorant wedge issues over your ethnic background. No entertainers repping conservative Republicans just for attention. Being "pro-black" was actual work that meant opening up damn books and listening to real scholarship lectures. Today being pro-black just repping internet cliques.
We were taught a little in History here in
I did do a lil comparison thing on Congress vs Parliament when I was getting some Treaties certified.
Ratification etc.
I know an American would be able to teach me more about it.
I'm not the most hip on UK politics besides naming off some prime ministers, but I'd say the biggest difference--besides some rituals and traditions--is that Congress is WAY more strict on "separation of powers" between the executive, the legislative branch, and both houses of our legislative branch.
In the UK--tell me if I'm wrong--the prime minister is chosen by the dominant elected party of parliament. Most laws come from the ruling party and kind of passes through parliament for votes and debate. The law is then reviewed by appointed Lords and thats that. Whatever the ruling party at the moment agrees on, pretty much goes, and is only stopped by genuinely convincing argument and public feedback.
And of course parliament can remove an incompetent prime minister as they see fit whereas we are stuck with whatever buffoon we elected until their term(s) are done.
In the US the President, House Reps, and Senators are all elected by the people and each branch can end up with a different ruling party that all contend with one another. The President is completely separate from Congress and has little influence over law making in this country (besides the Vice President who can break a tie on a Senate vote...pretty much their only essential function). That is left to both houses of Congress.
The duly elected Senate can oppose a bill passed by the House where this is rare between Commons and Lords.
I believe parliament writing and proposing laws themselves is rare (again, correct me if I'm wrong) whereas US Congress people write, propose, and vote on tons of laws every day.
And because the US, and therefore Congress, is separated by individual self-governing states and districts rather than large counties, it means US politician are way more beholden to special interest and constituency than UK politicians who have far more room to focus on national agendas as a whole.
In other words our system, in it's attempt to be impartial and inclusive of power, is more prone to gridlock and manipulation. There hasn't been a major piece of legislation passed through our system since Obamacare 15 years ago. The entire Republican Party opposed it of course, and even though we had a Dem majority at the time, all it took was one no-good, useless "conservative Democrat" from a pro-private healthcare state, Joe Lieberman from Connecticut--rest in piss, to completely fukk it up and require the bill to be rewritten a dozen times.
We could've had basically free universal health care if not for just one person with the power to gridlock Congress and hold back good legislation. This in fact happened to Donald Trump, who couldnt build his great big white power monument border wall, because even members of his own party--who cheered it on when it appealed to really dumb voters--knew it was a ridiculous waste of tax dollars in the end. He held the country hostage in the biggest shutdown in history trying to force Congress to pass it (congressional deadlines and govt shutdowns is a whole other thing)
And let's not even get started on this Supreme Court--who have the ultimate power in what our laws are even allowed to be. Theyre suppose to be impartial reviewers of our laws, not unlike your Lords, but its now been completely compromised and corrupted.
It's why these idiots making all these pompous statements about "getting reparations" by not voting for anyone look like simple minded morons that don't get the first thing about government. There is NO passing reparations or "agenda exclusively for black Americans" without Congress and without the Supreme Court. There is no getting this done without also voting and pushing our government TO THE LEFT. We don't live in a parliamentary system where an elected ruling party can pass their agenda with little gridlock. If we sit back and don't vote, then white people get to decide our leaders, our law makers, and our laws for us, while the liberal party goes further to the right just to compete with swing voters. It's not calculus but these "no tangibles no vote" vote weirdos have really convinced themselves of their own stupidity.