On The Coretta Scott King Funeral Controversey
On The Coretta Scott King Funeral Controversey
mumin_bey@yahoo.com
2:12 AM 2/13/06 Mon
With the late Mrs. King laid to rest, I think it's now the right time for me to weigh in on the controversey surrounding comments made by former President Jimmy Carter and the Reverand Joseph Lowery, in the presence of fellow attendee and mourner Preside George W. Bush. As you know, their comments have set off many conservatives, particularly those in the media (primarily Fox News, The Weekly Standard and other print publications, and of course, talk radio), who have charged Carter, Lowery and others with partisan potshot taking at what they consider to be a most inopportune time; simply put, these conservative pundits argue that the Democratic Left's hatred and vile for Bush is so virulent, that they will take any opportunity, use any occasion, to attack him and the wider conservative agenda.
Most people who are in agreement with Carter's and Lowery's comments - who, I think it safe to say, are for the most part at least partially are in step with the Democrats - saw their remarks as emblematic of what both Kings, Martin and Coretta, stood for. In their minds, to simply offer platitudes over the body of one of the most important personages in Civil Rights Movement, would be to cheapen her legacy, and to turn one's back on her struggle for equality and social, economic and legal justice.
Carter and Lowery's comments were met with thunderous applause, with Lowery's observations regarding the Iraq War and the failure to find the much touted WMDs in particular getting a standing ovation; Carter's comments on the Katrina tragedy and the thousands of African Americans affected in its aftermath garnered similar response. Held at one of the United State's largest "megachurches", the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, in Lithonia, GA, it's some 10,000 attendees - mostly African American - seemed to be in full agreement with the comments. And while many conservatives lamented the Democratic party line's hand in all this, I noticed that even most of the pundits and opinion makers on the red side of the aisle tip-toed around the very obvious truth on Feb 7 2006:
That the racial divide is still very much with us in America, well into the 21st century. That alone, if nothing else, should tell us all, no matter where we fall on the debate, that perhaps in many ways those comments accarately reflected Mrs. King's life, following in the tall shadow of her late husband.
Casting a noon time chart for the Coretta Scott King Funeral, Feb 7 2006 at Lithonia GA (Placidus 24 Tau 04), we see immediately Mars rising in the Asc, square Mercury in Aquarius in the 10th; a strong signal of bickering, arguments, a sense of being attacked for comments being made. It is also interesting to note that the 10th House of this chart - which could be used to describe President Bush - seems to be weakened somewhat with the presence of the Sun-Neptune conjunction. The Sun is in detriment and its dispositor Uranus in Pisces, also denotes a less than assertive stance.
If the 10th House represents the President and by extension the GOP, then the 4th House of this chart can be said to represent his opposition, the Democrats. In this chart, the Sun rulkes the 4th, and Saturn is actually in the 4th House, in Leo and Rx. Classically, Saturn is said to rule Aquarius, and like the Sun, it too is in detriment. Its Rx status in this map suggests that the Democrats are weaker at the present than the President and the GOP, which is factually the case; The GOP dominates all three branches of American government. It is interesting indeed to note that so many event charts that feature the President also happens to feature tensions along the 4-10 House axis.
Interesting also in this chart is the rising Moon in Gemini, reflecting the divided nature of the controversey arising out of the funeral, a larger commentary on the racially, politically and socially divided nature of our country at large. And we can also note that Venus, the ruler of this noon time event chart, is at the Saturn/Pluto midpoint, signifying loss, death; Venus in Capricorn certainly represents Coretta Scott King, a long standing fixture in the movement, a classy lady indeed.
I believe that the reason why so many conservative pundits have strayed away from noting the fact that so many African Americans are in tacit and essential agreement with Lowery and Carter's statements - and why they roared in approval of the Clintons as well - is because of the image problem that continues to bedevil the GOP. The Southern Strategy was developed and deployed in the wake of the massive Civil Rights Legislation of the mid 1960s, granted to African Americans to ensure their rights to vote, etc. White Southern Democrats - known then as Dixiecrats and featureed prominent figures such as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd (both of whom had Klan associations and both of whom renounced same years later) - defected to the Republican Party out of disgust and in retaliation to President Lyndon Johnson's legislative achievements. While it's true that more Republicans at the time supported Civil Rights bills and laws than Democrats/Dixiecrats, this truth was overshadowed by the time Richard Nixon came to power, in the main by way of extensive use of the Southern Strategy (initially formulated in the Barry Goldwater campaign). Johnson knew what was coming down the pike, before Nixon was ever elected; as he signed the historic bills into law, he said that he had just given away the South for the next few generations.
In truth, the GOP knows that it does not need African American electoral support to win; the Nixon, Reagan and both Bush's electoral victories have proven this to be the case. But what they DO need is the perception that they are no longer the Party that encourages blatant racism, and not necessarily because they need to appeal to African Americans; they need this cleaning up of their image to appeal to middle America, middle class WHITES, who despite their own misgivings and views regarding "race relations" and the like, still feel uncomfortable giving their new or continued support to a Party that carries the tones of the Goldwater Era, the hardline "law and order" veiled references of Nixon, the "Welfare Queen" stereotyping of Reagan. As Al Franken, Joe Conason and others point out in their books, this is an object lesson not only in the Psychologial Age in which we live and how it has pervaded every facet of our lives, but so too about just how far we have indeed come from the days of MLK. Keep in mind, that no less than four Presidents were present - and spoke - at Mrs. King's funeral; her body lay in state at the Capitol in GA, a first for any woman or African American; and all this follows only months behind the grand national tribute Rosa Parks received at the national Capitol.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party is caught between a rock and hard place; since the 1960s their core base of electoral support has been the African American Vote, with every passing year seeing fewer and fewer White votes going in their favor, particularly in the South and Heartland America areas; the last Presidential election saw considerable White male and married "Soccer Mom" support going to Bush, while unmarried younger and older women, African Americans, some Hispanics, and Gays and Lesbians supporting Kerry. The Democratic Party is becoming more and more viewed not as the John Kennedy era classic liberal, but the Ted Kennedy era Liberal Ideologue, a Party that is essentially out of step with the values, convictions and aspirations of an America at the 21st century. Surely, Democratic pollsters know how important the Black Vote is and continues to be to them, yet they desperately need to appeal to votes outside of that rubric; Hillary Clinton's much touted run for the White House has to be at least based on the fact that she has the Democratic Party's best campaigners ever, Bill Clinton, who continues to enjoy colossal support in Black America.
Last year, I said the following about the notion of a colorblind America, in response to a then recent poll regarding "interdating":
"With the issues framed within the proper context, we now turn to the astrology of these events. I present the following 3 horoscopes for your consideration: The Declaration of Independence, which represents the intention of the original colonies/states to seperate from Great Britain and become a union unto itself, framed, founded and intended originally by and for White male land owners, thinkers, financiers and military men (Jul 4 1776 5.10PM LMT Philadelphia, PA; Placidus 12 Sag 19, Campion, Sibly Variant); The Statue of Liberty, a gift to the United States from France in the 19th century, shortly after the end of the Civil War, and represents the American Immigrant Experience (and includes various White ethinic groups as well as non-White, such as the Irish, Italian, Polish and Germans; Oct 28 1866 4.05PM LMT New York, NY; Placidus 14 Ari 11, Tyl Rectification); and finally, the horoscopic representation of the moment the first African slaves were offloaded at Jamestown, that moment which would eventually evolve into what I posit is "the" chart for the African American people (Aug 30 1619 10.15AM LMT, Jamestown, VA; Placidus 4 Sco 21, Penfield Rectification). These three charts I contend, bear striking witness to how interdating and intermarriage actually plays itself out despite flowery polling results.
Comparing the USA's chart to that of American Slavery's, however, tells a different tale; there is little "middle ground" between the two charts. First off, AS's chart has, as noted earlier a Fixed Sign emphasis, while the USA's chart highlights the incidence of Cardinal and Mutable Signs, suggesting that the modalities of these two charts is vastly different (and we often hear how Black folks "live in the past"; "we need to move on", etc.). Note the Moon positions, essential for any positive synastric analysis to work - the USA's Moon is in Aquarius, interested in innovation, social service and relevance, modernity; while the AS's Moon is in Taurus, interested in tradition, conservatism, "keepin' it real", etc. Astrologers have long known that it is next to impossible for two people (in this case two entities) to live under the same roof for any length of time when their Lunar placements are such at variance with each other. Next, note that there are no Venus-Mars connections accross the charts, unlike that of the earlier noted USA/SOL synastry, and what 7th House related connections that are present speaks to alienation, pain, seperation: AS's Saturn EXACTLY conjunct USA's Mars in its 7th. Further, note that AS's Uranus is conjunct the USA Mercury, ruler of its 7th; and the USA's Uranus square AS's Sun. All of these contacts undeniably speak to the USA's segregation of Black folks, and in any event, hardly would qualify by any astrologer's standard as ties of comfort and stability. Put all this together with a Sagittarius Asc in one chart (USA), and a Scorpio Asc in the other (American Slavery), along with what we know about the rules of Synastry, and it's very difficult to see these two charts coming together to make a happy marriage - and is completely reflective of the real world reality on these fronts with respect to Black and White in America."
- Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?: Astrology, In Black & White 4:53 AM 10/14/05 Fri
Because of the enduring nature of the King Funeral (Fixed Signs on the Angles) I suspect this issue of the Lowery/Carter comments will remain with us for sometime in the media, particularly on the conservative side. In a major election year, such things will figure prominently in the voting public's mind as to who they will ultimately choose as their leaders congressionally. Mrs. King's long arc of life just goes to show us all how far we've come, and how so very far we have to go.
Lastly, it's interesting to note, as of this writing, that none of the King children have objected to Lowery's or Carter's comments; neither has any siginificant voice in the African American community.
Hmm...
Salaam,
Mu
mumin_bey@yahoo.com
2:12 AM 2/13/06 Mon
With the late Mrs. King laid to rest, I think it's now the right time for me to weigh in on the controversey surrounding comments made by former President Jimmy Carter and the Reverand Joseph Lowery, in the presence of fellow attendee and mourner Preside George W. Bush. As you know, their comments have set off many conservatives, particularly those in the media (primarily Fox News, The Weekly Standard and other print publications, and of course, talk radio), who have charged Carter, Lowery and others with partisan potshot taking at what they consider to be a most inopportune time; simply put, these conservative pundits argue that the Democratic Left's hatred and vile for Bush is so virulent, that they will take any opportunity, use any occasion, to attack him and the wider conservative agenda.
Most people who are in agreement with Carter's and Lowery's comments - who, I think it safe to say, are for the most part at least partially are in step with the Democrats - saw their remarks as emblematic of what both Kings, Martin and Coretta, stood for. In their minds, to simply offer platitudes over the body of one of the most important personages in Civil Rights Movement, would be to cheapen her legacy, and to turn one's back on her struggle for equality and social, economic and legal justice.
Carter and Lowery's comments were met with thunderous applause, with Lowery's observations regarding the Iraq War and the failure to find the much touted WMDs in particular getting a standing ovation; Carter's comments on the Katrina tragedy and the thousands of African Americans affected in its aftermath garnered similar response. Held at one of the United State's largest "megachurches", the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, in Lithonia, GA, it's some 10,000 attendees - mostly African American - seemed to be in full agreement with the comments. And while many conservatives lamented the Democratic party line's hand in all this, I noticed that even most of the pundits and opinion makers on the red side of the aisle tip-toed around the very obvious truth on Feb 7 2006:
That the racial divide is still very much with us in America, well into the 21st century. That alone, if nothing else, should tell us all, no matter where we fall on the debate, that perhaps in many ways those comments accarately reflected Mrs. King's life, following in the tall shadow of her late husband.
Casting a noon time chart for the Coretta Scott King Funeral, Feb 7 2006 at Lithonia GA (Placidus 24 Tau 04), we see immediately Mars rising in the Asc, square Mercury in Aquarius in the 10th; a strong signal of bickering, arguments, a sense of being attacked for comments being made. It is also interesting to note that the 10th House of this chart - which could be used to describe President Bush - seems to be weakened somewhat with the presence of the Sun-Neptune conjunction. The Sun is in detriment and its dispositor Uranus in Pisces, also denotes a less than assertive stance.
If the 10th House represents the President and by extension the GOP, then the 4th House of this chart can be said to represent his opposition, the Democrats. In this chart, the Sun rulkes the 4th, and Saturn is actually in the 4th House, in Leo and Rx. Classically, Saturn is said to rule Aquarius, and like the Sun, it too is in detriment. Its Rx status in this map suggests that the Democrats are weaker at the present than the President and the GOP, which is factually the case; The GOP dominates all three branches of American government. It is interesting indeed to note that so many event charts that feature the President also happens to feature tensions along the 4-10 House axis.
Interesting also in this chart is the rising Moon in Gemini, reflecting the divided nature of the controversey arising out of the funeral, a larger commentary on the racially, politically and socially divided nature of our country at large. And we can also note that Venus, the ruler of this noon time event chart, is at the Saturn/Pluto midpoint, signifying loss, death; Venus in Capricorn certainly represents Coretta Scott King, a long standing fixture in the movement, a classy lady indeed.
I believe that the reason why so many conservative pundits have strayed away from noting the fact that so many African Americans are in tacit and essential agreement with Lowery and Carter's statements - and why they roared in approval of the Clintons as well - is because of the image problem that continues to bedevil the GOP. The Southern Strategy was developed and deployed in the wake of the massive Civil Rights Legislation of the mid 1960s, granted to African Americans to ensure their rights to vote, etc. White Southern Democrats - known then as Dixiecrats and featureed prominent figures such as Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd (both of whom had Klan associations and both of whom renounced same years later) - defected to the Republican Party out of disgust and in retaliation to President Lyndon Johnson's legislative achievements. While it's true that more Republicans at the time supported Civil Rights bills and laws than Democrats/Dixiecrats, this truth was overshadowed by the time Richard Nixon came to power, in the main by way of extensive use of the Southern Strategy (initially formulated in the Barry Goldwater campaign). Johnson knew what was coming down the pike, before Nixon was ever elected; as he signed the historic bills into law, he said that he had just given away the South for the next few generations.
In truth, the GOP knows that it does not need African American electoral support to win; the Nixon, Reagan and both Bush's electoral victories have proven this to be the case. But what they DO need is the perception that they are no longer the Party that encourages blatant racism, and not necessarily because they need to appeal to African Americans; they need this cleaning up of their image to appeal to middle America, middle class WHITES, who despite their own misgivings and views regarding "race relations" and the like, still feel uncomfortable giving their new or continued support to a Party that carries the tones of the Goldwater Era, the hardline "law and order" veiled references of Nixon, the "Welfare Queen" stereotyping of Reagan. As Al Franken, Joe Conason and others point out in their books, this is an object lesson not only in the Psychologial Age in which we live and how it has pervaded every facet of our lives, but so too about just how far we have indeed come from the days of MLK. Keep in mind, that no less than four Presidents were present - and spoke - at Mrs. King's funeral; her body lay in state at the Capitol in GA, a first for any woman or African American; and all this follows only months behind the grand national tribute Rosa Parks received at the national Capitol.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party is caught between a rock and hard place; since the 1960s their core base of electoral support has been the African American Vote, with every passing year seeing fewer and fewer White votes going in their favor, particularly in the South and Heartland America areas; the last Presidential election saw considerable White male and married "Soccer Mom" support going to Bush, while unmarried younger and older women, African Americans, some Hispanics, and Gays and Lesbians supporting Kerry. The Democratic Party is becoming more and more viewed not as the John Kennedy era classic liberal, but the Ted Kennedy era Liberal Ideologue, a Party that is essentially out of step with the values, convictions and aspirations of an America at the 21st century. Surely, Democratic pollsters know how important the Black Vote is and continues to be to them, yet they desperately need to appeal to votes outside of that rubric; Hillary Clinton's much touted run for the White House has to be at least based on the fact that she has the Democratic Party's best campaigners ever, Bill Clinton, who continues to enjoy colossal support in Black America.
Last year, I said the following about the notion of a colorblind America, in response to a then recent poll regarding "interdating":
"With the issues framed within the proper context, we now turn to the astrology of these events. I present the following 3 horoscopes for your consideration: The Declaration of Independence, which represents the intention of the original colonies/states to seperate from Great Britain and become a union unto itself, framed, founded and intended originally by and for White male land owners, thinkers, financiers and military men (Jul 4 1776 5.10PM LMT Philadelphia, PA; Placidus 12 Sag 19, Campion, Sibly Variant); The Statue of Liberty, a gift to the United States from France in the 19th century, shortly after the end of the Civil War, and represents the American Immigrant Experience (and includes various White ethinic groups as well as non-White, such as the Irish, Italian, Polish and Germans; Oct 28 1866 4.05PM LMT New York, NY; Placidus 14 Ari 11, Tyl Rectification); and finally, the horoscopic representation of the moment the first African slaves were offloaded at Jamestown, that moment which would eventually evolve into what I posit is "the" chart for the African American people (Aug 30 1619 10.15AM LMT, Jamestown, VA; Placidus 4 Sco 21, Penfield Rectification). These three charts I contend, bear striking witness to how interdating and intermarriage actually plays itself out despite flowery polling results.
Comparing the USA's chart to that of American Slavery's, however, tells a different tale; there is little "middle ground" between the two charts. First off, AS's chart has, as noted earlier a Fixed Sign emphasis, while the USA's chart highlights the incidence of Cardinal and Mutable Signs, suggesting that the modalities of these two charts is vastly different (and we often hear how Black folks "live in the past"; "we need to move on", etc.). Note the Moon positions, essential for any positive synastric analysis to work - the USA's Moon is in Aquarius, interested in innovation, social service and relevance, modernity; while the AS's Moon is in Taurus, interested in tradition, conservatism, "keepin' it real", etc. Astrologers have long known that it is next to impossible for two people (in this case two entities) to live under the same roof for any length of time when their Lunar placements are such at variance with each other. Next, note that there are no Venus-Mars connections accross the charts, unlike that of the earlier noted USA/SOL synastry, and what 7th House related connections that are present speaks to alienation, pain, seperation: AS's Saturn EXACTLY conjunct USA's Mars in its 7th. Further, note that AS's Uranus is conjunct the USA Mercury, ruler of its 7th; and the USA's Uranus square AS's Sun. All of these contacts undeniably speak to the USA's segregation of Black folks, and in any event, hardly would qualify by any astrologer's standard as ties of comfort and stability. Put all this together with a Sagittarius Asc in one chart (USA), and a Scorpio Asc in the other (American Slavery), along with what we know about the rules of Synastry, and it's very difficult to see these two charts coming together to make a happy marriage - and is completely reflective of the real world reality on these fronts with respect to Black and White in America."
- Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?: Astrology, In Black & White 4:53 AM 10/14/05 Fri
Because of the enduring nature of the King Funeral (Fixed Signs on the Angles) I suspect this issue of the Lowery/Carter comments will remain with us for sometime in the media, particularly on the conservative side. In a major election year, such things will figure prominently in the voting public's mind as to who they will ultimately choose as their leaders congressionally. Mrs. King's long arc of life just goes to show us all how far we've come, and how so very far we have to go.
Lastly, it's interesting to note, as of this writing, that none of the King children have objected to Lowery's or Carter's comments; neither has any siginificant voice in the African American community.
Hmm...
Salaam,
Mu
posted by Mu'Min M. Bey at
11:20 AM
1 Comments:
Hi thanks for postting this
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home