DECACS, Inc. and all its Initiatives

Archive for the ‘relationships’ Category

Polygamy Is NOT The Solution For Black America?

Polygamy Is NOT The Solution For Black America?

NB Commentary: Let me preface my commentary with these words, yes, my commentary is biased, yes, it may have even been a little bit emotional, and yes, I may have been a little curt if not with a tinge of anger, but sometimes when someone gets on YouTube and provides “disinformation” as if they are an expert on a subject they are talking about… well it just rubs me. It is a particular rub for me in this case as this is a subject that I have explored, studied, understood it pros and cons across cultures, etc. So, jump into this opinion piece with that in mind. Nana is on a roll in this one.

To the narrator of this video, first of all, I do not know where you are getting your facts about the so-called down side of polygamy (polygyny = one man, many wives) and I feel that if you have statistics then you should present them.

Secondly, I am offended by your gross generalization of the so-called backwards African societies that practice polygamy. I am also offended that you think that women are so petty that they have no clue of what it means to build a nation, or that building a nation means having many children. These women are not that naive that they don’t realize that nation building will take a long time with just one wife. To these people polygamy is not a matter of how much sex a man can have but how many children a man can help to produce and quite frankly getting pregnant does not require a lot of sex. It is the Western world with its suppression of the naked body that brought down shame on the indigenous people who were quite comfortable with their style of dress. Sexual implications based on what someone had on was not as overt as it has become in western hypocritically puritanical cultures.
If you want to point out backwardness of polygamous societies, then what about Saudi Arabia, The United Arab republic, Qatar, Sudan, Iran, India and others. These are predominately Islamic societies where Polygamy is practiced and they have booming cultures, technology and educational systems. None of which are “backwards” as you would define it.
I find your statement about African societies where polygamy occurs, and defined by you as backwards, to be quite disingenuous and falling way short of any valid study, survey or actual living in these cultures that you call backwards. The fact that you omit the ancient history of African Cultures, the Songhai Empire, the Mali Empire, the Great Kings and Queens who came out of Africa during ancient times and from a culture where polygamy was the norm shows the limit of your knowledge on this topic.
You fail to mention the impact of the European hypocritical influence on indigenous African culture and the imposition of hypocritical Western ideologies upon the African experience. You even fail to mention the irony of these so called Christians whose early prophets were all polygamous.
Your protestations are ill-founded even to this day when you do not understand the mechanism of the customs and culture of the society where polygamy is intrinsic to it. The in-fighting that you speak of hardly had to do with who was married to whom, and particularly, since natural selection had more women than men being in the world, then it is most advantageous for the women to be absorbed into a household or family unit, rather than having them left out.
And what if the wife is barren through no fault of her own, should her husband go with out having a progeny because his only wife cannot bare him children?

In strong societies where polygamy is the norm, many customs support it and encourage the family unit to work as a whole. The women and children are seen as resources and they help to build the community, take care of the children, teach and pass on the customs. The women are as industrious as the men and have markets, stores, farms and trading that increases the wealth of the family unit and community.

When many of the wars and strife were started, believe me, it was not over woman and who had the best looking women or pick of the crop. It was over resources, land, politics and hegemony. It was the male desire to fight and conquer his competition which quite frankly, was not another woman but what her husband had. Wars are socio-economical-political ventures that take place between warring tribes all over the planet. And it is modern society with its monogamy that has had the absolute worse wars of aggression against each other while you, and many others, consider Western society civilized.

I find your entire video disingenuous, insulting, linear in its presentation, and absent of the true facts and/or understanding of indigenous cultures and the how and why they participate in polygamy.

If you believe it is not a viable option for Western men and women, I have to agree because the culture is not designed to support that type of marital relationship. Western cultures are selfish, self-centered, narcissistic and pathological. They have abandoned the extended family for the nuclear one and have isolated themselves through individualism and personal ownership, thus creating a cesspool of fear, insecurity, paranoia, co-dependency and toxic relationships which according to the latest statistics, leads to 50% of marriages end in divorce.

There are a vast array of issues, concepts, nuances of indigenous cultures that you have blatantly ignored, therefore your conclusions, based on YOUR FACTS, can only be skewed and distorted. Western cultures create laws and regulations to manage their societies thus forcing people into unnatural relationship roles that sour, end, and foster mental health issues for all involved.
You do have the right to your opinion, but I think that if you are going to take on a subject such as polygamy, you either need to do better research or refrain from stating that cultures who practice it are backwards because that is patently incorrect, Sir.

ADDENDUM: The most ironic thing of all is that those countries that prohibit multiple spouses will punish the participants with jail time, a fine or both. That is to say, that it is criminal to have more than one spouse in some countries. How is that even a criminal offense? Who are you hurting when all parties agree? Civilization at its finest.

Polygamy In Africa
Polygyny and polyandry around the world[edit]
In most of the following examples, polygamy only refers to polygyny. Except when polyandry is explicitly stated, either all kinds of polygamy are forbidden, or the only allowed form of polygamy is polygyny.
Africa[edit]
Mayotte: Considered to be de facto illegal since a referendum sponsored by France in March 2009, forcing the island to comply with the French laws.[19][20]However, pre-existing Muslim marriages are currently still valid.
Benin: Benin recognized polygamous marriages until 2004 when they were constitutionally outlawed. However, pre-existing marriages are currently still valid in Benin.[21]
Burkina Faso: Both Muslims and non-Muslims can join in polygamous unions under Burkina Faso law.
Côte d’Ivoire: Akin to the situation in Benin, polygamy and such marriages were outlawed, though previous marriages are still recognized.[22]
Gabon: Both men and women can join in polygamous unions with the other gender under Gabonese law, although in practice only men do.
Ghana: Illegal under civil law, but recognized under customary law and Sharia law.
Nigeria: Recognized in all northern sharia states, federal law recognizes polygamous unions under customary law.
South Africa: Legal under customary law, and recognized for civil purposes in terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act.
Kenya: Polygyny legal under legislation passed in 2014.[23]

Ask Nana: "Should I Stay In An Abusive Marriage With My Children’s Mother"

“Should I Stay In An Abusive Marriage With My Children’s Mother”


NB Commentary: Great video and great advice. Kudos to Lenon Honor and his wife, Aida.  I can confer as a Mental Health Professional for many years and also from my own experience. One thing that is missing in this presentation is the focus on the female in this relationship. Why is she so angry? Of course he obviously does not know or cannot see what it is that has made her so angry, but it could be a number of things. She may have come from a very angry household and he may have come from an abusive household which we all know, one sickness feeds the other.


https://youtu.be/_331rK8-oWQ

But even on a deeper level, how many people take the time to notice what childbirth does to the female, mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically? It seems from what has been mentioned here that she has had a succession of childbirths, one after the other. Why? Religion? Family pressures? Economics? What and why did she have 4 children in such a short time span? Could she possibly be overwhelmed with the amount of work that it took and continues to take to care for the everyday needs of her children? How much help does he offer to make this a lighter burden? Are they able to get assistance from family/friends or maybe a nanny from time to time?
What I am pointing to is all too often people jump into marriages and have children when they were not prepared for marriage what it means to be a marriage partner and much less prepared for the day to day routine of childrearing and I mean healthy creative childrearing where two partners, family and even friends agree. How often do we find ourselves isolated due to the questions around how we are rearing our children? How often do family, friends, co-workers, and even associates question and judge the way we rear our children? What if there is a chasm in the way these two individuals parent within the household.
Women need to take more control over their lives and their bodies. Being a baby machine does not offer the comfort, security, peace and support that is portrayed by the high rollers and celebrities. Without support from a caring and nurturing family, friends etc. a woman can feel so isolated and alone. She may even be angry with and at her situation that she has all these children and little support.
Women need to take time to get to know what their strengths and weaknesses are before they even get married, as well as know what a healthy relationship looks like and what healthy creative parenting looks like. There are so many nuances to this story and the man who wrote this letter to you sounds like a classic victim. But victims are often passive aggressive and that is how they fight back when they are feeling victimized and/or dominated by the other person in the relationship.
Again, I have to go back to how pregnancy changes a woman in every way, and each pregnancy brings new and sometimes strange changes. She never goes back to being her old self, or the self she knew before she had the children. She may lose weight or even fit back into her clothing, but really and truly, she changes. So the question of “what changed” may be that “she changed” and that she changed more and more after each pregnancy. If she did not have the mental, spiritual, emotional and physical support to help her understand her changes then it is most probably that she wrap that “neglect” into anger and began to do what she knew how and that was lash out. She sounds like she is very, very angry. She is angry with her own life. She may have been living a lie for far too long. She wants out but then what? What man is going to marry her with 4 children? She may feel so lost, isolated, devastated, out of control, out of touch with her reality, deeply saddened and hurt that she is in her predicament, that all she can do is lash out to gain some control over her situation.
This sounds like a very convoluted situation with more nuances than I am sure, this young man can address or even fathom. It is a long unaddressed situation that has spiraled to the point where no one is hearing anyone, everyone is desperate, needy, hurt, overwhelmed and out of alignment on so many levels. With that being said, saving the marriage may be the least of their worries, saving their individual beigness may be an even bigger challenge, but one that needs to be addressed so that they can move forward as healthy human beings. Because like second hand smoke can be just as deadly, so can second hand toxicity stemming from past unresolved relationships can lead to a string of hurtful, unhealthy relationships for both in the future.
My suggestions…….

GET INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING!

Clarence Thomas: Slavery Didn’t Take Away Dignity So How Can Same-Sex Marriage Bestow It?

Okay, I am probably gonna get some flack for this comment but…. I kinda see his point. If a government can give you dignity, it can take it away. I think he is saying that human dignity is not for sale or barter. That if people believe that their dignity is arbitrary, then anyone can deny it or determine it.

With the perception of knowing who you are, no matter what anyone says or does to you, you are assured within yourself than no one, can take your human dignity away from you. I have to say that that point to me is very powerful and may be missed because he is talking against marriage equality. I believe that is how Africans survived through slavery, that is how any oppressed people survive, i.e., the Muslims in the Middle East who are so outrageously demonized. They still hole their heads up high. I could site so many other examples but suffice it to say, human dignity is not an arbitrary construct of someone’s imagination that can be imposed on another, unless….. the other accepts it and thus gives up their personal power and self determination.

Once a person believes that someone else can take their human dignity away, they whither and die. Only the strong survive, despite the odds, and I think that is the real message of his statement.

No government, person place or thing should have that much power over how someone feels dignified. I understand how a system can attempt to belittle, downgrade, even demoralize another so called “inferior” but a man is as  he thinketh. If he believes he has no dignity then no one can give it to him or take it away. He is simply unaware of who he is and therefore is susceptible to viewing himself through the lens of his oppressor.

I have always said that LGBT folks who want to get married should just do that without having to beg to be recognized by the government. There are various ways that it can be done, through contracts, notarized documents and various other steps that can be taken. There were and are always someone who will marry you, and if you can’t find that someone, marry yourself. There is always a way to get around it.

Societies have socialized and institutionalized marriage around the world. They see marriage as a communal act between those who marry and the community they belong to. Over time it has become a system of barter, protocols, laws, restrictions, politics and bellicose religious indictments.  It seldom becomes a personal matter between persons but rather a socio-economic and political statement about what and who you are. Because human beings are socialized into believing they must be accepted by their communities, families, churches and other religious institutions, they go through the rituals that in some instances have nothing at all to do with how they feel on the inside. Marriages have gone from being partnerships and dedication to having property and the value, worth and status that comes with it. As a result, people want to be “acknowledge”. And in this case, do to the social construct of this Nation, the USA, they felt the need to make it to the Supreme Court with their case. 

Actually, marriage is really an arbitrary situation that is deemed to exist between the people who are “married” and not necessarily something that has to be sanctioned by others. What I mean is that there are so many kinds of partnerships that have contributed to the making of families around the world. In fact, polygamy is a more natural construct than the ownership of another that happens in Western style marriages. The spiritual connection that folks feel towards one another is often shrouded in the external, “how to be” in a relationship that often what is truly happening between the souls of individuals gets lost because of the pressures of society. Some people never marry and live together as a devoted couple for years and years, helping and supporting and loving and even baring children together. Are their unions any more worthy than the ones that are “sanctioned” by the larger community? Just think, with all this marriage equality business folks can run out and spend more money on getting married when they could have very well saved that money to build a business together. And then after all that money is spent to please the onlookers, some of these self same marriages end in divorce. Why? Because they were sanctioned or was it because the true connection on the Soul level was “NOT” made and therefore there was no “glue-on” to hold it together to stand the test of time.

Supreme Court Justice Thomas may very well be married to a European woman and some may say that there was a time where he could not have been legally married to her, but does that or did that determine his love or devotion to her??? Obviously not. And I doubt if her being married to him diminished her dignity. Though I am guessing here, it still stands to reason that no one can tell you who you can love or not love, marry or not marry, or at least no one should have that kind of power over your life, and if they do, to me, there is something very wrong with this picture.

All too often people rely upon someone or something to acknowledge their worth and “dignity” instead of knowing who they are and that it matters not, who else knows it. I think the movie “The Green Mile” shows how a man can remained dignified, no matter how he is treated. He knew who he was and what powers he had, he sincerely knew where his heart was and that he was innocent, but he even went to the electric chair with dignity. I believe that is what Judge Thomas is saying. He may not realize it himself but he said it and it makes sense to me.

 

The Green Mile

Clarence Thomas: Slavery Didn’t Take Away Dignity So How Can Same-Sex Marriage Bestow It?

Clarence Thomas is one of the most conservative and one of the most controversial justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia gets a lot of attention, in part because his dissents of late have been hyperbolic and bombastic, but Justice Thomas rarely gets much attention.
He deserves a lot more, and not in a good way.
The 67-year old Georgia-born jurist who replaced – of all people, Thurgood Marshall – on the bench, offered a stunning statement in his dissent of the same-sex marriage case.
“Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the ‘dignity’ of same-sex couples,” Justice Thomas writes. “The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no ‘dignity’ Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.”

“Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.”
OK, you’re probably thinking, this is nuts, and insensitive, but wait, there’s more.

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”
Let’s do that again.
“Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.”
Is he serious?
Being property, being owned by another person, with absolutely no rights, subjected to violence and rape and starvation and whipping and all sorts of other indignities does not cause one to lose their dignity nor their humanity?
Speaking personally, I have never been a slave, nor confined in an internment camp, but I can imagine how horrific that was.
How is it possible that Justice Thomas cannot?
And, as a gay man who married two years ago, almost to this day, I can without qualification state that my personal dignity was greatly affected – positively – upon becoming a legally married man.
The exact moment my husband and I were pronounced married I was a changed person. My world changed, and yes, it had to do with legal acceptance and validation, and dignity.
Something Justice Thomas, sadly, must not know anything about.
Justice Thomas’ dissent is so vile and offensive, he’s actually right now the number two trending topic, right under #LoveWins:

 

Tag Cloud