I could write scores of Marty Markowitz stories; but I won’t; at least not right now. It would be fun though; it really would be. For full disclosure, let me state upfront that for many years, I was one of quite a few in the Crown Heights/ Flatbush community, committed to taking Marty Markowitz out of his senate seat (20 SD). We failed.

Marty was in office for about 20 years or so, in a district where minorities made up about 80% of the residents-with more than half of them either born in the Caribbean, or of parents so born. Some called Marty a comedian, others snidely remarked that he was a clown; lore has it that one Easter Sunday, he even ran around the black community in a white Easter-bunny suit. Needless to say: many of the more militant-black types thought he was an embarrassment. Well; I am not sure that those comments can hold up any more folks; Marty has been and continues to be: a winner (politically speaking).

In his Albany tenure: he never authored one bill; never created a single piece of legislation of merit. And yet he won re-election many times over. He whipped Carl Andrews, Maurice Gumbs, Guillermo Philpot and Yvonne Murray, to name a few. In 2000 he went to court and knocked his challenger Wellington Sharpe off the ballot. But he had his plusses: he was (and still is) the consummate “people person”. He was, and still is, well liked in many (if not most) Caribbean-American circles. He is charming and personable; he is also quite witty.

Marty was pretty good at servicing his constituents, he was also very good at showing up for events. If a Caribbean-American graduated from “green-card” to citizenship,
Marty was the first one to mail out a congratulatory letter with a voter-registration card enclosed. He even mailed birthday cards on cue. Whenever Trinidad-Americans had big fetes/parties (especially at Carnival time or during the Labor-Day season), Marty would show up to carouse and snooze. He declared himself an honorary Trinidadian; even claiming birth in an eastern town called Tunapuna. One year (at least) he even went to Trinidad for Carnival.

Now, to understand the deftness of Marty’s “Trinidad-strategy” is to know that his prolific (and main political opponent -Maurice Gumbs) was born in Trinidad-an island in the Caribbean Sea (the twin-island Republic of Trinidad and Tobago); and that there were many Trinidad-born voters in his district. Marty is said to have embraced quite a few Trinidad-American organizations, like Hawks, Borokeete, Sesame Flyers, and etcetera. Rumor has it that he funded many of them. Lore also has it that Marty would troll the Caribbean-American community on weekends, looking for christenings, barbecues, back-yard weddings, confirmation-parties, family-reunions and the like; ready to make an unannounced and sometimes unrequited entrance; with prepared speech in tow. Damn, he was good (or bad; depending on what side of the fence you were on).

He played the Caribbean-American community like a skillful womanizer. Nowadays, he unashamedly and unabashedly announces on every opportunity, that the Caribbean-American community put him in office (Senate), kept him there, and has now elevated him to Boro Prez of Brooklyn-maybe they will take him even higher. It is said that he is now considering a run for NYC “Mayor” or “Public Advocate” in two years; let me state here (to the surprise of many): DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE HIS CHANCES FOR SUCCESS IN EITHER RACE. I would not elaborate on this here for obvious reasons (plus they pay white-boys big bucks to analyze these things/ and breakdown the angles and such); but he only has to make the right choice; that’s the tricky part.

I guess I first realized Marty was shrewder than we in the Gumbs camp gave him credit for, when I saw him at a candidate’s forum (St. Francis College) during his 2001 campaign for Borough President. Not only was he competent as a debater, he was also well informed on the issues. He was knowledgeable on history, quite contextual, articulate and visionary. Relative to Brooklyn: he was the biggest cheerleader. It was no surprise to me that he won; and I say this even though I supported Ken Fisher- who I honestly thought was the best candidate of the three in the race (Gadson, the other).

Look, enough on the Marty history; maybe one day I will do a two or three part series on Marty Markowitz for all my fans in blogland; right now I want to get to something else. You see I recently saw Marty on television (New York One) discussing Charles Barron; and as much as he presides over this borough and is essentially a Brooklyn-expert, Marty is no Barron-expert; I am.

After almost a dozen years of involvement of an up close and personal nature; after thousands of conversations face to face and over the phone; after hundreds of intellectual sparring-sessions; after similar numbers of personal fights and ideological disputes; after involvement in eight political races of his; after observation, interaction, conversation, study and analysis; let me say that Marty Markowitz is totally wrong: Charles Barron is no “revolutionary”. Charles Barron is angry. There is a big difference. Charles Barron is blindly subsumed by his anger. It’s unfortunate; especially since he had so much to offer.

Marty’s observation came about in relation to Barron’s inept handling of the disappointing Viola Plummer/ Christine Quinn imbroglio, now being dealt with in both the City Council and the Federal Court. In essence, Marty was probably trying to imply that Barron was potentially divisive and lacks the temperament to be Brooklyn’s Borough President; in stretching it further Marty suggested that Barron was a revolutionary (suggesting further that revolutionaries couldn’t make good administrators); he was as wrong as he has ever been; on some of the counts.

A true revolutionary is someone with a vision; a vision for a better world (not just a lil narrow corner). A true revolutionary is an idealist, pragmatist and romantic, all wrapped in one. A true revolutionary generally aims for objectivity, once it doesn’t violate core beliefs and principles that have been thoroughly examined and re-examined. He/she empathizes with the human condition; period. He/she is inclusive of everyone; no matter what race, creed, nationality, educational-development, cultural-background, religion, physical-attributes, sexual-orientation, socio-economic status and such. He/she is inclusive, not exclusive (black). The philosophy/ideology/rationale of a true revolutionary must be universal; the support will also be reflective of that universality. He/she behaves in a responsible way at all times, since leadership demands exemplary behavior. He/she is non-contradictory, fair and just. He/she is compassionate and altruistic. I could list many more pre-requirements for what I deem a “true revolutionary”, but I will stop here for now.

Let me preface my following remarks by saying that I consider Charles Barron a brilliant individual on many levels; it’s just that I see him as quite flawed in his thinking patterns. Barron’s idea of revolution is to empathize with the Negro (black) condition: only. Further; he is similar to most black militant radical-nationalist types born in the USA, in that they all think that they have exclusive rights on the term: BLACK. It’s as though blacks born outside of these dis-united states don’t fully comprehend the fight against racism. It’s as though blacks born outside these dis-united states can’t comprehend the fight for equality and justice; it’s as if we born outside didn’t experience slavery, colonial domination, repression and oppression. It’s as if the fight against racism, the fight for equality, justice and human dignity: isn’t universal. They are all so wrong it isn’t even funny anymore.

Barron has been (and continues to be) a sycophant to militant radical black-nationalist types; he is an apologist for them. He is a wannabee militant black radical who wants it both ways: conventional and non-conventional political involvement (at the same time). His “slap-remark” is the classic Freudian-slip that should be clinically studied in all grad schools of psychology. Not only is he enigmatic and unique, he is quite charming too. He has the looks, presence, articulation, talents and skills, of one the Gods favor; and yet he refuses to develop himself to a higher intellectual plain; he refuses to push himself to a higher level of humanity and spirituality. He refuses to broaden his scope; he refuses to grow and change. Therein lays many of his failings; he exists in a self-invented, self-created, self-controlled political cocoon. To maintain the upkeep of this cocoon, he also surrounds himself with “yes-men” and “yes-women”. In case you are wondering: I have told him this to his face before, and with all his yes-men around to booth (ask Michael Nieves/he was there). Barron’s followers are all in “group-think” mode; that’s why his focus is so selfishly narrow: race.

The problem with the Barrons of this country- which disqualifies them from being true revolutionaries- is that they refuse to recognize their own innate racist inclinations. They are nationalists-not revolutionaries. Their visions are narrow and limited. They want to be militant but they refuse to fight the real fights. Change doesn’t start with “c”; it starts with you. Revolution doesn’t start with “r”; it starts with you. Both (the same) start with each individual looking in the mirror of introspection and coming away with a commitment; a commitment to making the world a better place: for everyone. It takes hard work. It takes years and years of involvement, activism, reading and study

When confronted with evidence to demonstrate their reverse-racist ways, American-born black-nationalists make all kinds of intellectually dishonest excuses, and attempt to rationalize it away. They say things like “we don’t have enough power to be racist (or to be racially predisposed towards whites)”. It’s a sickness; it’s a cancer eating away as their basic humane core. Some whites are similarly afflicted by the way; so don’t think for a minute that I am letting them off the hook; but that’s not the focus here.

Barron has shown tendencies of reverse racism; he has also shown a propensity for being a racial-provocateur. Personally (and believe me when I say I have given this much thought) I can’t call him a racist today, even as much as I may want to; but he sure flirts with the peripheries of racism; and I think he does this deliberately for media exposure and for ego-needs. There are solid reasons why I can’t dismiss him as a racist-even though I am sure that very many whites have already written him off as one- those reasons will take another column, however.

Ironically, Barron has white blood running through his veins; it’s just unfortunate that he places black (Negro) first, and in so doing he ignores and denies other parts of his genetic make-up (I am also told that he also has native-Indian genes). A true revolutionary places “humanity” first; his/her racial identity comes after. Barack Obama is half black, half white; so too is Chris Owens; you will never see either one of them denying any aspect of their genetic reality. That’s why both of them have attracted support from all colors of the rainbow. Maybe it’s their ivy-league education/credentials/lol.

Look, as bright and articulate as Barron is, there are times when he needs to grow up (intellectually speaking). True revolutionaries grow in all areas of humanity and civility; true revolutionaries understand that change is the only constant in the human condition. Barron hasn’t grown; he is anachronistically stuck in the seventies-and nostalgically so. He needs to change; otherwise he will be relegated to the garbage heap of political-irrelevance and obscurity. And that will be a pity: he really had a lot to offer.

Many who know him on a personal level will tell you that he does still have a lot to offer; but his stubbornness gets in the way. He however will tell you that his stubbornness is a virtue and that it’s one of his strengths; many of his followers blindly agree. During the seventeenth century, a French writer named François Le Rochefoucauld once wrote that, sometimes “virtues were nothing but vices in disguise”; as this relates to Barron: I agree.

Stay tuned-in; there is so much more I could say on this that would make your head spin.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |