CW Political and Social Thought

Barack Obama on the State of Race in America

"The External Flame of Race in National Politics" by ChrisMWilliams.com

No matter what place in time or the nature of partisanship, every American president and every major political  party has had to answer one fundamental question as old as American democracy itself, "What does our nation do about the question of race in the United States?"   Even Calvin Coolidge, who is often touted as being our laziest president for having slept as many as 15 hours a day while president, said this to an all-Black crowd at Howard University on June 6th, 1924.

"Racial hostility, ancient tradition, and social prejudice are not to be eliminated immediately or easily. But they will be lessened as the colored people by their own efforts and under their own leaders shall prove worthy of the fullest measure of opportunity." [1]

While obviously his answer is not altogether foreign to modern predilections, given the opposition to the role of government in affirmative programs such as hiring and college enrollment, the passage remains remarkably anachronistic in some important ways. Poll after poll show that Americans do believe that part of the proper role of government is to guarantee or secure a basic level of human needs for the poor, the old, and the infirmed regardless of race. As well, I would say that many whites have assumed a personal responsibility for the plight of many and, in particular, inner-city African Americans, especially where Black collective efforts have failed or when the treatment of Black people had become so intolerable, so emotionally overwhelming, and so immoral on a universal human level.

Just as the end of poverty is unlikely, the end of division of Americans along racial lines is unlikely. From George Washington, who inherited his first 'slaves' at age eleven. To Andrew Jackson, who  said that Native Americans "have neither the intelligence, the industry,the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition" and forcibly removed millions of Native Americans from their lands in eastern and southern states. To Rutherford B Hayes, who stole the 1877 election by guaranteeing the removal of federal troops in the South, essentially ushered in a less severe, but no more immoral form of slavery for African Americans. To Woodrow Wilson who proclaimed at a private screening at the White House that D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation, a film of utter indignity and self-indulgence, to be "terribly true." To  Harry Truman's Commission on Civil Rights and the desegregation of the military. To Nixon and the issues of busing, which he sought to abate amid white fears of integration. To the current president and his administration, being lambasted for his response to Hurricane Katrina.

The race question is not going away anytime soon, if for no other reason than because every President of the United States has, in some way or another, been forced to engage the issue. So it seems to suggest to me that the next president must take the exigencies of race politics very seriously. It will not be enough to appoint minorities and pray that the problem goes away. As Obama demonstrated in his speech today, the President must, as an obligation of his political and civil duty, continue to raise the standards for addressing issues of race that we now confront. Simplifications and hyperboles just will not do. A level-headedness requires not only a new framework, but a a critical viewpoint, a willingness to expose the hypocrisy, the cancer, and the mutual race-baiting.

Philadelphia, PA | March 18, 2008 | National  Constitution Center

 

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me.  And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

 

Clinton Health Plan to Garnish Wages and Other 2008 Surprises

HILLARY COULD GARNISH WAGES TO PAY HEALTHCARE

1. While Hillary Clinton has criticized Barack Obama for not offering truly universal health care (he makes it highly affordable, but optional for adults), enforcement of her plan could mean that millions of Americans could have their wages garnished because they refuse to enroll in the government's healthcare plan. [1]

RACISM AMONG HISPANICS AND BLACKS?

2. With the Democratic Hispanic vote overwhelmingly going to Clinton (65%+) and the Democratic Black vote overwhelmingly going to Barack Obama (70%+), it begs the question, "What role does race and ethnicity play in this election?" Barack Obama is quick to point out that in his senatorial race, he essentially "got the Hispanic vote",  but of course what he omits is that he ran against the self-absorbed  rhetorician, Alan Keyes, who had no chance in hell of winning that election. It's often noted that voters vote their interest. As such, I believe that there is nothing racist about the motivations of the majority of Hispanics who  support Clinton over Obama or anything racist about Blacks who are for Obama. In fact, it's the proverbial self-interest argument. For Hispanics, they are going with what they know. Barack Obama is rather new to national politics compared to Clinton. The Clintons have much deeper roots in Hispanic communities than does Obama for reasons that are obvious, but Obama is successfully wooing Hispanic voters. The number of Hispanic leaders, celebrities, organizations and newspapers (e.g. Hoy, La Opinion, Adam Rodriguez, US Congressman Xavier Becerra, California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, Culinary Workers Union, etc) supporting Obama clearly silence those who want to suggest that perhaps racial and ethnic identity are preventing racial groups from considering other candidates.

A MAN WHO SPARKED A MOVEMENT

3. There is no disputing that if a grassroots movement is measured by the number of individuals who vote, contribute their own money, and volunteer, then Barack Obama has a movement on his hands. Obama has collected more individual donations that any other candidate, Republican or Democratic. To be sure, some of these funds are 'bundled', but the personal investments that people are putting into Obama will undoubtedly pay high dividends for the senator from Illinois. My conjecture is that people who donate are more likely to better informed and, most importantly, more likely to cast a vote for their candidate.

SUPERDELEGATES WHO?

4. This is the first election that I have followed so closely that I actually know by heart those magic numbers that are important in order to secure the party nominations, 2, 025 for Democrats and 1,191 for Republicans, but what surprises me most about the nominating process is the fact that "Superdelegates" account for nearly 20% of the whole delegation body! Many political commentators have noted that they could in fact sway the whole convention if they voted as one body. Some the superdelegates include: the elected members of the DNC, Democratic governors, US Democratic Senators and House members, former Party leaders (ex-presidents, retired Senate and House leaders, and former chairmen of the DNC, etc).

MCCAIN WOULD STAY IN IRAQ UNTIL 2103!

5. In an election that hinges on the failures and progress in Iraq (as well as the economy and corruption in Washington), I could not believe that the leading Republican candidate would actually put forth an idea that keeps US commitment in Iraq open-ended. I think that it's reckless on the part of Republicans to not put forth a plan or timetable on Iraq, even if that timetable needs to be modified from time to time. This is not WWIII and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We went into Iraq on our own volition. We destroyed a country, wrecked the livelihood and sense of normalcy in people's lives, and we made Iraq a mess! We have a moral, military, and political responsibility to build the Iraq nation into a functioning democracy and economically viable country. Democrats do not believe that we need to occupy Iraq in order to do this. Republicans think that we do, but frankly they think that as long as we stay in Iraq, we can muddle around.

Bill Clinton Plays the Race Card

6. Politics brings out the best in people and, unfortunately, the worst. Bill Clinton showed his true colors in the aftermath of the South Carolina primary. He was trying to pin Obama as the "black candidate". This man will do anything to win. Oh, I'm sorry. He'll do anything for his wife to win.

Why and How the Media is Exaggerating the Black and Brown Divide

This election season has certainly brought many surprises; a former first lady who is banking on her husband and her name recognition in her bid for the White House, a once unknown politician who has become a household name and has sparked a movement, a Mormon from the Northeast who wants to win the hearts and minds of Republican evangelicals, and a 9/11 mayor who can't seem to find his voice. All in all, it is an election cycle for the record books, not just because it's presidential politics, but because the United States has never seen a field of candidates that is so diverse in terms of both physical and ideological attributes.

Unfortunately, given the uniqueness of this campaign season, the media are struggling to come to grips with how to frame questions and debates, summarize events for print and television, and present a candidate in light of their positions and not their gender, race or religion. I would say that on the latter point, they have largely failed. Newsweek presenting Mitt Romney on the December 2006 cover of their magazine with the title, "A Mormon's Journey" is just one attempt out of many for the media to put so much emphasis on Romney's religion as if to suggest that there is something wrong with electing or even considering a Mormon for the presidency. While, Clinton and Obama have faired better for their gender and race respectively, there is still an attempt on the part of the media to want to make a story where there really isn't any. I recently read an article on the Washington Post's website that said that if Barack Obama does not win South Carolina (which he has won) by double digits, he risks becoming a "Black candidate". Well, I think we all know that Barack Obama is a color-skinned man, so the claim that people will start noticing this and vote differently is a farce.

Of course, this will not be the last time that the media exaggerates a candidate's superficial qualities in order to get you to buy whatever they are selling. In fact, they are already beginning to tie Obama's race (the Black half) to a possible failure to garner Latino support. Everyone's talking about how Hispanics don't vote for Black candidates. Even using Clinton's overwhelming victory with Latino voters in the Nevada primary  (64%)  as an indication of how poorly a Black candidate does with Latino voters. Moreover, a highly questionable poll among Hispanics in Durham, North Carolina, "found that 59% of Latinos believed few or almost no blacks were hard-working, and a similar proportion reckoned few or almost none could be trusted. Fewer than one in ten whites felt the same way." [1] But this study has many problems. One,  it  means to suggest that  the 167  Hispanics in the  Durham area who were surveyed could in some way  translate  into  a meaningful treatment of Hispanic views elsewhere. The authors of the study too easily dismiss the role of social cues and expectations in their questioning. In fact, 93% of the Latino respondents were not born in the United States and might have taken the survey as a test of their patriotism. Again, not being born in the United States, one has a far greater challenge of determining American standards, especially concerning matters of race and especially when you are in the South.

No doubt, however, there are instances where Black and Brown populations may not get along, as in Los Angeles. Because of the sudden increase in the Hispanic population, racial strife and violence, mostly driven by gangs, have left the Black and Brown population is a struggle for space and power. But this is the exception, not the rule. Sure, one-third of Black workers may think immigrants take jobs from Americans, but this is in no way a personal attack on immigrants. After all, immigrants do take jobs from Americans. This is a fact. Employers hire them because they work for less. Black Americans realize that immigrants are not 'stealing' their jobs and that the shortage of work in some areas across the nation has less to do with the people who are hired to replace them, than the fact that many working class jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs are being shipped abroad. As well, Black Americans know that the current state of joblessness involves the lack of initiative on the part of the government. On the other hand, Hispanics do not generally think that Black Americans are shiftless, untrained, and untrustworthy. On the contrary, I assert that Hispanics, especially poor ones, more strongly identify with African Americans and look to African Americans for some ways to avoid pitfalls, advance their cause, and navigate the terrain of American political and social life. The great immigration demonstrations of 2007, in fact, seems like a political tool taken right out of the Civil Rights Movement handbook. Then, there are the ways that Brown and Black populations are learning to relate on very personal levels. My best friend of six years is Hispanic. My roommate's best friend is Hispanic. Whether on construction sites, in the service sector, or elsewhere, it would be dangerous to underestimate the importance that these relationship have on challenging racial stereotypes.

So when Earl Hutchinson in his new book "The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House" tries to  argue that there is a clear divide between the Brown and Black community, we should be very offended. I hope that his efforts to stereotype Latino voters will backfire because it is not the sort of race-baiting that our country needs. As an African American, his efforts can only be counterproductive in that he seemingly wants to distance himself from the Latino community. Hopefully, though, I think most people see his book for what it really is, another farce by the media on the Black and Brown divide.

Black Skin Color and White Voters

But of course, if you listen to Weaver, you'd think that the real problem is whether a Black candidate has dark or light skin. ~CWPoliticalandSocialThought

Vesla Weaver, a U.S. politics professor at my alma mater, the University of Virginia, conducted a study in 2005 to examine the role of race and skin color in elections for Black candidates with white voters.  She set up an online experiment that presented four fictional political candidates- two white, one light-skinned Black, and one dark-skinned Black- by morphing "three separate pictures of actual people (one of them Virgil Goode), so that each candidate shares the physical characteristics of two common people." [Cville] The number of respondents totaled 2,138 non-Hispanic white adults and, after viewing campaign literature, answered questions on the perceived intelligence, trustworthiness, work ethic, and the experience of the candidates.

The white candidates were largely favored. That's not very surprising, but what is surprising relates to the role of skin color in how close to victory a Black candidate may get and, in some cases win, against a white candidate. In which case, dark-skinned Blacks were favored over light-skinned Blacks in races with white opponents. Weaver believes that "self-monitoring" is to blame, which is tied to an increase in racial awareness. "You see a white candidate and the black candidate and you say, "There's not much difference between these people. I'm being asked about race.' There's a high incentive to self-monitor." [Cville]

However, in races between Black candidates, the light-skinned candidate was preferred over the dark-skinned candidate. She suggests that self-monitoring goes down and, as such, so does racially charged votes. "Interaction between race, skin color, and issue stance: being conservative and light-skinned is an advantage for the black candidate when he runs against another black, and being conservative and dark-skinned is advantageous when the opponent is white." [Exp. Central]

My Response

So that being the crux of her study, we should reflect on the benefits of such a study. Having been a government major, I know that the number one reason why minorities are underrepresented on almost all levels of government has less to do with this business of light-skinned and dark-skinned and more to do with the rules and structure governing political representation. In Western democracies, we clearly see that countries that have multi-member districts and proportional representation or a combination thereof have a far greater level of diversity, especially ideological (e.g. France and Germany). A first-passed-the-post system, like here in the United States and Great Britain, not only rewards people who are from the majority group insofar as race, but also punishes those persons who may be from that racial majority, but who are ideologically aberrant. Essentially, our political structure is stacked in such a way as to substantially increase the costs for candidates who lie outside of a group that constitutes a mere 25-35% of a given population, given than only about half of Americans vote and the other quarter or less favor a different candidate. So while, Weaver's research is interesting, she really is not getting to the heart of the matter. Black candidates don't win seats because white voters aren't color blind. Besides, Black voters are just as color conscious, if not more so. Black candidates don't win seats because a) there are not enough of them running and b) the American political system is essentially a high-stakes game. With one seat available and many differing interests representing a vast constituency, parties often feel compelled to elect less controversial or "safe" nominees. And since white men have basically monopolized the political decision-making apparatus for most of our history and have, in turn, become the face of stability and normality in government, this means that white men, more than any other group, are primed for political leadership. But of course, if you listen to Weaver, you'd think that the real problem is whether a Black candidate has dark or light skin.

The Lynching of Mary Turner in My Hometown in 1918

"Her body was cut open and her infant fell to the ground with a little cry, to be crushed to death by the heel of one of the white men present."  - On the lynching of Mary Turner

For the last year or so, I have been researching my family's history in Virginia and southern Georgia. For the most part, this journey has been very rewarding, finding a newspaper article on my great, great, great grandfather who was born into slavery in the 1850s, discovering an extended relative who was one of the first Black principals in Central Virginia, and uncovering Native American ancestors. Unfortunately, I have also confronted the brutality and racism that defined the world in which they lived. Such was the case in Valdosta, GA in 1918.

Lynching has a long and a very depressing history, the history of which I can't even begin to describe in this entry. What I can say, however, is that experts have approximated that the number of African Americans who were lynched between the 1890s and 1930s averaged 103 per year and were often perpetuated by lynch mobs. As early as 1880, Brooks County, a county formed in 1858 from a portion of Valdosta, had developed a reputation for racial violence.

Brooks County, named after South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks, established a reputation second to none in Georgia for race violence. During the era of lynching, 1880-1930, the county established a ...reputation for mob violence on an unprecedented scale; there were at least twenty-four confirmed victims of lynchings. In December 1894, a mob lynched five men in a single incident. Lynchings were carried out on a regular basis, with mobs taking lives in August 1898, January 1901, July 1909, June 1911, March 1913, November 1917, and May 1918. There were more lynchings in Brooks than any county in Georgia; Fitzhugh Brundage has suggested that the county was the most mob-prone county in the entire South.( n10) It should come as no surprise, then, that the single lynching incident that claimed the most number of lives in Georgia, in May 1918, occurred in that county. ("Killing Them by the Wholesale" by Christopher Meyers)

It was in this historical context that Mary Turner, eight-months pregnant, became one of the most gruesome cases of lynching, racism and lawlessness in the United States. Responding to her husband's lynching, which supposedly involved his complicity with the murder of a white man, papers reported that Turner's statement about her husband's lynching being "unjust" "only inflamed" the white mob which had already claimed eight Black lives. Descriptions of Mary Turner's lynching are some of the hardest writings to stomach.

"The mob tied her ankles together and hung her to a tree head down and gasoline from automobiles was poured over her. Turner's clothing was burned off of her body. A member of the mob produced a sharp knife and her stomach was laid open; her unborn child fell to the ground. Hundreds of bullets were then fired into Turner until she was barely recognizable as a human being. Both Turner and her child were buried about ten feet from the tree, the grave marked by a whiskey bottle with a cigar placed in the neck." (Meyers)

"Mary Turner was pregnant and was hung by her feet. Gasoline was thrown on her clothing and it was set on fire. Her body was cut open and her infant fell to the ground with a little cry, to be crushed to death by the heel of one of the white men present. The mother's body was then riddled with bullets." [1]

The white residents of Valdosta, Georgia decided to teach her a lesson for being uppity enough to be vocal about her pain. A mob found her tied her upside down to a tree, doused her with gasoline and burned her alive. One of the crowd members took a knife and split her belly open letting the baby fall out. Another member of the crowd smashed the baby’s head with his foot. Then the crowd took out their guns and filled the burning body of Mary Turner with bullets. The Associated Press wrote that Mary Turner had made unwise remarks about the execution of her husband. [2]

"...a man stepped forward with a pocketknife and ripped open her abdomen in a crude Caesarean operation. 'Out tumbled the prematurely born child,'" White wrote. "'Two feeble cries it gave - and received for the answer the heel of a stalwart man, as life was ground out of the tiny form. [3]

Gladly, Valdosta has come a long way from Mary Turner, but unfortunately, two recent story coming out of Valdosta show me how far Valdosta still has to go.

Valdosta Court Refuses to Admit Muslim Woman for "Security Reasons"

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today criticized officials in the Valdosta, Georgia, municipal court for denying a Muslim woman entrance to the courtroom because she refused to remove her head scarf. 20-year-old Aniisa Karim had come to court to challenge a speeding ticket, but was denied entry on the basis of security concerns, security guards told her....Read More

White Students Hang Black Doll From Tree

Three white students painted a doll black and hanged it from a schoolyard tree, prompting calls from parents and the local NAACP that the FBI should investigate the act as a hate crime....Read More

Black Gay Bloggers Unite!

A Threat to Justice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere!

Despite Dirty Laundry pulling "in a higher per screen average than any of the top 10 grossing films in America," The Chelsea Movie Theater is pulling the plug "on one of the most successful movies playing at its theater in New York" just after "three sold out weekend performances". [1] This action is a slap in the face to the Black gay community and we are uniting, fast and hard. Join in!

Read More About this Injustice!

Contact Chelsea Movie Theater!

Contact Cablevision, the parent company!

Blog about it!

Go to See Dirty Laundry!

What BET's Gospel Talent Show Teaches Us About Race

There was a lot of controversy in the aftermath of Emily Gomez, a mixed Hispanic and white woman, being eliminated off of the gospel talent show, Sunday's Best on BET in November of this year. Here are some comments posted on BET's forum.

>"It because of her color that she was eliminated or because she does not shout like Shari. Whatever the case, this is a slap on the face of Sunday Best, and I will not watch the program again....When will black people learn to do right?  I am becoming ashamed of being called a black person."

>"You are right. This is a case of bad judgment and reverse racism. Shame on the judges."

>"I am so shocked Emily Gomez was kicked off" [1]

Most of those who defended the judges' decision to send Emily home believed that Emily was less of a Black gospel singer than she was a contemporary Christian artist. I am not interested in this argument because there are underlying assumptions about the nature or importance of Black racial and cultural authenticity within the Black community. Though I had only been keeping up with the show from a distance, I first got wind of this controversy when my sister told me how she thought the results were racially based and how the judges felt the need to justify their decision in the subsequent episode. What I had seen of Emily was remarkable, possessing almost a textbook talent for Black gospel music, but I have come to realize that what Emily faced as a contestant on the show is perhaps the most hypocritical aspect of Black identity. On the one hand, Black people want full and unconditional acceptance in the "white world", but are not willing to extend that same level of inclusion within their own community. This sort of rank and file behavior, indicative of power politics, not only affects those who are racially different from African Americans, but those who might not share in the same cultural or educational experience of African Americans. For instance, being a Black person who is not particularly religious and having musical and educational interests that lie outside of Black culture has often put me on the margins of Black life. I have even been accused of "being white",  "acting white" and "not looking Black".   

This problem really involves a question of Black identity, that is, how can African Americans sustain their identity while at the same time engaging with the promise of equal opportunity in the "white world"? It's a  tough question and Blacks have basically said that integration in a wider context should not apply to  integration in a specific context.  Very few  Black churches (and of course white churches as well) have aggressively sought non-Black members, but when white churches don't have Black members, they are often looked upon as being isolationist and maybe even racist. It's a double standard. Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are some of the least integrated educational institutions in the United States with  most schools having a smaller white population than in the 1980s.[2]

So as to resolving this issue, African Americans, as the most visible group in terms of civil rights, must model that which they expect of "white America", meaning that we, African Americans, must stop this terrible game of reducing Black people to this and that. Black people must define ourselves in terms our diversity and our inclusion.

The Oprah and Obama Question

"So to the question of what Oprah brings to Obama is, in a word, transcendence." -CW Political and Social Thought

There is a lot to be said about Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Obama. Claims that she can only give him a slight bump in the polls or that she can't possibly translate her celebrity into sheer political influence are just speculation at best. It's speculation because Oprah has never engaged the public with politics on this scale. Surely, concerning television, books, her magazine, and product plugs and even charity organizations, she's a powerhouse, but what Oprah touches does not always turn to gold. Perhaps, Beloved is the best example to demonstrate her limitations. Setting aside highly unsubstantiated predictions about her potential influence in this race, the reasons that Oprah is entering the political arena are worthy of a second glance.

Today, Oprah made her first two stops in a series of stops throughout early primary and caucus states. In true Oprah style, Oprah's message was clear, full of conviction, and humor. She couched her message in terms of "dangerous times". It's not only the War in Iraq that concerns her, but the health care, educational, and economic crises at home. What seems to be the case is that Oprah does not understand these to be new issues. Rather, Oprah's personal relationship with Obama has deeply affected her to the extent that she is willing to take certain risks in her career. She, like Obama, is innately optimistic, hopeful, and visionary, not to mention that they both are able to transcend race, but at the same time embrace their Black identity.

In his new book, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited about Obama and Why He Can't Win, Shelby Steele has his own explanation for Oprah and Obama's wide appeal. According to his rather constipated and narrow-minded thinking, he thinks that Oprah and Obama are bargainers, which is defined by a willing to trust whites with the mutual expectation that the bargainer and "bargainee" won't engage in racially charged or racially based presuppositions or actions. And in the case of Oprah and Obama, they would be "iconic Negroes", which I won't bother delving into because his language seems so anachronistic and angry.

But while the question of race can't be glossed over as if white racism and Black oppression never existed in the United States, it seems counterproductive to reduce Obama and Oprah to being strategic Black people, who have to somehow learn how to deal with white people. So to the question of what Oprah brings to Obama is, in a word, transcendence.  Since Oprah first came to the public stage in the 1980s, she has had an uncanny ability to transcend not only television, but what seems to be the superficiality of our values. Sure, her "Favorite Things" shows are some of her most popular, but she never fails to make a moral point. In this case, she thinks that it is better to give than to receive. Lady 'O', as she is known in various media, is a moral leader who has the vision to see pass the convenience of politics or the sometimey-ness of American popular thought. Her philosophy is basically humanistic, that when it comes down to it, humans just want love, security, stability, and acceptance. 

Her long-term vision was certainly conveyed in a speech that was on CNN, in which she raised questions about the sustainability of our foreign policy and the morality of our social policy. As she says, she's trying to get Americans "to think" more broadly, which in politics, is a big no-no. The whole point of politics is to take advantage of issues, real or not, big or small, that can be used against one's opponent, not to pontificate about a non-partisan American vision, but this is exactly what Oprah is trying to do. She began her speech by saying that she has voted nearly equally for Republicans and Democrats, so she is clearly trying to transcend politics, even making statements about how experience in Washington is no longer sufficient to meet to the needs of the nation.  Much like transcending  television, Oprah wants to transcend politics, which is a perfect match for Obama, a candidate running on opposing "business as usual".

Article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Before Plymouth or Jamestown or Even Roanoke Island, There Was San Miguel de Guadalupe

In his book, Black Indians, William Loren Katz, claims that the first foreign colony on 'U.S.' soil was neither Jamestown, nor Roanoke Island. More interestingly, he asserts that while Europeans left the colony several months later in 1526 because of harsh weather, a labor storage, and inadequate shelter, "Africans remained to build their own society with Native Americans." For reasons which he believes are related to a belief that "U.S. life began with the arrival of English-speaking Anglo Saxons" and its challenge to "white U.S. heritage", the story of San Miguel de Guadalupe, which was settled near what became Georgetown, South Carolina, garners very little attention in terms of pre-British, pre-United States North American history.

The story of San Miguel de Guadalupe begins when Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, a wealthy Spanish official in the Spanish colony of Hispaniola sent an expedition in 1520 to canvass the North American mainland to establish a colony. Though, according to Katz, Ayllon wanted to build "friendly relations with the local inhabitants," Ayllon's men, among whom was a slave-hunter, captured seventy Native Americans. One of these natives, Chicorana, would help Ayllon persuade the Spanish king  to permit a settlement on the mainland of the U.S.  "The  king's  orders  forbade  enslavement of the Indians, and added 'you be very careful about the treatment of the Indians," but this had little effect as "one hundred enslaved Africans", along with Spanish men and women, were on the crew headed for San Miguel de Guadalupe.

Though dogged by Indian desertions, Ayllon and his crew resolved to settle the land in hopes of exploiting African labor and nature's land. This would be short-lived. In a matter of time, "disease and starvation ravaged their colony and internal disputes tore it apart," culminating in a slave revolt, in which slaves fled to the Indians and the departure of the surviving Spanish settlers.  In a series of events, "African began  setting  fires and Native Americans (who also hated slavery) sided with the slaves and made trouble."

What was left of this was a mixed community of Africans and Native Americans and the "first settlement of any permanence on these shores to include people from overseas." The frequency with which Blacks and Indians established familial ties of interdependency and mutual respect throughout American settlements suggests that San Miguel de Guadalupe being described as the "first colony on this continent to practice the belief that all people -newcomer and native- are created equal and are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"  is likely accurate.  We may never know the exact nature of Black and Indian life in San Miguel de Guadalupe, as the story still remains ignored and understudied, but what San Miguel de Guadalupe clearly foreshadows is how Indians and Blacks would learn how to consolidate their power to overcome a common enemy. Much of the lessons of San Miguel de Guadalupe is about adaption, except in this story the enemy did not permanently stay, as the rest of American history would fold out, but slithered away like a snake.       

Benjamin Banneker: Beyond What We Think We Know

If you are like me, then what you learned about Benjamin Banneker (1731-1806) in secondary school  is probably summed up by this passage from my high school history book, which I've managed to keep a copy of after all these years.

"Under such circumstances, most free black remained poor laborers or tenant farmers. However, even under such extreme disadvantages, some free blacks became landowners or skilled artisans. One who achieved considerable fame was Benjamin Banneker of Maryland, a self-taught mathematician and astronomer. Later, in 1789, he served on the commission that designed Washington, D.C. and after 1791 he published a series of almanacs."

Of course, what this passage does not capture is Banneker's remarkable brilliance and even his missed potential, a brilliance that "brought him international fame in his time" and a potential that would have undoubtedly made him "a far more important figure in early American science than merely as the first black man of science" save for the limitations...of the burgeoning American Dream" for Blacks, free or not.

In a time in which the free Blacks "were confined by racism to low-paying jobs...and...(to live in) cellars or shanties on narrow streets," Blacks had to petition their government to no avail for education dollars equal to that given to white students, the right to testify in court, to have equal trading rights as white artisans, etc, so limiting Benjamin Banneker to a mathematician or astronomer, while worthwhile, does not place Banneker in an important historical context.

He was after all a Black man in 18th century United States. Before Banneker published his first edition of his almanac, of which there would be twenty-eight, he sent Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, a letter, which shows Banneker injecting himself into one of the most contentious and certainly most moral issues of his day. With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 having firmly given way to pro-slavery forces, Banneker challenged Jefferson on the question of slavery and American hypocrisy.  Written in the sort of gentlemanly style of the day and widely distributed, along with the exchange of letters, Banneker asserts an audacious confidence.

Benjamin Banneker, Letter to Thomas Jefferson
August 19, 1791

"I suppose it is a truth too well attested to you, to need a proof here, that we are a race of Beings who have long labored under the abuse and censure of the world, that we have been looked upon with an eye of contempt, and that we have long considered rather as brutish than human, and scarcely capable of mental endowment."

"...that one universal Father hath given being to us all, and that he hath not only made us all of one flesh, but that he hath also without partiality afforded us all the Same Sensations, and [endowed] us all with the same faculties, and that however variable we may be in Society or religion, however diversified in Situation or color, we are all of the Same Family, and Stand in the Same relation to him."

"Sir, Suffer me to recall to your mind that time in which the Arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort in order to reduce you to a State of Servitude...This, Sir, was a time when you clearly saw into the injustice of a State of Slavery, and in which you had just apprehensions of the horrors of its condition. [I]t was now Sir, that your abhorrence thereof was so excited that you publicly held forth this true and invaluable doctrine...that all men are created equal...but Sir how pitiable is it to reflect, that altho you were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind, and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges...that you should at the Same time counteract his mercies, in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brethren under groaning captivity and cruel oppression, that you should at the Same time be found guilty of that most criminal act, which you professedly detested in other, with respect to yourselves."

No doubt, Banneker sees the tragedy in American democracy, that the American democratic experiment, though revolutionary in spirit and rhetoric, never was intended for such a revolution to take place. "The Constitution, then,...serves the interests of a wealthy elite" to control its population," from the race-based anger of Blacks and Indians and the economic-based anger of poor and landless whites both groups of which frequently rose in small-scale and large-scale rebellions against what was clearly the making of a  classist and racist society.

But there is still one last unresolved question, "How does Jefferson reply, since he obviously is interested in maintaining the status quo of slavery and subjugation?"

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Benjamin Banneker
August 30, 1791

"I thank you sincerely for your letter of the 19th. instant and for the Almanac it contained. no body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colours of men, & that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence both in Africa & America. I can add with truth that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecillity (sic) of their present existence, and other circumstance which cannot be neglected, will admit....

Note that Jefferson assumes for the sake of argument that his assumptions about Black inferiority are linked only to the slave condition that Blacks find themselves in. Also note that despite his seeming concern for the "body and mind" of Blacks that he evades the question of emancipation, as he, like all slave owners, tied emancipation to their own wealth. To free even one slave, in his mentality, would be like burning money. 

So part of the success in Banneker's letter is his appeal to Enlightenment thinking, but in Jefferson's response surfaces one challenge that Banneker omits altogether. It is a practical one, not a moral one or even an Enlightenment one. It is a question of how to loosen the tie between a practice that is utterly immoral and a practice that is utterly prosperous. This is not just an 18th century question either.

Credits:
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
Voices of a People's History by Howard Zinn
African American Lives by Gates and Higginbotham
The Enduring Vision by multiple authors
Before the Mayflower by Lerone Bennett, Jr.

Why I Love to See Cross-Musical Collaborations

Josh Turner, my favorite male country artist, and Anthony Hamilton, my favorite male R&B artist, recently collaborated on a song for Josh's new album, Everything is Fine. The song, which is called Nowhere Fast, features these Carolina natives whose classic yet timeless approach to music makes for a mellow and smooth sound. In fact, Josh's official website reports, "Hamilton wrote and tailored (the song) for Turner." The website goes on to say that, "It turns out, they are fans of each other's music and they decided to perform the duet live for the first time this weekend" (10/25). I think that we should encourage more of this sort of collaboration, not only to expand and develop the musical talents of the artists involved, but this sort of localized gesture to reach out to different musical communities, particularly genres of music that are considered "black", as the case with R&B or "white", as the case with country, can become a model for race relations in the United States.

No matter how we may spin it, the United States is still a very segregated society. Sure, we may attend integrated schools and workplaces, but unfortunately within these very environments often lurks the ugly side of our so-called end to segregation; that is, we think that because certain institutional barriers have been broken down, we don't have any individual responsibility in creating an integrated society. This is why we have black and white students sitting on separate sides of the cafeteria, minorities who are concentrated in 'regular' classes, employees who befriend people of their own race, a political system that has made the costs greater for tolerating differences, and a society that lacks humanity and collective action.  It's no longer a question of why we can't all get along, but why can't we all see and embrace our universal humanity, which includes appreciating what makes us different.

Credits:
Josh Turner Official Website

A Case of DWB (Driving While Black)

“It’s because the ticket that I received is symptomatic of what has been taking place with many people in the African-American community...”  Congressman Danny Davis [1]

There is a major story coming out of Chicago where Congressman Danny Davis has accused two police officers of racial profiling when he was ticketed earlier this week. This story comes on the heels of several reports/cases of abuse, including 1) a published report of the high incidence of citizen complaints against police brutality, 2) a multi-million dollar settlement for a man who accused the department of assaulting him with a screwdriver, and 3) a state senator's similar accusation that police officers stopped him for driving while black in 2005.

Congressman Davis had three Black passengers in his car, passengers who were guests on his radio show, which he had just finished wrapping. The police officers are saying they pulled Davis over for "weaving" in and out of traffic, which Davis denies. The Department is also countering by arguing the race of the car's passengers could not have been determined before the police officer pulled Davis over, but history is not on the side of the CPD.

In 2001, Reverend Jesse Jackson led a 400-500 member demonstration to protest racial profiling against Blacks and the recommended firing of Rodney Watt, a white officer who blew the whistle on the department's prevalent practice of racial profiling. [2]

There is also the story of Michael Pleasance who was murdered point-blank by a black police officer in March 2003, which according to Chicago reader, "Cline (the police superintendent) and other high-ranking officers helped make the problem go away" for years. Chicago Reader has also made the video feed available.

More recently, there is the story of Frankie Brown, a gay resident of a Chicago suburb, who police "cuffed.. to a chair in his front door and ridiculed him for hours for being gay and HIV-positive." [1] Brown has filed a federal suit against the police.

Congressman Danny Davis plans on challenging the ticket.

Credits:

New York Times,
Chicago Defender