Whatever happens in the life of an African-American is fair-game here. But you are human first, so anything that makes you happy, frustrates you, angers you, worries you, or excites you serves as the fertile ground on which we can have this discussion.
CHICAGO (CBS) ― New allegations of brutality by Chicago police have surfaced. In his
lawsuit, one man claims he was beaten during a traffic stop.
As CBS 2's Suzanne Le Mignot reports, the suit names two officers and implicates several others. "I thought I was gonna die because I couldn't breathe," said alleged police beating victim Curtis Mason Jr. Blood vessels were broken in an eye and his wrists were allegedly cut by tight handcuffs.
Mason says the injuries he captured with photographs were caused by Chicago police. "In the beginning, that's what I asked them, 'why am I being arrested' and from that point, it turned into, 'why are you continually hitting me?'" he said.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The officer who arrested a top African-American professor said talks over beers Thursday evening at the White House were productive and the two men plan to meet again.
Sgt. James Crowley and Henry Louis Gates Jr. sat around a patio table with President Obama and Vice President Biden, drank beer, munched on snacks and talked about the arrest that has sparked debate about racial profiling and police procedures.
"It was a private discussion. It was a frank discussion," Crowley said of the meeting, but would not divulge specifics except to say that no one apologized.
White Liberals Scold Obama… But Come Off Cynical & Hypocritical
By: Tolu Olorunda
Reprinted From Dissident Voice
I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society… [D]uring my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes… [in] recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.
In the wake of President-Elect Obama’s recent cabinet-appointments, many white liberals have taken it upon themselves to release pent-up aggression at a man they thought was the “progressive” candidate he had earlier claimed to be.. As they saw it, Obama had “betrayed” the loyalty that earned him victory. As a sort of catharsis, railing Obama’s reputation over the coals of indignation could make them feel better about their decision to elect a man who promised virtually nothing (of substance) in his bid for the presidency. White liberals, especially, have had to learn so much, in the last 1 month, about the man whose political dirty-laundry was never hidden from the public to begin with.
In a highly predictable move, they have sought to bash everything Obama, or Obama-like, and couch their frustration in the ‘eloquence,’ and ‘con-artistry’ of Obama. Spare me the misplaced aggravation. One of such liberals is writer and activist, James Petras who went as far as suggesting that no progressive organization or publication held Obama’s feet to the fire during the presidential campaign. Petras believes that, to guarantee John McCain a loss, every progressive and leftist news site accommodated and encouraged Obama’s sophistry, as he clinched victory into becoming the “greatest con-man in recent history.” As Petras tells it, “The entire political spectrum ranging from the ‘libertarian’ left, through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard academics, with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a ‘historic moment’, a ‘turning point in American history and other such histrionics.” This is stunning because “self-opiated ‘progressives,’ who” once operated as the conscience of the Democratic Party, saw no wrongdoing in concocting “arguments in his [Obama] favor,” – long as it ultimately garnered Obama victory.
It is unclear whether Mr. Petras is engaging in grand-delusion. In the course of the ’08 presidential race, countless “progressive” publications never let a second slip-by without heaping fact-based criticism on the Obama campaign staff, and the candidate it worked for. Perusing the pages of Black Agenda Report and Black Commentator solves the puzzle. Black Agenda Report, notoriously known for its constructive criticism – characterized by some as, “attacks” – of Obama, must have mysteriously slipped Petras’ memory, as he proclaimed the progressive community to have cheerled Obama into victory. Another Black progressive publication, which I write for, BlackCommentator.com was unrelenting in its undressing of President-Elect Obama, as the tiresome 22-month long campaign drained the blood of reasoning from, otherwise, radically-inclined liberals, leftists, and progressives – most especially Black ones. At Black Commentator, readers were left to juggle between the biting commentaries of Cynthia McKinney-supporters, such as Larry Pinkney, Dr. Lenore Daniels, Tolu Olorunda (myself), etc., and the discontent Obama-supporters, such as Bill Fletcher Jr., Reverend Irene Monroe, David A. Love, etc., expressed on a weekly basis. How Black progressive voices became muted in Petras’ reproof of the progressive bloc is not a surprise to this writer..
Black progressives have always maintained an impeccable legacy of critical opposition to empire – in whatever form it comes in. Whether it was Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Clarence Thomas, Black progressives have remained unbridled in their remonstrations against White power in Black face. Yet, the liberal wing of the American political system has never appreciated, nor accepted, their moral leadership. This reality is validated in the leadership of most unions, non-profits, and left-inclined political organizations. The membership might be disproportionately Black and Brown, but the management, mostly, retains a White identity.
Whilst Black progressives sought to rip the mask off of Barack Obama, in an attempt to unveil his true identity, we were deemed ‘Obama-haters,’ whose egos sought to stifle the chances of a Black man making history. The same white liberals, who now find no progressive solace in Obama’s unfolding cabinet, told Black progressives to be quiet, and “wait till he gets in first.” This logic of reprimanding Black souls to be silent, and reserved, dates back to the era of slavery, with pretentious white liberals, presented as abolitionists, urging Black slaves to fight for more substantial accumulations, other than freedom. “Higher wages,” “better treatment,” and other silly calculations were exalted above the pedestal of liberation. As it was then, so it is now. At a time when the inconvenient truth stares White liberals in the face, they seek to put the blame, instead, on a Black man who bathed them in his eloquent and rhetorical oceans. With this outburst of disillusionment, what most disturbs Black progressives, such as myself, is the reality that every disappointing appointment, by the President-Elect, was foreseeable a million miles away.
Since clinching the Democratic Party nomination – but really dating back to his Senate career – President-Elect Obama had dropped countless hints about the administration he planned to oversee. As a strong believer in bipartisanship, Obama had pledged to welcome voices, opinions and characters he ‘disagreed with.’ Most white liberals, instead of questioning this logic, played along with his divine call for “unity.” As one who could “bring together” all factions of society, and heal the “racial wounds” that “divide” us, it was only a matter of time before Obama was perceived as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Though voting repeatedly for an extension of the Iraq war, whilst a Senator, white liberals convinced themselves that he was more than willing to end the war in 2 years, as he had promised – or not.
While most White liberals were foaming at the mouth, many Black and Brown progressives sought to expose Obama as the unraveling of a hip, cool, and sexy imperialist-to-be. An example is L.A.-based writer and editor Juan Santos, whose phenomenal piece, titled “Barack Obama and the ‘End’ of Racism” (Feb. ’08), put to bed all claims to a war-ending-peacenik-post-racial-uniter – in the personage of Barack Obama. Santos captures the Obama personality with exceptionality: “Obama plays the role of a Black Cinderella. He does for Black folks what Cinderella does for girls. He shows that oppression and silence can be good for you – at least if you are the one the prince chooses, or if you are the one who gets to be the prince. It’s total fantasy… Obama, with his extraordinary intelligence and presence (by any standard), is, in the eyes of white Amerikkka, (and, according to the standards of the so-called “Enlightenment,” which still rule the thinking of Euro-Americans) the half-white, and thus, half-redeemed “Black savage” – “redeemed” by his “white blood”, “civilized” by it - redeemed by his relative whiteness- ultimately redeemed and refined by the white nation itself… Obama knows the rules of the game, after all - he is the rules of the new race game- his candidacy itself is a manifestation of the new system of racism.”
The problem with white-liberalism, and its inability to render deserved criticism, while it mattered, lies in the inherent non-identity of its political philosophy. White-liberalism is structured around celebrity, popularity and majority – Democracy? It blows with the cultural and political tide. Whilst it was convenient, and even expedient, to embrace Obama’s candidacy as the “dawn” of a new political paradigm, white liberals flocked with endorsement of this “charismatic,” and “new” Black politician, who doesn’t see Race or color. He was, in their imagination, the manifestation of Dr. King’s dream. Not the Dr. King who grew into consciousness from 1965-1968, but the “I Have a Dream” Dr. King, but the Dr. King who wouldn’t dare say that, many in “the white community” feel the Civil Rights movement “should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem;” not the Dr. King who incinerated the petty belief that “integration” is “merely a romantic or aesthetic something where you merely add color to a still predominantly white power structure.” This belief that Obama is the birth child of ‘the other’ Dr. King’s dream, led White liberals into missing the point on Obama. Having been taking for a ride by the Obama campaign, they now feel the need to justify their gullibility with the infantile defense that Obama had misled them into thinking differently about his potential as a progressive president.
While some see latent value in the recent outrage surrounding Obama’s cabinet-picks, I’m not as convinced that disorganized screams are the keys to steering the wheels of the Obama administration in a progressive direction. With self-proclaimed “progressives,” such as cable-news host Keith Olbermann, ascribing unconditional praise to the grave of Mark Felt, otherwise known as “Deep throat,” without mentioning his supreme role in the formulation of COINTELPRO, it’s clear that White liberals still have a lot to learn.
I don’t like Charles Barkley very much, I have to be honest about that. On an appearance on ESPN, I was asked by Charles’ buddy, Stephen A. Smith, what I think about Barkley possibly running for Governor of Alabama. My comment was that “Charles Barkley is a man who always says what’s on his mind. But the problem is that there is never anything in his brain to begin with.”
So, if I don’t like you and I give you a compliment, then that really means I like what you just did.
Charles Barkley, the man I can’t bear to listen to on TNT, recently called out his alma mater, Auburn University for their decision to hire the woefully unqualified Gene Chizik over Turner Gill, a coach who actually deserved the job. Gene Chizik has amassed the stellar record of 5-19 over the past two seasons at Iowa State University. The “geniuses” at Auburn University also paid their last coach, Tommy Tubberville, $5.1 million dollars to hit the road after going 85-10 during the last 10 seasons. This is the same brilliant thinking which leads us to believe that sub-mediocre human beings like George Bush and Sarah Palin are qualified to run the free world. Now I remember why I left the south.
One would think that Turner Gill of The University of Buffalo might have been a good pick. He took Buffalo to their first bowl game in school history, and soundly defeated unbeaten Ball State, who was ranked #12 in the country. The problem was that Gill posed the great deal breaker of nearly every head football coaching contract in NCAA sports: He was Black.
Sure, if he were trying to be a wide receiver, he’d be a lock. If he were trying to be a janitor or cafeteria worker, I am sure that Auburn University would have recruited him heavily. But Gill doesn’t realize that for schools like Auburn (and Kentucky, Tennessee and many other schools in the NCAA, particularly the SEC), Black men are only supposed to sacrifice their bodies on the field for virtually no wages, with little hope of actually earning the millions of dollars the NCAA pays its head coaches. Over 50% of all college football players are black, yet less than 4% of their coaches are Black. The athletes earn over $2 Billion per year for the NCAA, yet many of their families live in poverty. In other words, the NCAA has become the ultimate plantation, lawn jockeys and all.
Terry Bowden, Richard Lapchick and the rest of the country are calling it for what it is: Good old fashioned racism. They are stating, as I’ve said all along, that there is a time when African Americans must demand fairness in college sports, for the NCAA has shown almost no commitment to fairness when it comes to matters of race. Like our broken financial system, the system of college sport has created a network of irresponsible, illogical and unintelligent cronyism leading to embarrassing and inefficient outcomes. Paying $5.1 Million dollars to get rid of a good coach so you can pay more money to get a bad one is flat out stupid. Even if you are a racist, you should at least be a smart one.
I applaud Charles Barkley for pointing out the obvious, that Auburn University and the NCAA need a wake-up call. This isn’t 1955 anymore.
Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and a faculty affiliate at the College Sport Research Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He does regular work in national media, including CNN, CBS Sports, BET and ESPN. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.
“Though not apposite to my present purpose, it is but justice to the fruitfulness of that period, to mention two other important events - the Lutheran Reformation in 1517, and, still earlier, the invention of negroes, or, of the present mode of using them, in 1434.”
Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be misled. Race still matters, even in the age of a bi-racial president. In fact, I submit that Race matters more at this transitional period in our multi-cultural society. The presidential campaign of President-Elect Obama sought to vehemently sweep Race-consciousness under the rug, but little did they know, that this stubborn, inextricable faction of our existence would not surrender without a fight. Each time David Axelrod (Obama 2008 chief strategist) felt his campaign had just dodged another Race bullet, the Race assassins would reload for another battle. President-Elect Obama endeared millions of white votes through his desire to run a “race-neutral” campaign, nevertheless, his naïveté only provided comic relief for Black progressives who, unlike Obama, fully understand the intricacy of Race in our society.
Without Obama’s permission, Race resurrected itself early on in the 2008 presidential campaign. It began when White journalists first took it upon themselves to question Obama’s blackness; then followed the – Clinton campaign-sponsored – expose on the possibility of a madrassa-schooled Obama. Subsequently, Obama was painted as a secret Muslim smoker, whose sexism proved uncontainable. In a foreseeable move, Obama’s “outspoken,” “independent” wife would be used as a stumbling block to her husband’s progress. The unpatriotic Michelle “Jezebel” Obama became the goose that laid a thousand eggs for the Obama team’s effort to run a campaign devoid of controversy. In order to assuage the damage wrought by a strong Black Woman’s presence, Sister Michelle would have to undergo a cannibalistic process of image-reorientation, to fit into the mold of an acceptable First Lady. Shortly after, the “gotcha media” would find some legitimate dirt that could reduce Obama to a sheer spectacle. Unbeknownst to 60% of Black folks, they had, all their lives, committed a crime worthy of the death penalty: attended a Black church which advocated self-love, self-control, self-respect, and self-help.
Obama’s attendance at the Black-supremacist, racist, segregationist Trinity United Church of Christ would be the final hurrah of his “Raceless” campaign. With a rare cooperation between ABC News and FOX News in effect, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright would soon become the “old uncle” who says things Obama doesn’t “always agree with.” The silliness of the fraudulent Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy would gain more steam as the respected theologian sought, hopelessly, to vindicate himself from the fascistic, right-wing media’s attacks on his credibility and integrity. Before long, Obama would feed the food-starved swine, and “denounce” the man who helped mold him from an unsettled bi-racial youth, to a self-confident Black man. Luckily for Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin had one last surprise for the “disrespectful,” terrorist-enabler.
Some would argue that despite the very nature of the acidic attacks on Obama’s dignity, millions of white voters turned down the offer, and instead, proved willing to accept the moral leadership of a Black man from Hawaii. Some even contend the legacy of the Bradley effect, and its significance in today’s society. Others have unequivocally declared Racism a “myth.” A few have taken it upon themselves to announce the dawn of a “post-racial” society, where everyone has a seat at the table of opportunity and success.
“Desperate times call for desperate measures,” an adage says. It is clear that most White journalists lack the sophistication to address the issue of Race in our society, but possess an egocentric appeal, which relentlessly stifles any accommodation of dissenting voices to their myopic analysis of Race in the 21st century.
Few White pundits are aware that Race is not always a tangible and physical element, per se. It, at times, plays dead, and operates in stealth mode. To combat the sleeping giant (Race), one does not avoid any engagement with it, or initiate a “conversation” – with the hopes that words can mend a 400-year, broken bond. The most effective mode of warfare is an all-out attack, and confrontation, with the most explosive component of society – Race. Princeton Professor and Author of Race Matters, Dr. Cornel West has often decimated the illusions of Race-conversations, as concrete substitutes for embracing reality. In a 1997 Harvard-sponsored Du Bois Institute forum, titled “A Conversation on Race,” Dr. West made plain what few journalists are willing to accept:
“Malcolm X used to say you don’t stab a man in the back nine inches and pull it out six inches and say let’s have a conversation. You start off with dilapidated housing, you start with decrepit school systems, you start with inadequate health care, you start with jobs that don’t pay a living wage… There is a sense of urgency… when you have… 52% of black children not just living in material poverty but psychic emptiness… This doesn’t solicit a conversation… [Imagine] Europe having a conversation about Nazism; they didn’t [have] no damn conversation. We needed to fight.”
Dr. West is hardly alone in his insistence that substantive acts of courage must be mustered if our society is to mature – Race wise. W.E.B. Du Bois, one of Black America’s most celebrated scholars, though known as a staunch advocate of integration, grew tired of the little progress made in the quest to assimilate both cultures, and bridge a gap of unity. Du Bois, just as our present reality begs, was wrestling with the small-mindedness of “illiterate nitwits,” whom he felt perceived the world through a dual-nature prism. Du Bois confronted the question of integration, vis-à-vis education, and how much improvement was being made in the struggle for a collective brotherhood/sisterhood. Richard Wormser’s The Rise & Fall of Jim Crow: The African-American Struggle Against Discrimination, 1865-1954 (Social Studies, History of the United States Series), shows a frustrated Dubois who, in 1934 – whilst still editor of The Crisis – suggested a temporary alternative to the desegregated school system for Black children,
“A separate Negro school, where children are treated like human beings, trained by teachers of their own race, who know what it means to be black, is infinitely better than making our boys and girls doormats to be spit and trampled upon and lied to by ignorant social climbers whose sole claim to superiority is the ability to kick niggers when they are down.”
What Du Bois understood, which many fail to grasp today, is that Race happens to be one of the most underrated influences in society – then, and today. Though 20 years before the historic Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling, Du Bois’s prophetic words were able to travel through time and investigate the future. Lo and behold, civil right leaders would discover, later on, that even after the ruling to desegregate public schools, it would take more than legislations to correct the horror motivated by decades of separate and unequal schooling. Thus, Du Bois’ proposal of a schooling paradigm, in which qualified and concerned Black educators imparted the gift of life unto their pupils, was most apt for a generation taught to hate themselves, and psychologically abused in classrooms where Eurocentric standards of education were considered infallible.
In 1967, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would pick up where Du Bois left off, and give one of his most prophetically-structured, spiritually-furnished, but least-talked-about speeches of his lifetime. King, at this point, was an agitated, frustrated, irritated, scared, courageous, and disturbed King. Unlike the King often celebrated during the month of February, or the third Monday in January, this King had just been hit with a dose of reality. Suffering betrayal from certain comrades and lieutenants (who shall remain nameless), Dr. King was more convinced, at this point, that all that glitters is certainly not gold. Ten days after his most crucial speech, “Beyond Vietnam,” Dr. King, stepped up to the lectern at Stanford University to lay down the gauntlet on what the civil rights movement must represent, if our society is ever to develop beyond the illimitable constraints of Race.
In his speech, Dr. King repudiated the silliness of those who would rather evade the elephant in the room, than engage in a “genuine” fight for equality for all:
“I came to see that so many people who supported morally and even financially what we were doing in Birmingham and Selma, were really outraged against the extremist behavior of Bull Connor and Jim Clark toward Negroes, rather than believing in genuine equality for Negroes.”
King also dispelled the notion that “racial progress” is only calculable by the measures white brothers and sisters take to accept certain elements of Black leadership. Hence, Obama’s triumph over John McCain cannot accurately illustrate the “racial progress” made, if Black folks have voted for White candidates, overwhelmingly, since being granted the right to vote, without any special investigation into their ability to “transcend-race”:
“Racism is... the false and tragic notion that one particular group, one particular race is responsible for all of the progress, all of the insights in the total flow of history.”
As though speaking with a megaphone of the future, Dr. King would address our present reality, with a stern warning against deceptive claims that time can truly solve the problems of racial injustice. King warned against the digestion of the White media’s assertions that the success of President-Elect Obama delineates a “new era,” as time has washed away the old, messy, horrible days of racism:
“I’m sure you’ve heard this idea. It is the notion almost that there is something in the very flow of time that will miraculously cure all evils. And I’ve heard this over and over again. There are those, and they are often sincere people, who say to Negroes and their allies in the white community, that we should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem. I think there is an answer to that myth. And it is that time is neutral.”
In his speech, Dr. King made sure to tackle the cynicism of those who believe legislations are mere paperwork, and devoid of any enforceable power to correct the ills of a racialized society. However, like Malcolm X, Dr. King also understood the degree to which such claims arouse credibility, with numerous occurrences of lynchings, even after the passage of the Civil Rights Bill and Voting Rights Act:
“It’s the notion that legislation can’t solve the problem; it can’t do anything in this area. And those who project this argument contend that you’ve got to change the heart and that you can’t change the heart through legislation. Now I would be the first one to say that there is real need for a lot of heart-changing in our country. And I believe in changing the heart. I preach about it. I believe in the need for conversion in many instances, and regeneration, to use theological terms… But after saying this, let me say another thing which gives the other side, and that is that although it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. Even though it may be true that the law cannot change the heart, it can restrain the heartless. Even though it may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, it can restrain him from lynching me.”
Dr. King, who described the plight of Black folks as synonymous to “impoverished aliens,” made sure to draw a blueprint of true integration, before departing from this imperfect, and often, maddening realm of existence:
“We must come to see now that integration is not merely a romantic or aesthetic something where you merely add color to a still predominantly white power structure. Integration must be seen also in political terms where there is shared power, where black men and white men share power together to build a new and a great nation.”
If President-Elect Obama’s obsession with a man who saw no distinction between Black folks (or Negroes) and properties of iron, or transportation vehicles, is of any significance, it simply suggests that the future of Race matters is one of an imperishable existence. Race cannot be eliminated from a society which was born with it. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, earlier this year, described Race as a “birth defect” of our society. Whether corporate-minded, white pundits highlight this reality or not, it is the duty of Black progressives to make plain, for the masses of our people, the past, present, and future of Race Matters. Long live RACE, but down with racism.
