|
|
|
For a significant chunk of white America including
its ruling elite, the best and most desirable state of race relations
is achieved when black people just shut the heck up. While this
condition is not obtainable in the real world, the evacuation
of New Orleans appears locally to have yielded for them, the next
best thing. The city's black population has been largely dispersed,
made to go away. Over the ensuing months, innumerable roadblocks
have been strewn in the way of their return by private agencies
such as the Red Cross and insurers, and from a constellation of
federal, state and local governmental entities.
Last week's BC cover
story, “New Orleans is Our Gettysburg” explained
how farcical elections, in which the participation of the city's
black residents was massively and selectively hindered, are intended
to put the stamp of legitimacy upon the dispossession and exile
of much of black New Orleans. Widely referenced and linked to
from around the net by such sites as BuzzFlash,
the story generated quite a few emails from individuals who probably
are not regular BC readers. One of the very few
of these that was nearly civil or printable came from Anne McNeal:
I am a Caucasian who has lived in
New Orleans or in the surrounding area of New Orleans for over
45 years. I don't judge people by their color. I judge people
by their actions.
The article is so antagonistically written that it leaves little
opening for a reconciliatory approach by anyone the author is
attacking. I suggest if the author wants to do more than just
merely complain about injustices in life then the author should
monitor the tone in the article. Using a softer tone does not
equate to invalidating ones thoughts, feelings and opinions. A
soft tone and strong opinions can coexist. A soft tone signals
approachability and a desire for reconciliation.
In my opinion, the author is not ready for reconciliation but
is still in the divisive stage of anger. The author shows no sign
to work in partnership with others to mend the fences of racism
and classism.
At the risk of appearing sarcastic, a tone of equanimity
is far easier to adopt and sustain when someone else's community
and family has been dispossessed instead of one's own. No current
white resident of the Crescent City can possibly dodge the fact
that she or he is the beneficiary of unearned privilege vis-a-vis
the hundreds of thousands of black residents who cannot return,
and who, under the present dispensation can expect neither accounting
nor apology for their lost homes, property, their unburied and
unaccounted for family members and their dispersed communities.
In
such a context, condemning black indignation as “divisive”
and proof that the folks who've been done wrong are “not
ready for reconciliation” is a transparent and classic defense
of unearned white
privilege. This editor is no bible scholar but there is a
relevant passage in the Gospel somewhere about criticizing your
neighbor for the mote in his eye while ignoring the beam in one's
own. Rather than writing to BC about our “antagonistic
tone” the cause of reconciliation might be better served
first by realizing the extent of one's unearned white privilege
and secondly by reaching out to some of the activist organizations
on the ground in New Orleans and exploring with them what “reconciliation”
might actually look like in the real world.
The singling
out of Georgia's Rep. Cynthia McKinney for the sins of demanding
a sane and even handed foreign policy in the Middle East, for
questioning the war in Iraq, and for having been first
to demand an investigation into what the government knew or should
have known prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001 continues.
So does the telling silence of established black leadership including
most of the Congressional Black Caucus. Thankfully, there are
exceptions. BC received the following communication
last week from Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq., Chair of the National
Congress of Black Women.
Like Cynthia McKinney, I am a Black woman who has withstood
many indignities – racial and otherwise. But as Maya Angelou
says, "Still I Rise." I know that Cynthia will rise
from this, too. Many Black women I know join me in standing
with Cynthia for responding in a way that many of us often want
to when we get so tired of racism, sexism and all the other
garbage other women don't have to endure.
Whatever anybody else thinks of Cynthia, I love her for what
she has done for the peace movement, for progressive politics,
for standing firm even when others disagree with her, and just
for being a beautiful and courageous human being. I know Cynthia.
I know her family. She's my neighbor, and I call her a friend,
so even if she did one thing that some may see as wrong, she
is still a wonderful person who is not afraid to stand for what
she believes is right.
Not one of us is perfect. Show me a Member of Congress who has
not done something that at least somebody thought was wrong,
and maybe then, I will listen to that person criticize Cynthia
and tell me why I should desert my sister because of a little
turbulence caused by a system she did not create.
Tell me no other Member of Congress has walked into congressional
buildings without a lapel pin, or rushed in to vote without
showing any type of identification! I've worked there and I
know better. Cynthia is one of the most recognizable Members
of Congress, so by no means will I buy the fact that an officer
who works there would not know who she is.
It doesn't matter what the Grand Jury decides or what anyone
else thinks of her, Cynthia McKinney is a woman who is widely
known around the world, much loved and highly respected –
and no incident like the one here that's been so blown out of
proportion BECAUSE SHE IS CYNTHIA
MCKINNEY will ever change that.
Dr. Williams has it about right. Everyone has a
certain amount of good credit to exhaust, and Rep. McKinney's
record of public service has earned her more than most. She has
also earned the unremitting hostility of the establishment media
who have knowingly lied about much bigger things than what did
or didn't happen at a Capitol Hill checkpoint.
Reportedly, white and black Capitol Police are bitterly
divided over the McKinney incident, with African Americans
insisting the Georgia congresswoman is being unjustly harassed,
while many white officers maintain that she's only getting what
she has coming.
Howard University's Dr. Paula Matabane was kind
enough to share with BC a letter she wrote to
the Washington Post's Robin Givhan in response to an April 7 fluff
story on Rep. McKinney, which seemed to reduce the discussion
around the Georgia congresswoman and her career to trivializing
speculations about her hairdo:
Ms. Givhan,
After reading your caustic if not toxic essay
today on Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, I thought about a line
from the film "Brother Future" when enslaved Isaac
says to Zeke, the black overseer slave, "You like being
massa's darkey."
Your complaint that McKinney has made her hairstyle
part of her politics is juvenile journalism especially for a
fashion editor. All fashion is politics especially in race divided,
racist driven commercial America. Have you not noticed that
white women's hair has been the standard of femininity and female
beauty for the past four centuries – at least since the
first slave ship arrived to these shores? Hair in America is
not just a hairstyle but a path to defining black women out
of the female gender and into the animal kingdom.
If fashion were not part of your politics, then
why didn't you rag out Susan Taylor for her braids, sophisticated
or not, that have apparently eaten her hairline a mile back
from normalcy? No, you wouldn't because you freelance for Essence
and you're not about to bite the hand that feeds and coddles
you. Plus, Taylor's achievements earn her more respect than
such a cheap shot.
I found a 2002 interview on-line in which you
proudly proclaim that you were not surprised when you got your
present position because "I think highly of myself."
And yes, maybe you ought to. But you also have a responsibility
to think critically even as a fashion editor. You would not
have license from the Post to reduce McKinney to the black mammy
of fashion if her politics were popular and mainstream. Your
article could easily be a companion to “Birth of a Nation”
ridiculing and judging black politicians for a personal appearance
that deviates from the white norm.
In the same way that you ought to be respected
for your substance and achievement, McKinney is due not less
but more as a clear trailblazer of substance not trivia. Clearly,
you are open to a stinging critique as the editor of fluff by
any culturally conscious and intelligent black person. Your
clinging to and advocating white standards of beauty even in
your own appearance condemn you, too, as a time dated (pre-civil
rights) symbol sporting an expired white woman hairstyle.
Finally, while I think McKinney can push the envelop
politically at times, I fully understand her reaction to the
white police grabbing her. I asked several Ph.D. black women
colleagues (all over 50, i.e. daughters of segregation) at Howard
University what they would do at the building entrance if a
white cop grabbed them versus a black one. They all said they
would do what McKinney did – recoil, protect themselves
including jabbing with a cell phone. Their response to a black
officer would be different. This speaks to history not hairstyle.
Ms Givhan, maybe you ought to do an article on
what hairstyle the black woman raped by the Duke lacrosse team
was wearing. I wonder was she "fashionable," "professional"
or wearing the crown of a "washerwoman" who, by the
way, sent many a Negro child to college including the ivy league
and also deserve respect for what they achieved on their knees.
Fluff and trivia may be your arena, but when you
step into politics and history, please try to write critically
and respectful of those who have blazed a path for you.
Peace
Like Drs. Williams and Matabane, we
support Rep. McKinney without reservations. So does BC reader Ed
Rynearson:
Rep. McKinney is a courageous American
who asks the questions I want asked on the behalf of myself and
millions of other loyal tax paying citizens about the high price
of oil, the 9-11 attacks, the muscle flexing at Iran, and related
matters. My only recommendation to Ms. McKinney is that she get
a Taser so that next time she can put one of those SOB's on the
ground where they belong.
While we endorse the spirit of Mr.
Rynearson's accessorizing suggestion, it is doubtful that the congresswoman
will adopt such a measure any time soon.
On
the other hand, the reaction of the relentlessly self-promoting
and self-involved Tavis
Smiley to the noxious cloud of calumny directed at black womanhood,
and any black woman criticizing the powers that be, according
to one source, was to pronounce Congresswoman McKinney –
not the attacks against her, but the congresswoman herself –
"a distraction."
After an "...oh no he didn't..." moment here at BC we
pondered the issues of Brother Tavis and who was being distracted
from what. We were rescued by this illuminating letter from reader
Jeff Richardson regarding Tavis's most recent State
of the Black Union.
If Tavis really wants to achieve
something lasting and positive with his annual SOBU he really
should make the community feel included, rather than to give all
the best lines to honored guests. If we the People are going to
really take on the institutional barriers to our peoples' progress,
we definitely have to pierce some of this artificial boundary
between folks who've "made it" and those of us who haven't.
Why wasn't NYC Transport Workers Union leader
Roger
Toussaint or one of his coworkers there? Why don't the interests
of workers get much play on Tavis's panel? If it weren't for
Cornel West and Belafonte, the needs of working families might
have been totally overlooked.
Richardson has a serious point. It's easy to understand
why corporate media want to direct us away from what we can gain
by collective action and keep us exclusively focused on individual
real estate, bond and stock market manipulations as the sole responsible
road to ensuring economic security for our families. It's not
nearly as easy to explain why much of our so-called black leadership
class has the same fixation, unless these leaders owe greater
allegiance to corporate America than they do to us.
The title of Tavis's 2006 morning SOBU panel was
“Economic Empowerment: Building and Leveraging Wealth in
the African American Community.” Arguably, the December
2005 NYC transit strike exerted greater leverage and did more
to maintain “wealth building” and economic security
for a larger number of black families than any three or four of
Tavis's bankers, entrepreneurs and investment advice columnists
have done in their entire careers. Again, it's appropriate to
wonder just who is distracting who, and from what.
Over the last week we have become aware that Congressional
Black Caucus member Bobby Rush of Chicago appears to be the sole
Democratic co-sponsor of a truly catastrophic bill that would
end the Internet as we know it and leave it up to AT & T,
Verizon and other ISPs and owners of the Internet backbone to
determine what content users will be allowed to access. This is
not exaggeration, and not hyperbole.
Daily Kos explains
the issue this way
Internet service provision in the U.S. is covered
by telecommunications law, and has operated under the idea of
"network neutrality." In it's early years, telephone
companies provided most Web service, and carried most of the
traffic. Because of the nature of laws regulating phone service,
Web traffic was handled just like phone traffic, each "call"
being equal. That means every page you surf to on the Internet
is served up just like any other, as far as your ISP is concerned.
You can go from Amazon.com to Aunt Harriet's family history
blog equally.
Here's what's
at stake with this legislation.
”The nation's largest telephone and cable
companies – including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time
Warner – want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which
Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
”They want to tax content providers to guarantee
speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in
favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services,
and streaming video – while slowing down or blocking their
competitors. . . .
”On the Internet, consumers
are in ultimate control – deciding between content, applications
and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network.
There's no middleman. But without net neutrality, the Internet
will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which
channels, content and applications are available; consumers will
have to choose from their menu....”
A simple and graphic explanation of network neutrality
is available at link.
Turning the public internet into their private toll road has been
the Holy Grail of telco monopolies for more than a decade. Congressman
Rush and the telco monopolies have brought into existence a national
coalition called Save
the Internet because this is precisely what is at stake.
As if that were not enough, the legislation will
create a national cable TV franchise, invalidating the hard-won
agreements negotiated between communities and cable TV companies
around the country which guarantee a small measure of access to
public service, educational and community affairs programming,
and which require cable companies to offer service to the poorer,
mostly black areas of cities and towns across the country to which
they otherwise would refuse to “build out.” Having
such a national franchise means that new giant corporations entering
into the cable business could bypass local communities and governments
and cut a single deal on the federal level alone. Good for them.
Bad for cable customers, and worst of all for those of us who
live in the parts of town which will not be offered “lightspeed
service” or “priority service” or whatever your
local tentacle of the telco monopolies are calling it.
BC contacted the congressman's
office by phone to inquire about the proposed legislation and
have yet to receive a reply. We are not the only ones. For more
than a month, the good people at Chicago
Media Action have tried too. They finally printed an open
letter to the congressman which you can read here.
Some of us go way back with the congressman from
the first district of Illinois, back to when he was a comrade
of Fred
Hampton, and worked tirelessly to end the exploitation of
man and woman by man. Back then, corporate and governmental evildoers
were actually afraid of Bobby Rush, and for good reason. Who's
afraid of Bobby Rush now? Maybe we all should be.
(As BC went to print, we learned that two Blacks
on Rep. Rush's committee joined two other Democrats in voting
for the GOP/teleco industry's bill. The CBC members are Edolphus
Towns (NY) and Albert Wynn (MD). The bill now goes to the full
House. - The Editors.)
According to some sources, the apparent goal of
Rush, of his Republican co-sponsors and of the telecommunications
industry appears to be to rush this privatization of public resources
and of the vital public space for information and debate itself
into law as quickly as possible before the summer recess and mid-term
elections. They must not be allowed to succeed.
BC urgently recommends that readers
sign
the petition to prevent the corporate hijacking of the Internet,
as more than a quarter million already have. Email
your own representative in Congress too, and let him or her know
how you feel about giving
the internet away to Verizon, Comcast and AT&T. And as
a last step you might phone the DC office of CBC chairman Mel
Watt of North Carolina at (202) 225-1510 or fax him at (202) 225-1512
to inform him of your concern that Rush's legislation will deprive
black communities of the limited protection against redlining
and discrimination in the provision of cable service that they
now enjoy. He'll appreciate it.
For more information on the incalculable damage
which will be done by this ill-advised legislation, we strongly
suggest our readers check out some of the following sites and
share the information with everyone who uses email on the internet.
While you still can.
-
Common Cause's brief summary
of the bill's objectionable provisions
Finally, Counterpunch
magazine is a daily must-read for most of us at BC,
and should be for you too. We take this opportunity to highly
recommend our readers check out Alexander Cockburn's article “Obama's
Game” which is notable not just for its deconstruction
of where the African American junior senator from Illinois is,
but for what he says about the current state of the rest of the
Congressional Black Caucus, as well as Move On and the class of
self-serving political consultants who actually spend most of
the corporate billions raised to pay for political campaigns.
Assuming that Congressman Rush's telco bill does
not become law any time soon, we intend to be here next week.
We answer as much of our email as possible, generally privately,
but some of it publicly in this space. Send it to us at [email protected].
|
Home |
|
|
|
Your comments are always welcome.
Visit the Contact
Us page to send e-Mail or Feedback
or Click
here to send e-Mail to [email protected]
If you send us an e-Mail message
we may publish all or part of it, unless you tell us it
is not for publication. You may also request that we withhold
your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.
|
|
|