The label of “post civil rights” black leadership is one that corporate pundits eagerly bestow on any new black face in a high place who agrees with them, and who is willing to depart from the widely shared consensus of African American opinion.  But the truth is nearly always different from the verdicts of the Right, and this is no different.  The more accountable parts of black leadership have in fact operated in post-civil rights mode since at least the late Seventies and early Eighties.  With Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent order confining CBC members to the back of the bus when it came to sponsorship, or even speaking out on behalf of renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the days when the Congressional Black Caucus could plausibly bill itself as the “conscience of the congress” are indisputably over.  Leading Democrats have lost the will to listen to black voices, if they ever had it.  Worse still, the Congressional Black Caucus has itself lost the will to address the nation with the authentic voice and agenda of black America. 

The CBC Monitor’s Leutisha Stills and her coverage of the muzzling of the Congressional Black Caucus hit a sore point last week with a number of our readers. 

Lisa Davis writes: 

I commend you on the excellent work you are doing with the CBC Monitor.  Congratulations!   My hat is off to you. It is much needed! 

You are raising the level of dialog while rupturing the pathetic paradigm of Blacks being nose-tied to the butt of the Democratic party.   Equally as important, you are giving a strong message to Black politicians that their skin color will no longer guarantee the loyalty of the Black community.  It is time that they fully understand that we will no longer support those who turn their backs on our community and who ignore our voices.  Black politicians and "leaders" must understand that Black people will no longer tolerate Black people who collaborate with those who seek the perpetual subjugation of our people. 

A regular sender of email to BC, Edythe Jones says: 

I am appalled that the Colored Caucus has knuckled under on the Voting Rights Bill.  What are they afraid of?  That white folks wouldn't invite them to dinner? We need to elect representatives with spines. 

Spines would be nice.  Principles would be better still, starting with the maxim that elected representatives should represent the voters who elect them, not the sources of their corporate campaign and charitable donations.  There is an old and apocryphal American story line about people being elected and going off to state capitals or to Washington with the intent of changing the way things are being done down there.  That’s the agenda the Congressional Black Caucus of twenty and twenty-five years ago spoke to as “conscience of the congress” in what was already a post civil rights era. 

Today, with notable exceptions like John Conyers and Charles Rangel, survivors from that era, elders like John Lewis and principled newcomers like Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney and a few others, America’s culture of corrupt public officialdom has done more to change caucus members than they have done to change the institution of congress.  The pundits have it wrong.  The best of the CBC members are already “post civil rights” black leadership.  The rest, the Artur Davises, Harold Fords and such who allow corporate contributors to set their priorities are not even “post civil rights.”  They are mere operatives, independent of the political will and aspirations of black America. 

Freedom Riding 

For better than two and a half years now, BC has been blessed with the regular contributions of Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider commentaries.  For much of that time our records show that Freedom Rider consistently draws more readers than nearly any feature at BC.  Our readers know a good thing when they see it.  Recently Ms. Kimberley has focused our attention upon the strange careers of Stanford University professor Shelby Steele and former homeless activist turned border vigilante Ted Hayes.  Both have been elevated to the status of prominent, oft-quoted and frequently interviewed spokespeople for their skillful and dependable regurgitation of white racist myths and platitudes.  For throwing his lot in with Republicans and lately with the white supremacist Minutemen, Hayes is now a “homeless activist” as well as an expert on immigration.  For similar reasons Steele, with an advanced degree, a closet full of nice suits and tenure at Stanford is an expert on everything that’s wrong with black people in America. 

Thanks in part to Ms. Kimberley, some of our readers are now quite familiar with the antics of these two. 

Canadian Martin Scanlan had this to say on Ted Hayes: 

Dear Ms. Kimberly, 

By chance I happened upon a replay of the Minutemen demonstration in Washington and was surprised to see Ted Hayes “orate” rather dramatically. I would call it theatrical ranting. 

I have been opposed to [Minuteman leader] Gilchrest and his “movement” since their inception. I've been convinced of their thinly veiled racism from the start and am of the opinion that Gilchrest is a loser that happened on an issue, akin to the flag, that he could wrap himself in as a "true American." I could go on and bore you but really just wanted to complement you for your keen insight and superb writing skills. I will certainly make it point to read you often. 

Ted Hayes and Shelby Steele:  Better Together 

Reader D. A. Williams takes issue with Kimberley, and with BC on Ted Hayes 

I totally disagree with your description of Ted Hayes as an Uncle Tom and opportunist.  I have seen Mr. Hayes stand up for the homeless when the more prominent Black leaders washed their hands of the wretched homeless.  Hayes gained prominence going to then Mayor Tom Bradley asking for help for the thousands of Black homeless living in the downtown area of Los Angeles in the 1980s.  He and his band of homeless raised the awareness level of many.  His run for mayor of Los Angeles was done to illustrate and draw attention to the plight of the homeless.  To those he has helped in that arena he is a hero. 

This editor is unfamiliar with whatever good works Ted Hayes may have performed in previous decades.  But as Ms. Kimberley reminded us, even before obtaining his short-lived gig as dreadlocked mascot of the white supremacist Minutemen Hayes made himself available for a variety of Republican causes and events, even campaigning for the current occupant of the White House.  The pile of credit for alleged good works in other decades has long since been exhausted. 

Ruben Botello, a homeless activist with more recent credentials has some observations about Ted Hayes too: 

Right on, Margaret. It was truly disappointing to learn Ted Hayes has joined the Minutemen organization against La Raza and other "immigrants" mostly indigenous to the Americas. It would be like him complaining in South Africa that too many African "immigrants" from outside South Africa were taking the jobs of South Africa's Black workers. Instead of working to unite all workers against our common oppressors, Hayes is working for the rich elite to keep us divided and defeated. 

Unlike Hayes, I am a homeless activist who fights for all poor and oppressed people, not just the poor and oppressed of the Americas.

Frequent BC reader and correspondent Luther Allman has this to say about Shelby Steele: 

Ms. Kimberley, your article on Shelby Steele was on point, but failed to examine why and how he came to be this way.  In a recent C-SPAN interview Steele revealed that he had a brother who is also a professor at Stanford and possibly a twin.  But his brother is a liberal and they have not had any contact or spoken with each other in years.  In my view, Shelby and others like him, suffer from a severe dysfunctional  disorder that started in early childhood, that unfortunately went  unrecognized and untreated in a timely manner, resulting in the idiocy and self-hatred that spews forth from them as adults. As an emotional human being, Steele is damaged goods.  He is however, useful in furthering the white supremacist agenda of his handlers. 

The Rev. Reynard Blake of Michigan is a periodic BC commentator who finds Margaret Kimberley’s assessment of Steele compelling: 

As usual, you've hit the nail on the head.  I originally thought that Steele lost his mind but, as Earth, Wind, and Fire indicated "you can't miss what you never had!"  Steele, in his argument regarding white people not committing racism fails to acknowledge racism is entrenched in American society.  White people fail to realize that this structure is what's "normal."  God help them! 

Continue to fight the good fight.  I feel truly honored and blessed to be even remotely affiliated with you as a writer for BC. 

Accomplices in the Great Digital Heist 

In last week’s cover story, “The Black Stake in the Internet” we detailed the apparent subversion of a prominent black voting rights organizations, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation by telecommunications monopolies intent on buying friends for their legislative drive to privatize the Internet, roll back black access to a semblance of equal service from cable TV companies and kill off public access TV. 

BC reader Yvonne Hilton had this to say on the subject of corporations buying up undervalued black organizations: 

Thank you for this very timely, very alarming wake-up call.  The Black Commentator is absolutely on the mark when you place the issue of a free Internet into the context of legislative redlining.  Every Black American ought to have his/her radar up whenever monopolies (Wal-Mart, AT&T, et. al.) start throwing money at our organizations. Keep Fighting, 

Telecoms Purchase More Black Friends

Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy was one of multiple readers who wrote to alert BC of another apparent case of a telecommunications monopoly trying to buy black friends on the cheap: 

I very much appreciate what you've been writing.  Did you see the announcement late last week that 35 civil rights groups had negotiated a deal with Verizon's new broadband service?  I think it illustrates a lack of imagination and commitment to ensuring that new media serves everyone, especially persons of color. 

Chester's Digital Destiny blog has more information on Verizon's attempt to buy up undervalued black organizations.  More than one BC reader also pointed out that the Verison's “community studio” is a “pilot” program, and therefore is transparently something the corporation can curtail or yank back when their need for black friends is no longer acute.  The conditional generosity of such “pilot” programs is an extremely poor substitute for legally binding agreements or regulatory compulsion to serve all our communities, not just the wealthiest. 

BC even received this ringing endorsement from Chanelle Hardy, Legislative Counsel for the Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports: 

I am belatedly writing to express my appreciation for Black Commentator's strong, independent voice and the outstanding information you provide.  As one of the few telecom lobbyists of color that work on the side of the public, it is inspiring and invigorating to see BC take a hard, enlightened line on issues of telecom policy.  The stake our communities have in telecommunications policy is often overlooked, and our need for resources so great that whoever gets to the table on our behalf is often tempted to settle for much less than we really need or deserve.  If you have not done so already, I encourage you to check out our consumer education website, HearUsNow.org. 

Last week we naively wished that Chicago's Congressman Bobby Rush would apply his considerable talents to finding a way to withdraw sponsorship of what has come to be known as the Rush-Barton bill, or HR 5252.  As unlikely as that was last week, the chances appear vanishingly small now, as BC has received a “dear colleague” letter co-signed by Democrat and CBC member Bobby Rush and the corrupt, oil-soaked Joe Barton, Republican of Texas urging support of the infamous legislation bearing their names which hands the publicly developed and financed Internet over to a handful of monopolists. 

Predictably, the letter trots out every free-market shibboleth and lie employed so far in the face of the telecommunications monopolies' attempt to hijack the Internet, to roll back existing cable franchise agreements which have been the only guarantee of service to minority areas, and to prevent communities from imposing any more public service obligations upon the monopolists.  It promises Net neutrality, the extension of broadband to communities that don't have it now, more competition and lower rates for consumers.  Every bit of it is a lie. 

In fact, according to Dr. Lawrence Lessig of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society: 

”...in terms of broadband penetration, the U.S. is “somewhere between 12th and 19th in the world, depending upon whose scale you use” and that in France 20 Mbps service is available for $36 per month... 

”How did France (and Japan) get it so good?  ...fierce competition induced by “heavy handed” regulation producing a faster, cheaper Internet.  Now of course, no one (in the US) is pushing “open access” anymore.  Net neutrality is a thin and light substitute for the strategy that has worked in France and Japan….” 

AT&T's Dirty Little Secret 

Lessig goes on to explain that when telecommunications monopolies were allowed freedom from government regulation, competition between monopolies was replaced by gouging consumers and clamping down on “innovation” that was not part of their business model.  The US has the least public regulation of the Internet, and as a result we enjoy the worst, the slowest and the most expensive broadband internet service in the developed world, and offer that service to the smallest percentage of our population. 

This is the dirty little secret telecommunications monopolies don't want the public to know:  The fastest Internet service currently available to businesses and consumers in the more affluent parts of US cities and suburbs tops out around 1.5 Mbps, one thirteenth the speed businesses and consumers in France get, and a greater share of them get it over there than do over there. 

“Broadband is infrastructure like highways... If you rely upon “markets” alone to provide infrastructure, you get less of it, and at a higher price.” 

Japan, South Korea and most of Western Europe can provide much faster Internet to more of their citizens at a fraction of the price we pay in the U.S. because they are committed not just to “net neutrality” but to open access, and to enforcement of that access with stringent governmental regulation.  The gap is widening between us and them on the other side of the water, even as it widens between a different us and them on these shores. 

And for black America, the ease with which some of our elected officials and civic organizations can be rented or purchased outright by telecommunications monopolies or anyone else who can spell their names right on a check is disconcerting and dismaying.  The rise of black corporate operatives among black elected officials and civic groups is  enough to make one wish for a return of real “post civil rights” black leadership. 

We at BC do our best to answer reader emails, and we print as many as we dare in this space each week.  Do write us at [email protected].