AMERICA'S VOTE

"The greatest problem is not with flat-out white racists, but rather with the far larger number of Americans who believe intellectually in racial equity but are quietly oblivious to injustice around them." 

Nicholas Kristoff, When Whites Just Don't Get It, Part 3, 10.11.2014 

On Tuesday, November 8th, America voted for white supremacy; there is no other truthful way to say it.

There are so many "spins" being put on it now by media, by pundits, and by voters themselves. But regardless of how one justifies their vote -- whether using the excuse of lack of jobs, disagreement about TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), not liking or trusting Hillary, or feeling left behind by the economy -- at the core of it they decided that any one or all of those reasons were worth sacrificing the safety and well-being, all the progress made toward first-class citizenship for those who are not white in America.

White America -- deliberately and with full knowledge of Trump's racism, misogyny, and  Islamphobia (https://www.reddit.com/r/          EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4r2yxs/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/ ) -- chose not a president as much as a Racist-In-Chief. And in that, they are complicit in what is happening now and what is surely to come.

With the election not even two weeks old more than 200 incidents of racial intimidation, assault, and/or violence have occurred, mostly directed toward African Descendants/ African Americans and Immigrants  (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/11/11/over-200-incidents-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election-day ). 

Many African Descendants/African Americans are still experiencing trauma from both the myriad of murders of innocent Black men and women by police as well as from a legal system that does not hold their murderers accountable. We have seen -- even with an Obama presidency -- how state policy has been used in attempts to raise police to a protected citizen class, codifying their actions and the status of innocent Black people as targets.  We have seen a national narrative that blames Black people for their own deaths at the hands of police.  We have seen the demonization of any movement fighting for the rights of people who are not white. And we have seen all of the above supported by people -- primarily white -- who think of themselves as good, decent people without racial animus. They think of themselves in that way because in our society we are taught to think of those acting out of racial animus as belonging to organized hate-groups such as the Klan instead of organized faith-groups such as Evangelical Christians.  As such it is easy for them to deny the devastating impact of their vote on those of us who are not white.  But those of us who are not white deny, ignore, or minimize at the peril of our families that 51% of the U.S. population just declared to us that they are okay with whatever policy devastation is wrought on our communities.  They just declared to us that they are willing to sacrifice us on the altar of maintaining their economic and social racial privilege.

Many of our "white allies" are crying about how devastated they are by the vote or how the vote might have been different with Bernie (who also seemed incapable of incorporating an authentic racial equity lens analysis as he campaigned).  However, they don't have to live in our shoes or in our vulnerable positions.  I don't want white tears, or white disappointment, or white anger.  What I want is white action, and that starts with their reflection on both their depth of understanding (or lack thereof) of the overarching and insidious nature of white supremacy; how they are (actively or passively) complicit; and finally, how they can follow the lead of activists of color in developing strategies to use their privilege and to take actual risks -- participating in one-off protests notwithstanding -- to change it.  

Black people and Brown people -- cis-gender, SGL (Same Gender Loving), and Trans --are doing our parts.  We always do.

51% of "good" white people voted for a man formally endorsed by the KKK. That vote supported that man in doing exactly what he is doing now: opening the door and setting the table to "Make AmeriKKKa Great Again" -- an AmeriKKKa where, as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said in 1857:

"They [Negros] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. . ."

This is where AmeriKKKa's vote has placed us. And AmeriKKKa bears the responsibility for the racialized impacts with which the rest of us -- and our sons and daughters -- will have to live.

A PRESIDENTIAL AGENDA REQUIRES A RACIAL EQUITY LENS*

(* A shorter version of this blog post is at rooflines.org)

Are you as deeply disgusted with the course of this presidential election as I am? I mean, in many ways it’s like looking at a slow moving multi-car crash, yet YOU JUST CAN’T LOOK AWAY.

I have stuck it out through every debate and every after-debate “analysis” (and yes, the quotation marks are deliberate…).  I drink in a variety of articles from all quarters (because you know what the people who are like-minded will say, but what about the folk whose worldviews are completely opposite yours?  We need to know what they think, too…).

In other words, I am a junkie — I admit it!

And I am still an undecided voter.  

Now, it’s not that I am looking at Trump (COME ON!! Even NOT KNOWING me, YOU SHOULD KNOW ME better than that. . .).

It is just that I have questions. . .issues. . .

And it is that Hillary has not yet earned my vote — although she has taken it for granted; maybe even felt entitled to it (“issue” alert!!).

HOWEVER, in reading the political tea leaves… I mean, the red flags waving in the political breeze (Hi, Donald!)… I am preparing myself for cast membership in the upcoming four-year reality show called "Hillary at the Helm." 

In expectation that she might be our next president, I am taking this opportunity to reach out to Hillary with this letter of things that I would — if she appointed me (or even if she doesn’t) her "Secretary of Domestic Repair (for marginalized groups)” — recommend.  

Dear Hillary,

While we have not met, I am a person from two groups — the independent, undecided voter as well as an African Descendant, a voting bloc that provided a major percentage of your votes and will play a significant role in your (potential) ascension into the highest office in the land.

I wish you the best, Hillary, and hope that in the coming years any “buyer's remorse” that I may feel if I vote for you will easily fit into a small clutch as opposed to a wheeled suitcase. To help you with that — to save us both grief and disappointment — let me transparently share my hopes and recommendations for your time at the helm:

1. DEVELOP, REVIEW, AND EVALUATE POLICY USING A RACIAL EQUITY LENS.  Hillary, our country's racialized disproportionalities are long-standing, and broadening. We cling to the concept that universalist policies are created to benefit all, but those policies operate within a country where institutional and structural racism still exists. Policies such as the G.I. Bill or "The War on Drugs" — otherwise known as “The War on Black People” — created an industry of private prisons and have “enslaved” more Black people than during the period in which enslavement of Black people was legal (read Michelle Alexander’s excellent book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. If you've read it already, please read it again). 

2.  INVEST IN KNOWING THE NUMBERS.  Developing equity lens policies is one thing; monitoring and keeping track of the metrics by which to evaluate their implementation is another. We both know, Hillary, that so many in America do not support policies, remedies, or even collection of data for populations that remind them of America’s historical and continuing racializations and inequities.  We know that many in this country have a high tolerance for these types of inequities when neither they nor those they love are burdened by them. Witness all those who were willing to overlook the Republican presidential nominee’s comments and actions regarding African Americans, Mexicans, and the disabled, among others, but who were front and center in their objections to his comments and  actions regarding white women.  It showed, more than anyone affirming equity can say, where those of us who are not white stand.  And when a presidential nominee running on what looks like an “alt-white” (you know, the new phrase for white supremacist) platform can garner such national support, it is clear that we need a president who will champion the collection of data on, and implementation of policies and remedies that counteract, if not eliminate, the institutional and structural race-based barriers we face.  And speaking of:

3. REMEMBER HOW INSTITUTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL RACISM WORKS — AND WORK AGAINST IT.  I am proud of your using those phrases, and hope you really know what they mean. In uttering them, it appears as if you’ve come a long way from “super-predator.”  However, Hillary, so many in our communities need to know that your commitment to understanding the realities of being Black and Brown and First Peoples and Asian-American is not situational; is not calculated; is not transactional. We need to know that you are not going to dump us once you are at the helm. We need to know that you will not slowly move right of center when you’ve climbed up our backs to claim your prize.  These terms — "institutional racism" and "structural racism" — should be the watchwords that guide your administration’s decisions.  Not because people want “free stuff” or “more stuff” or “different stuff"  but because if you believe in fairness and justice — and have a working sense of history — you will understand that you will not be able to effectively govern without the base(s) that got you there. Nor will you be able to say that you have a moral center or care about the economic health of the country if you are willing to leave us behind by ignoring the damage that institutional and structural racism does when embedded in policy decisions.

4.  THINK OUTSIDE OF THE SILOS.  Policies have to connect. We must recognize societal interconnections: that we cannot have housing policy without thinking about housing discrimination without thinking about affordable housing without thinking about workforce training without thinking about affordable childcare without thinking about families who are fatherless because of minor drug offenses without thinking about over-policing in communities of color without thinking about how white people use drugs in comparable percentages as Black people without thinking about how the incarcerated are mostly Black and Brown without thinking about disinvestment in urban communities without thinking about investments in downtown communities that surround those urban communities without thinking about earned sick leave and who gets it and who doesn’t without thinking about how women make less than men and how Black and Brown women make less than white women without thinking about how glass ceilings truncate access and opportunities for our families without thinking about. . .you get my drift, right, Hillary?  Policies must be developed as if there are interconnections and must be evaluated in terms of how marginalized boats are lifted. Or not.

5. TRUST THOSE WHO ARE ON THE FRONT LINES.  Why, Hillary, do we overfill policy task forces with those who STUDY the issues as opposed to those who LIVE and WORK those issues? As long as you are trail-blazing — you know, first woman president and all — why not trail-blaze by developing an administration that seeks the counsel of those who have gained knowledge of issues confronting the country in a way that the elites have not: by "living" those issues or by working with and for those who are.  Hillary, I cannot stress the revolutionary impact this could have on policy decisions. This means more than herding in groups of individuals at strategic moments to comment on policy that has already been decided; more than cherry-picking people you know will not rock the policy-boats or ask uncomfortable questions; more than one-off focus-groups or “summits” or any of the other forms of semi-engagement that allows policymakers a photo-opportunity or talking point.  There is talent out here, Hillary, talent who may or may not have academic degrees and who may or may not have a policy focus, but who are experts in the ways that policy impacts their lives and the lives of their children.  Now, I know you can’t talk to everybody, but your administration can set a tone that shifts the way America has historically seen marginalized populations (as deficits) to a new way of seeing and engaging them: as the assets they are.  

Hillary, so many are giving you their votes on faith and a promise. . .your promise.

Adding these five steps to your administration playbook won’t solve everything for everyone.

But it’s a start.

If “men in black” show up at my door after November 8th, I’ll assume you want to talk more about it.  I’d love to — and would bring some of the most dedicated change-agents you’ll ever meet.

If, however, November 9th tells a different story after all the votes are counted (Hi Donald!!), I’ll assume the “men in black” are at my door for a different reason. . .

But at that point, we all might have bigger problems.

Moving Forward,

Adar

The DOJ Ferguson Report: WHAT NOW?


Listen, is there really anything in the report that we DIDN'T know? Anything that residents HAVE NOT been saying for years?

The Ferguson report sheds light on the specifics and details, sure, but the essence of the report -- that the Ferguson police department willfully, systematically, and deliberately targeted for abuse African Americans under the color of city and state authority -- remains consistent with what we have heard from residents, and what residents have been mischaracterized as liars, police-haters, thugs -- and worse -- for saying.

So that, we know . . .

The big question remaining is "What Now?"

And an even larger question is "How serious are we about that question?"

Because if we were truly serious about a "What Now?" we would admit and examine our high comfort level and threshold for police abuse of American residents . . . scratch that . . . our high comfort level and threshold for police abuse of residents who are African American.

If we were serious about a "What Now?" we would muster some measure of grace and offer a collective national apology not only to Ferguson African American residents but to African American residents in Baltimore, in New York, in Chicago, in Ohio, in Georgia, in California, in South Carolina, in Florida -- in America, period -- because for African Americans, virtually every place IS Ferguson.

We would offer apology for our race-based blindness and amnesia about our history and our continuing anti-Blackness, which is a very specific manifestation of our overall national problem of racism/white supremacy.  We would examine why we would rather believe self-serving character assassinations of countless African American residents across the country who complain about conditions of systemic oppression than the data and statistics that clearly detail oppressive racial disproportionalities in American systems.  We would examine the ways in which they have been victimized and humiliated by individual police and apologize for and work to rectify the systems that support and protect those police.  And we would examine our media and the ways in which they frame stories for public consumption in the most stereotypically racialized ways, true or not.  And we would examine our easy consumption and belief of those stories.

If we were serious about a "What Now?" we would be real about virulently racist citizen comments calling African Americans who had been victimized by a corrupt "justice" system everything BUT Children of God.  We wouldn't try to soft-sell their racism by calling those comments "ignorant", "unfortunate", "misguided", or by pretending that they are from a marginalized fringe.  We would call those comments what they are: mainstream.

And we would also need those "well-meaning", "color-blind", "anti-racist" citizens who, in their quest to be "fair and objective", upheld the existing anti-Black system to understand that the problem was not between individuals operating on a level playing field but with a system that supported individuals acting with power and state/city authority over individuals targeted because they were African American.  There is a huge difference.  And if we were serious about a "What Now?" moment, we would need those folk to sit down and do some serious reflection about that fact.

A "What Now?" moment would require us to deliberate about what this all says about the character of this nation.  It would require us to examine and own our role in stripping away a sense of safety that should be afforded every American resident and is not . . . is decidedly not.

FINALLY:

If we were really, truly, honestly serious about "What Now?" we would talk about repair -- yes, economic reparations; reimbursements -- for Ferguson residents who have been victimized by years of color-coded, economic shakedowns by the criminal "justice" system.  We would be advocating for and supportive of a plan for addressing -- for making "whole" -- those citizens who, in fact, were robbed by the "justice" system.  There is undisputed documentation of that, and of the dollar amounts collected through the periods of those shake-downs.

There is no credible "What Now?" without addressing this fact.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOO . . .

The big question remaining is "What Now?"

And an even larger question is "How serious are we about that question?"

Moving Forward,

Adar

BLACK HISTORY MONTH: STILL AFRAID IN OUR OWN SPACES . . .

Another Black History Month. . .not that there's anything wrong with that.

But after all these years -- 45, to be exact, and if we are also counting the years of Black History Week, we are looking at a grand total of 89 years of segregating the achievements of Africans and their descendants -- isn't it time that white privilege relinquishes its stronghold on the other 11 months of the year and invites us in?

As I'm sure you know, Black History Week was established by historian Carter G. Woodson in 1926. He chose the 2nd week of February, so the story goes, because the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln were in this month.  Now the end-game was not to have a Black History Week into perpetuity, but to incorporate teaching of the accomplishments of enslaved and formerly enslaved Africans and their descendants, African Americans, in America's public school curriculum.  And -- sadly -- as this did NOT happen during the 44 years of its existence, in 1970, leaders of the Black United Students at Kent State University proposed the expansion of the week to a Black History MONTH. Six years later, the U.S. government officially recognized this expansion and in the ensuing 39 years, apparently our country is STILL more comfortable with allotting one month of half-baked treatment of African American accomplishments and history rather than another 11 months of fully-realized curriculum expanded from the same old white-washed -- and I do mean that literally -- de-contextualized stories parroted ad nauseam from year to year.

This year, the movie "Selma" is probably the closest thing this country will have to a more nuanced, contextualized, pivotal slice of history told from an African American point of view -- for what its worth (and hey, I loved the film!).

But -- as a friend of mine said -- the fact that the words "white supremacy" and "COINTELPRO" were never uttered during the film -- not once -- says so much about where we are as A People in America: that we, African Americans, STILL feel so buffeted by white supremacy, so afraid even in our own spaces, that we STILL would rather soft-sell and provide a light sugar-coating to Truth so as not to offend or turn-off others in the marketplace . . . even in the midst of what we consider truth-telling.

Sadly, it says so much about where we STILL are as a country: that Truth about the history and ongoing impact of racism in America, in its ugly, unvarnished form, STILL needs to be spoon-fed, in small doses, to people who would STILL rather believe that "race" has little to nothing to do with Black People being gunned down by police; or racialized economic inequities; or the daily micro-aggressions that African Descendants are continually told to "get over."

And maybe it also says -- more than anything else could -- why we are STILL "celebrating," 89 years after its inception, ONE month for "Black History" as opposed to honestly and unflinchingly incorporating it into the other 11.

Moving Forward,

Adar

REFLECTIONS ON THE 4TH OF JULY

Once again America is taking its annual day of self-congratulatory celebration and I must admit, I am feeling disappointed, disrespected, and a tad bit bitter on behalf of my Ancestors and the way in which their American stories are ignored.

Listening to the media programs of the day, you would think that the experiences of Africans and their descendants in this country -- federal and state sponsored and supported kidnappings, enslavement, torture, rape, Black Codes, Jim Crow, and the modern day James Crow Esq. (still!!), etc. -- never happened.

The fact is that on this day, African Americans are left out of the popular American Narrative. We do not fit into America's description of itself as ". . . land of the free" where ". . . all men are created equal".

We do not fit.

Our very presence is a "gotcha!" to America's sense of itself as a fair country; a meritocracy; a land of opportunity where ANYONE can get ahead if they only work hard enough.

Our history here -- despite President Obama and the myth of a "post-racial" society -- proves the lie of that.

And this is not to say that there haven't been opportunities for success at all points in American history for African Americans. However, what success has been achieved -- and there is more than plenty on which to brag --has been more as a result of the drive, perseverance, resilience, and heart of African American individuals, families, and communities than as a result of any inherent fairness and equity of America. We have had to shed massive amounts of blood and have had to swallow generations of American race-based injustice to advance this far.

In other words, African Americans have succeeded DESPITE American obstacles of structural racism and white supremacy, and policies that -- for the majority of its history -- advantaged whites.

For example, white Americans have always received that extra support and bounce from federal and state public policies that -- despite being seen as "race neutral" (even when, in reading the policy, you can see that it is not) -- have served to advance the hopes, aspirations, and economic interests of whites.

From the Homestead Act of 1862 to the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 to the Serviceman's Re-adjustment Act of 1944 (otherwise known as the GI Bill), this has been the case. When you look at the disparity in wealth between whites and African Americans, these public policies -- special gifts to generations of white Americans -- must be factored in.

The same can be said for "the new Jim Crow": the system of race-based drug prosecutions and incarcerations that has targeted and decimated African American families and communities. The Controlled Substances Act of the 1970s/80s -- the public policy responsible for the racialization of drug prosecution and sentencing, mandating that it takes 100 times the amount of cocaine (a drug used more often by whites) to generate the mandatory minimum sentencing time that users of crack cocaine (for which African Americans are more often convicted) receive. This year -- after millions of African American lives have been destroyed through incarcerations because of that policy -- the quantity disparity was reduced to 18:1 -- again, in favor of white usage.

Looking at the often dismal statistics of African Americans in all social indicators, including college completion, unemployment, and health, to name but a few, it is tempting -- as so many of our political candidates and others in society do -- to believe that there is something defective about African American culture, values, or intelligence. This lack of understanding about the continuing realities of African American experiences in a country where structural racism and implicit bias still reigns promotes this type of thinking.

On this "Independence Day" which celebrates American freedom, values, and culture, what
is so often left unspoken and ignored in the celebration is that only since 1965 has the government mandated that African Americans and (since 1967) women be afforded opportunities and access in employment, education, and contracting "equal" to those received by whites.

And for all the debates about whether President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive Order 11246 -- popularly known as "Affirmative Action" -- violates America's mythology of a meritocracy while advancing swarms of supposedly "unqualified" African Americans, one never hears complaints about white women being primary beneficiaries of this policy. (The argument about supposed "preferential treatment" only seems to surface when people of color, specifically African Americans, are the subjects.)

Sooooooooo . . .

On this day, I will continue to look past the propaganda of "American history" that is being promoted on radio and television programs. I realize that what is really being discussed is how America WANTS to see itself, not the reality of how America was and -- too often -- still is. I realize that the story of my Ancestors is whitewashed and relegated to the sidelines on this day, especially. The American narrative cannot fit certain American truths in the story and still keep its popular mythological framing.

But I will look forward to the time -- in this country that is becoming increasingly Black and Brown -- when the 4th of July incorporates, at its core, the lenses of African Americans and others whose journeys and experiences here were different, and who have always formed much more of the backbone of America than for which we are ever given credit.

Until then, "Independence Day" -- in this America which is still held firmly in the grip of "whiteness" as a central concept and central framing of its story -- is as much a fiction as the myths it celebrates. And it enslaves white America in ignorance through its incomplete framing just as much as it continues to ignore the stories and realities of all Americans who are not white.

Happy . . . if you are satisfied with that . . . 4th of July. . .

Moving Forward,

Adar

The Murder of Trayvon Martin: The Larger Issue at Stake

Like many across the country, I have been watching this case unfold with growing horror, sorrow, disgust – and a sense of familiarity, because we’ve seen this and similar scenarios play out many times before across the span of this country’s history.

And it is because of this situational familiarity that I find my feelings about this shooting compounded by the way in which this case is being prepared, packaged, and served to the general public by many in the media as an isolated tragedy instead of yet another in a long series of race-based profiling, stalking, and murder.

Once "mainstream" media finally found this story worth reporting (yes, it was in the public consciousness of Black media for more than a minute before breaking into the consciousness of “mainstream” media the way it finally has. . .), the question de jure seems to be some variation of "was this really about race or was it just a bad law?" And the self-admitted shooter, George Zimmerman, is increasingly being "packaged" as a person with "mental problems", thereby cutting off any discussion of how his racialization and stereotyping of a Black youth fueled and informed his stalking and shooting him. Just as importantly, this type of packaging serves to truncate needed discussion of the examination of the history and racial climate that supports those stereotypes and the continuing dehumanization of Black males in public consciousness.

Much has been made of the shooter’s ethnicity -- Latino -- without any acknowledgement that the racial spectrum within the Latino community ranges from those with white-skin privilege and those who are seen as of Afrikan descent. There is no acknowledgement that the experiences of Latinos without white-skin privilege often mirror those of African Americans in this society.

But with all of this historical perspective, there are still the questions and hand-wringing regarding the issue of whether race really, truly played a role in this stalking and shooting.

Can there really be any doubt of this, even after listening to the 911 recording of George Zimmerman's call? To me -- and I refuse to believe that I am the ONLY one who holds this opinion -- this George Zimmerman call confirmed that HE knew what role race plays in America; that he acted based on that racial difference; and that he acted on American assumptions and perceptions of that difference: i.e. the historical American stereotype of Black men as dangerous madmen that are always guilty of something and must be stopped at any cost.

Just weeks ago, we have seen this stereotype and others (. . . lazy, trifling, broke, etc., etc., etc.) being played out in the remarks made regarding African Americans by Republican presidential candidates, so it is no surprise that some of them have used this shooting as yet another flame-thrower to stoke the flames of white racial resentment against President Obama in particular and African Americans in general.

Newt Gingrich -- who prides himself on being a historian -- dared to say on a radio show about President Obama's statement of empathy to Trayvon's parents (regarding thinking about his own children when he thought about Trayvon):

“What the president said in a sense is disgraceful. It’s not a question of who that young man looked like.” He continued "Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background. Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”

Another (former) presidential candidate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, agreed with him, saying ". . . the president should not have brought Martin’s race into the forefront and connected it to his own".

In other words, we must remain "colorblind" to the fact that -- according to the shooter’s 911 call, at least -- race was the very heartbeat of this.

For Gingrich and Bachmann to ignore the racialized nature of this shooting -- and to cynically and strategically accuse the president of race-baiting – without any significant public outcry is what helps support the continued climate for more Trayvon Martin-type cases.

As I see the protests across the nation and people -- including white progressives -- throwing on hoodies and holding signs that say "I am Trayvon Martin" I wonder why they are not protesting the larger issue of the racial -- the "anti-Black male" -- climate in which we live. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need to want to DO something "touchable" and immediate, like a rally. But really, focusing on this ONE tragedy removes it from the larger context that allows such tragedies to continue to happen: that of white privilege and structural and cultural racialization, exploitation, and bias.

The murder of Trayvon Martin is one of the many race-based tragedies involving Black men, who remain the boogeymen of America's racialized imagination. From Emmett Till to Medgar Evers to James Byrd Jr. to the hundreds and thousands of unknown, un-named Black men who have lost their lives to America's racial psychosis,” Negrophobia” (the fear of Black people), the Trayvon Martin tragedy reminds us how deep in the psychotic clutch of “Negrophobia” -- manifesting as "the assumption of guilt of Black men (for any and every reason)" -- America still remains.

And that presumption of guilt was in full display on message board and comment sections of the web when "mainstream" media first finally caught up to Black media's exploration of this case. Commenters suggested that Trayvon Martin himself was somehow responsible for his own death. They claimed that he should not have been wearing a hoodie, that he somehow was "aggressive" toward the shooter, that his very presence as a Black youth was enough to warrant a death sentence as it was his responsibility to let the shooter know that he was not a threat. Moving along this train of thought, commenters had no hesitation in stating that, in not adequately letting the shooter know that he was not a threat, he left the shooter with no alternative but to "protect" himself against the deadly combination of skittles, iced tea, a hoodie, and -- oh yeah -- a Black person who felt he had a right to walk the street "innocent until proven guilty".

A dear friend of mine always says that "learning is a journey, not a destination" but after 400+ years you have to wonder whether white America has some kind of learning disorder when it comes to race.

When will there be a public outcry at our questions of WHETHER race played a role in this? At our willingness to de-contextualize these incidents from America’s history of race? To continue to look at them OUTSIDE of the context of America's DNA of structural racism?

Because every time we do that, we give tacit permission for it to happen again.

When there is no public indignation at the political battle cry of "take our country back" or the misrepresentation of remarks like those made by Gingrich and Bachmann; when there is no front-and-center acknowledgement by those -- and especially those who are white -- who participate in rallies and who proudly wear their hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin about how white privilege continues to operate in society; when there is no acknowledgment that had it been THEIR sons in Zimmerman's cross-sights we would not even be having this conversation; and when communities of color stand shoulder to shoulder with them without demanding these conversations, then we all collude in supporting the climate for this to happen again.

This issue is larger than the murder of Trayvon Martin; it is the continuing legacy of the 400 years of history that fueled it.

To just focus on this one murder, as tragic as it is, is a mistake that lets us off the hook of discussing the larger, harder issues of structural racism, American anti-Blackness, and the dehumanization of Black people – and specifically Black men -- while making us feel as if we are doing something other than guaranteeing more of the same.

If we really want to do something for Trayvon, let's do more than throwing on a hoodie. Let's face the racial realities of this country, and the danger it creates for African American men and those of us who love them.

Because the truth of the matter is that we are NOT all Trayvon Martin, no matter how big the hoodie. Race trumps dress. To pretend any differently -- especially in the name of solidarity -- promotes the false concepts of colorblindness in the ways in which we are "differently placed" in society based on race. It ignores the prime position that the privilege of white skin still holds in America.

And we owe Trayvon -- and all our sons and daughters -- the opportunities that they will gain in life if we face that reality. And we owe society -- who would benefit from their talents, skills, intelligence, numbers, earning potential, and cultural richness -- the opportunity to have that.

Speaking of “reality”: the reality of this situation is that if we had honestly done this sooner instead of fostering and legitimizing an atmosphere of “colorblindness” and the denial of continuing structural racism and anti-Blackness, Trayvon Martin and other young Black men like him, might be alive today.

Moving forward,

Adar

The Presidential Campaign "Rite of Passage": The Flogging of Black America

Okay, first let me say that I am soooo not being "political" here. But I always have an eye on public policy and am mindful of the ways in which it shapes life's chances and choices, and it is in that spirit that I am writing this.

You'd have to be willfully and deliberately oblivious not to notice that the flogging of Black America is a time honored "rite of passage" for all presidential candidates -- Democrat and Republican. From the GOP strategist Lee Atwater –- whose playbook of intentional and strategic use of coded race-baiting is still being used by candidates today –- to President Barack Obama, who, on his way to a presidential win, famously lectured Black America to be better fathers and to “. . .stop praising yourselves for mediocre accomplishments. . .” (Apparently, it is okay for white America to continue praising themselves for mediocre accomplishments as he had no such comparable message for them on this subject. . .)

In the presidential campaign, the “flogging of Black America” is a rite of passage that cannot be skipped, and every candidate wants their –- as it is described in political terms and yes, this is a real political phrase -- “Sister Souljah* moment” in the sun.

So now we have the newest crop of GOP candidates, who seem to be vying for their “Sister Souljah moment” like it is the Holy Grail. They are sending signals as bright as high beam spotlights to America that they understand the prevailing social order, engaging in a public whole sale "beat down" of the African American community by reinforcing typical American stereotypes of them that have little to do with reality but everything to do with the stereotypes and fears that white America holds of them.

Below are just some of the quotes GOP candidates have made about 40 million Americans – African Americans -- that have been uncritically received by much of “mainstream” media and much of the general public:

Newt Gingrich in Iowa: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

Rick Santorum in Iowa: "I don’t want to make Black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to earn the money and provide for themselves and their families..."

Ron Paul in a December 1989 edition of his Investment Letter: that "racial violence will fill our cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves'." (NOTE: This is just one of many, many, many comments [older and more recent] that he and/or others in his name have made about African Americans.)

Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum in July 2011: Both signed a pledge claiming that African American children were more likely to grow up in stable families during slavery than in contemporary times.

So what does this sick rite of political passage – the “Sister Souljah moment” -- say about the role, place, and perspective accorded to and about African Americans in American consciousness?

For all the candidates’ campaign rhetoric about their visions of “freedom” and “liberty”, their characterizations of African Americans are more like the popular 19th and 20th Century stereotype of the lazy, ignorant, recalcitrant, child-like African/African American “slave” that continues to live in the American popular cultural narrative. Which makes me wonder whether their visions of “freedom” and “liberty” are –- like their speeches –- color-coded.

Should African Americans be comfortable with a president who has such mindsets about the African American community?

WOULD YOU be comfortable with a president with such mindsets about African Americans setting public policy?

From their statements, these candidates seem to believe that the “Sister Souljah moment” is still good political capital for capturing votes.

In November, we’ll see whether America agrees that that is true.

Moving Forward,

Adar

*A “Sister Souljah moment” happens when a candidate obviously and deliberately –- and often in a forum that is considered “Black” by white America–- repudiates the realities, issues, concerns, and agendas that are being put forth as having special impact on “Black America.” This is often done through racialized coding that is embedded within the surface remarks of that candidate. NOTE: Even the phrase “Sister Souljah moment” -- and the context in which it is used -- demeans, mangles, and denigrates the context in which her remarks were made as well as turns attention from the historical context from which she was speaking.

"WHY BLACK AMERICA ISN'T 'OCCUPYING' "

For months I’ve been following the “Occupy” mobilizations and pondering what –- quite frankly –- felt “wrong” about something that -– on the face of it -– seems oh, so right.

Then I read an article by journalist Stacey Patton ("Occupy isn't black America's fight", The Washington Post Outlook section, 11.27.2011), who oh-so-brilliantly provides the context and sheds light on what seems to be Black America’s relationship with this overwhelmingly white mobilization.

In her article, “Occupy isn’t Black America’s Fight”, Ms. Patton serves up an October 2011 Fast Company survey finding that African Descendants, who are 12.6% of the population in America, make up only 1.6% (!!!!!!!!) of the Occupy Wall Street mobilizations. As New York WBAI radio host and producer Nathalie Thandiwe summed up in the Patton interview: “Occupy Wall Street was started by whites and is about their concern with their plight. Now that capitalism isn’t working for ‘everybody’ some are protesting.”

Talk about speaking Truth!

There has not been a time in this country’s history when income inequality, unemployment, disparate economic opportunity, and America’s capitalist system have not been racialized. Yet –- all of a sudden -– these things are JUST NOW coming into the public consciousness of “everybody” else –- enough for them to start mobilizations? Although few say this publicly, there is much chatter and questioning regarding where “they” have been for all the years that communities of color have been organizing around these very same issues. And it is not going un-noticed how -- instead of joining mobilizations of color that have structure, clear messages, actual strategies, and organizing experience -- “Occupy” mobilizers are instead perpetuating historical plantation dynamics when they insist that people of color join THEM in agendas developed according to THEIR racialized interests, experiences, and goals.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems as though the offer being made to people of color by Occupiers is the offer of cleaving to an agenda of THEIR making, choosing, experiences and suffering, while being allocated segregated “safe spaces” to discuss their own concerns in return.

And they are expressing surprise that many activists of color are declining their urgent invitations.

In Patton’s article, a New Jersey comedian says “high joblessness and social disenfranchisement is new to most of the Wall Street protesters. It has been a fact of life for African Americans since the beginning.”

And he is not joking.

“Black America’s fight for income inequality is not on Wall Street, but is a matter of day-to-day survival. The more pressing battles are against tenant evictions, police brutality and street crime. This group doesn’t see a reason to join the amorphous Occupiers,” Stacey Patton affirms.

And it is that crucial difference in focus, history, and “lived experience” –- along with the (I’m sure) unconscious but palatable plantation dynamics –- which is keeping the “Occupy” mobilizations majority white.

Patton states “Beyond a lack of leaders to inspire them to join the Occupy fold,
[B]lacks are not seeing anything new for themselves in the movement. Why should they ally with whites who are just now experiencing the hardships that [B]lacks have known for generations? Perhaps white Americans are now paying the psychic price for not answering the basic questions that [B]lacks have long raised about income inequality.”

Perhaps. Or perhaps “Occupy” mobilizers will stay in the game as long as it takes for THEIR interests to be met. And organizers and communities of color will once again be left in the dust of their “safe spaces.”


Moving Forward,

Adar

CELEBRATING "THE DREAM" OR LIVING "A NIGHTMARE"?

Today is the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and, of course, the only thing that too many Americans seem to know about this great man – his “I Have a Dream” speech –- is on full display as the national narrative for this event is being woven by media and participants.

Looking at and listening to the dedications and speeches and remembrances, I admit that, rather than feeling pleasure and pride, I am feeling sadness and pure panic:

• Panic that this dedication will be yet another reason -- for Americans who are always looking for reasons -– to say “okay, let’s now ignore racial disparities! This is more proof that we are ‘post racial’! And anyone who says otherwise is a race-baiter and a racist!”;

• Panic that we will forget the economic realities of living Black in America: that the unemployment rate for African Americans is the highest that it has been in 27 years at 16.2% (when the total national unemployment rate stands at 9.1%);

• Panic that as a country we continue to demonize African Americans as thugs and criminals – even those as young as 8 years old! -- instead of correcting a system that encourages gross disparities in the sentencing and imprisonment of Black men, and increasingly Black women, and that feels no shame or remorse about their state-sanctioned killing even when there is reasonable doubt supporting their innocence;

• Panic that we live in a country that is okay with disparities that disproportionately impact African Americans, whether economic, legal, educational, health and well-being, and in just about every systemic indicator of health and life in America.

How can this country –- who now professes to love the Reverend Doctor King as a great man, a great AMERICAN, for all they tormented and demonized him when he was alive – not know any of his other writings that so clearly address the economic disparities and other issues that we are so tragically facing now?

How can this country ignore with clear conscious the increasing and racialized gap between rich and poor? And how can we say that we adhere to the great man’s message when the two most media-prominent mobilizations –- the tea party and the “occupy” movements –- are majority white and acting out of all the privileges of that whiteness?

As much as my heart might want, celebrating today as progress for “The Dream” seems more of a matter of celebrating symbol over substance. But too many Americans are living in this on-going racialized nightmare, which this country seems determined to ignore, for that to happen.

In Dr. King’s last book, “Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos to Community” (New York: Harper and Row, 1967) he said:

“Let us take a look at the size of the problem through the lens of the Negro’s status in 1967. When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was 60% of a person. Today another curious formula seems to declare that he is 50% of a person. Of the good things in life he has approximately one-half those of whites; of the bad he has twice those of whites. Thus half of all Negroes live in substandard housing, and Negroes have half the income of whites. When we turn to the negative experiences of life, the Negro has a double share. There are twice as many unemployed. The rate of infant mortality (widely accepted as an accurate index of general health) among Negroes is double that of whites.”

Forty-four (44) years later, for all that we acknowledge changes, let’s at least have the courage to admit that not much has changed on that score. And for all the symbolism of his memorial now being on the National Mall, neither has the following (which Dr. King also noted in 1967):

"Depressed living standards for Negroes are not simply the consequences of neglect. Nor can they be explained by the myth of the Negro's innate incapacities, or by the more sophisticated rationalization of his acquired infirmities. They are a structural part of the economic system in the United States."

Now why don’t we hear more about THOSE Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes?

And most importantly, why are we not doing anything about these structural issues?

If Americans are REALLY interested in achieving “The Dream”, they first need to acquire the will to address our on-going national, racialized nightmare.

Moving Forward,

Adar