In the middle of several wars being waged across the globe, while we’re dealing with what is, most likely, the onset of the second “Great Depression,” here, in this country, and while some African Americans are all-too-slowly coming to grips with the cold realization that the much-publicized “post-racial” society is no more than the latest cruel hoax on black people, I’ve begun to realize, more than ever, the importance of knowing our own history.
Yeah, yeah, yeah…I know we’ve all heard that line about history a hundred times before. But, you know, it really is true. Knowing precisely who you are, through a knowledge of family origins, experiences and achievements, can be a critical source of strength – especially during difficult times.
What do I mean by that?
Well, if you were Caucasian and born in the United Kingdom and your surname happened to be "Windsor," you would know that you are a member of the British Royal family. Automatically, you would tend to carry yourself in a certain, self-important way, you would grow to maturity with built-in expectations that you would do significant things, that you would literally “walk with kings” and that people would take note of what you say and would even be anxious to do your bidding.
If you were born in Kenya, into the Maasai tribe, you would know from being exposed to the lessons of thousands of years of your people’s history that females have responsibility for building the family’s house, for managing the family’s herbal and medicinal needs and creating the elaborately beautiful Maasai beadwork and clothing. You'd also know that young Maasai men have responsibility for safeguarding the tribe’s cattle and that they are expected to defend the herd against lion attacks, single-handedly, if necessary.
As, arguably, the most fierce warriors on the African continent, the Maasai also made it clear that they didn’t condone or participate in the slave trade. Consequently, the parts of Kenya and Tanzania that they called home were scrupulously avoided by Europeans who had slavery-related intentions.
So, if you were born a Maasai, and knew your history, you carried yourself accordingly, from a very early age. That was a source of strength.
A retired Japanese engineer named Jobu Suzuki once told me that he could trace his family’s history back for 500 uninterrupted years. His wife, who was Ainu, the original, indigenous Japanese people, could trace her own family history back for 3,000 years. Mr. and Mrs. Suzuki both knew precisely who they were and what was expected of members of their respective families.
One evening, as he was giving me my thrice-weekly Japanese language class, Mr. Suzuki asked me, once again, where I came from and who I really was. When I told him I was a descendent of African people, he pulled out a map of the Continent and asked me to show him exactly where my family came from.
I told him that I couldn’t, and reminded him that we had had a thing called slavery, here, in the United States, and that most ancestral records of African Americans had been lost. Mr. Suzuki was not impressed. He looked me straight in the eye and said he could not believe that I had not made a more concerted effort to find out who my ancestors were and exactly where they came from--slavery or not. In his opinion, I could never achieve my full potential without such knowledge and there was no acceptable excuse for not having it.
It was probably my single most important “Japanese lesson.”
Mr. Suzuki’s lesson finally came home to me last year when I decided to conduct more detailed research about who the Crawley’s actually were. I found that it was very difficult to get much past 1831 in Winston Salem, North Carolina, on my grandmother’s side of the family, or past the late 1800’s, in Smithfield, Virginia, in my grandfather’s family.
In my research, however, I was especially fascinated to “discover” a great uncle (my grandmother’s brother-in-law), who was born in Smithfield, in 1900. His name was Wilton Crawley and he, much to my surprise, turned out to be one of the most important early jazz clarinetists in American history. In fact, Uncle Wilton, whose band included his soprano saxophone-playing brother Jimmy, was a well-known performer on the old “Chitlin’ Circuit” (black vaudeville). He made numerous recordings as a band leader on the Okeh and Victor record labels and his CD, “Wilton Crawley, Showman, Composer, and Clarinetist” is available online on Jazz Oracle. Included on the CD were songs composed, sung and played by Uncle Wilton, such as “Crawley Blues,” “She’s Nothing But Nice,” “Crawley Clarinet Moan” and “Old Broke Up Shoes.”
Perhaps most astounding about my great uncle’s recordings and career was that on many of those songs, Wilton's sidemen included trumpeter Henry “Red” Allen, Jazz guitarist Eddie Lang and legendary pianist Ferdinand “Jelly Roll” Morton, who was famous, among other things, for claiming that he actually "invented" jazz music.
Having "Jelly Roll" as a sideman, of course, presented its own set of unique problems. Not surprisingly, jazz historians recount that both Jelly Roll and Wilton “had strong ideas of their own importance” and argued on numerous occasions about how recording sessions should be done.
Uncle Wilton, who wrote hundreds of songs and toured the United Kingdom with his band from 1930 to 1932, died in 1967.
While my siblings and I didn’t know very much about Wilton, we knew, and stayed in fairly close contact with his brother Jim, because he lived in South Jersey up until his death in the 70’s. My brother, “Booby” (given name: Morris) still has one of Uncle Jim’s original Conn 1920’s-era, vintage, soprano saxophones, which he still plays, to this day.
How, you might ask, did that family history impact my own, personal expectations? Well, equipped with all of that information, late last year, I went out and bought my own soprano saxophone and began taking one-on-one lessons every Saturday and jazz improvisation and ensemble classes, on Fridays, at the Settlement Music school.
Having been inspired by that history, I’ve discovered that I actually do have a strong attraction and, perhaps, a genetic predisposition, to playing the saxophone. I now practice on the instrument three hours a day, seven days a week.
But, here’s the "other shoe."
My brother, Mike, who has been singing professionally for more than 30 years, now, even as he excelled in his own business career, is now in the process of working with the great Bill Jolley to produce a new CD. To my great surprise, Mike has invited me and “Boop” to join in on our horns and to have our musical contributions included in the final "mix."
Hey, don’t be shocked; I might still make something of myself, musically.
Somewhere, Uncle Wilton and Uncle Jim are probably really proud, or laughing out loud.
The great shame is that it took me so long to learn of my family’s musical heritage. Many good years, in that regard, were unnecessarily wasted.
I hope there’s a lesson in there somewhere. In my opinion, finding out who we actually are, and knowing our own family histories is the most direct path to success for us as, individuals, and as an entire community.
Please go out, if you haven’t done so already, and discover your own.
######
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Two Suspicions:The Dow Jones Average and the Jobless Recovery
You know, it was really interesting to see all the stories last week about the Dow Jones Average reaching the "magical" 10,000-point level, and how that meant that the "Great Recession" was probably already behind us. If black people could quote South Carolina's infamously disrespectful Congressman Joe Wilson, they'd say that was a "lie."
In January, the Obama administration announced that the country needed a "stimulus plan" to boost the U.S. economy and to ensure that the national unemployment rate would remain below 8 percent.
The idea, I imagine, was that an 8 percent unemployment rate would be such a frightening prospect that the Congress and the American people would do almost anything to avoid it -- including passing and accepting a $787 billion "stimulus bill."
I describe that whole scenario as "interesting" for two reasons: First, I no longer believe, at all, that the "Dow Jones Average" has any valid connection, whatsoever, to the true condition of the U.S. economy. Secondly, after a year of virtually no meaningful black participation in the Stimulus Program, we black folks seem to have become a little too comfortable with our ongoing status as "second-class economic citizens," for my taste.
We clearly feel the disproportionate economic pain in our households, and the substantially higher unemployment rates for our community, and yet, we seem to quietly accept it all, and seem content to wait for economic inclusion to "trickle down" to our level.
That's tragic.
The fact is that, even as the president and his advisors were proposing the "Stimulus Bill," black unemployment already stood at 11.9 percent. Indeed, black unemployment actually reached and surpassed the 8 percent point, climbing to 8.3 percent--twice the national white unemployment rate--as early as 2007.
And now, here we are, nine months after having been economically "stimulated," with a national black unemployment rate that has climbed above 15 percent, as compared to about 9 percent for white Americans.
As early as 2005, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the median black household earned only 60.2 percent of the median white household, .7 percent lower than in 1995. Even worse, the poorest 20 percent of black households earned just 43 percent of the wages earned by the poorest 20 percent of white families (Wow, even poor white people are rich by black standards).
In the midst of all of this negative economic news for black people, the Dow Jones Average's climb to 10,000 was presented, last week, as a signal that all is right, again, with the U.S. economy -- even though there were still 15.1 million unemployed Americans, even though those people were staying out of work longer. After all, the news accounts carefully explained, "jobs are a lagging indicator" and the economy ALWAYS recovers before jobs come back. That was usually the part of the story when they would bring up, again, the concept of a "jobless recovery" -- as if such a thing could be possible, at all.
With the "10,000+ Dow" as justification, the Los Angeles Times reports, J.P. Morgan has allocated $21.8 billion for "bonuses and other compensation," for its employees and managers, including almost $354,000 for every one of the 24,828 employees in its investment banking division.
As if that's not outrageous enough, Goldman Sachs, another investment firm, is preparing to pay more than $770,000 in bonuses to each of its 30,000 employees.
Let me remind you that while all of this is going on, mortgage foreclosures have hit record levels; the FDIC, the agency that is supposed to guarantee the safety of your bank deposits, has announced that it expects to be operating "in the red," at least until 2012; more than 100 commercial banks have already failed in 2009 and the U.S is seriously "in hock" to the Chinese government.
As I implied earlier on, I'm also growing increasingly suspicious of the activities, composition and accuracy of the entire Dow Jones Industrial Average. The "Dow Jones," along with the Wall Street Journal, has been owned, since 2007, by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the same media company that also owns the FOX Cable News Channel and the rabble-rousing tabloid, The New York Post. It's fair, I think, to check very carefully the motives and accuracy of that entire group, given the reputation of its ownership.
It's not that the Dow Jones wasn't originally conceived to serve a valid purpose back in 1884, when Charles Dow and Edward Jones developed the concept. It was intended to be an index, or a microcosm, of the entire stock market, based on a sampling of companies that would represent a cross-section of the nation's major businesses. There were 11 railroad and industrial stocks included in the original index. Now, there are 30 companies, all hand-picked by the editors of the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.
Curiously, today, no matter how poorly the overall economy seems to be doing--jobs, housing starts, consumer spending, foreclosure rates, unemployment levels, U.S. exports, federal, state and local deficits-- the only true and acceptable measure of the country's economic well-being, we are led to believe, is whether or not the Dow Jones Industrial Average has moved up or down during the day.
Even casual observers, however, have recently been surprised to see, on days when virtually every one of those factors has been negative, the Dow Jones Average show an uptick -- no apparent reason, no logical basis, but an improvement, nevertheless.
That's a great deal of influence and power for a single economic indicator -- especially one that is owned and operated by the same people who bring you Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the "Tea Parties."
If the Dow Jones Industrial Average is so fundamentally important to our overall economy, explain to me, please, why, less than two months ago, Murdoch, himself, let it be known that he might very well be interested in selling it, and that his company had retained Goldman Sachs, the same guys who are about to give $770,000 bonuses to nearly 30,000 of their favorite employees and managers, to identify likely purchasers and to handle the transaction.
Here's another thing that raises my suspicion: With "the Dow" just having completed, since March, its most rapid seven-month increase in value since the 1930's, why is it that, over the past nine months, the "smart money" people on Wall Street, according to the Bloomberg Report, moved $254.6 billion into bonds, and only $14.5 billion into the hands of stock managers?
But, perhaps, this is the most worrisome thing of all to consider: Can we be absolutely sure, in a market characterized by unethical and illegal business practices, by excessively high fees, usurious interest rate levels and astoundingly high executive salaries and bonuses, that the Dow Jones Average, itself, is not being manipulated?
It's an unsettling thought, but one we simply have to consider -- whether we are a black factory worker in Philadelphia trying to restore the value in his or her 401-k or the President of the United States, in Washington, D.C., trying to restore domestic and international confidence in the U.S. economy.
And, finally, seriously, how can we ever have a true economic recovery without creating new jobs? Without jobs, people can’t buy cars, houses, clothing or anything else that used to drive the U.S. economy. Without jobs, it’s hard to imagine people qualifying for the bank loans that the Obama administration keeps saying we need.
The great hypocrisy is that all of the high-powered economists and all of the president’s advisors clearly understand that. They also understand that our country's current business model includes absolutely no incentive to businesses to increase human resource-related expenses. Until that happens, jobs will not be created, especially by the companies that are “too big to fail”and that are currently laying people off in droves.
Instead, we'll continue hearing the empty jargon of the "jobless recovery," from people who clearly know better but don’t have the “guts” to make the systemic changes the country needs to place a real priority on job creation. In the meantime, there will continue to be ongoing free access to “the vault” by the captains of the financial services industry, and even more economic marginalization for the nation's underclass and black people.
Dear Mr. President, please, say it ain't so.
########
In January, the Obama administration announced that the country needed a "stimulus plan" to boost the U.S. economy and to ensure that the national unemployment rate would remain below 8 percent.
The idea, I imagine, was that an 8 percent unemployment rate would be such a frightening prospect that the Congress and the American people would do almost anything to avoid it -- including passing and accepting a $787 billion "stimulus bill."
I describe that whole scenario as "interesting" for two reasons: First, I no longer believe, at all, that the "Dow Jones Average" has any valid connection, whatsoever, to the true condition of the U.S. economy. Secondly, after a year of virtually no meaningful black participation in the Stimulus Program, we black folks seem to have become a little too comfortable with our ongoing status as "second-class economic citizens," for my taste.
We clearly feel the disproportionate economic pain in our households, and the substantially higher unemployment rates for our community, and yet, we seem to quietly accept it all, and seem content to wait for economic inclusion to "trickle down" to our level.
That's tragic.
The fact is that, even as the president and his advisors were proposing the "Stimulus Bill," black unemployment already stood at 11.9 percent. Indeed, black unemployment actually reached and surpassed the 8 percent point, climbing to 8.3 percent--twice the national white unemployment rate--as early as 2007.
And now, here we are, nine months after having been economically "stimulated," with a national black unemployment rate that has climbed above 15 percent, as compared to about 9 percent for white Americans.
As early as 2005, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the median black household earned only 60.2 percent of the median white household, .7 percent lower than in 1995. Even worse, the poorest 20 percent of black households earned just 43 percent of the wages earned by the poorest 20 percent of white families (Wow, even poor white people are rich by black standards).
In the midst of all of this negative economic news for black people, the Dow Jones Average's climb to 10,000 was presented, last week, as a signal that all is right, again, with the U.S. economy -- even though there were still 15.1 million unemployed Americans, even though those people were staying out of work longer. After all, the news accounts carefully explained, "jobs are a lagging indicator" and the economy ALWAYS recovers before jobs come back. That was usually the part of the story when they would bring up, again, the concept of a "jobless recovery" -- as if such a thing could be possible, at all.
With the "10,000+ Dow" as justification, the Los Angeles Times reports, J.P. Morgan has allocated $21.8 billion for "bonuses and other compensation," for its employees and managers, including almost $354,000 for every one of the 24,828 employees in its investment banking division.
As if that's not outrageous enough, Goldman Sachs, another investment firm, is preparing to pay more than $770,000 in bonuses to each of its 30,000 employees.
Let me remind you that while all of this is going on, mortgage foreclosures have hit record levels; the FDIC, the agency that is supposed to guarantee the safety of your bank deposits, has announced that it expects to be operating "in the red," at least until 2012; more than 100 commercial banks have already failed in 2009 and the U.S is seriously "in hock" to the Chinese government.
As I implied earlier on, I'm also growing increasingly suspicious of the activities, composition and accuracy of the entire Dow Jones Industrial Average. The "Dow Jones," along with the Wall Street Journal, has been owned, since 2007, by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., the same media company that also owns the FOX Cable News Channel and the rabble-rousing tabloid, The New York Post. It's fair, I think, to check very carefully the motives and accuracy of that entire group, given the reputation of its ownership.
It's not that the Dow Jones wasn't originally conceived to serve a valid purpose back in 1884, when Charles Dow and Edward Jones developed the concept. It was intended to be an index, or a microcosm, of the entire stock market, based on a sampling of companies that would represent a cross-section of the nation's major businesses. There were 11 railroad and industrial stocks included in the original index. Now, there are 30 companies, all hand-picked by the editors of the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.
Curiously, today, no matter how poorly the overall economy seems to be doing--jobs, housing starts, consumer spending, foreclosure rates, unemployment levels, U.S. exports, federal, state and local deficits-- the only true and acceptable measure of the country's economic well-being, we are led to believe, is whether or not the Dow Jones Industrial Average has moved up or down during the day.
Even casual observers, however, have recently been surprised to see, on days when virtually every one of those factors has been negative, the Dow Jones Average show an uptick -- no apparent reason, no logical basis, but an improvement, nevertheless.
That's a great deal of influence and power for a single economic indicator -- especially one that is owned and operated by the same people who bring you Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the "Tea Parties."
If the Dow Jones Industrial Average is so fundamentally important to our overall economy, explain to me, please, why, less than two months ago, Murdoch, himself, let it be known that he might very well be interested in selling it, and that his company had retained Goldman Sachs, the same guys who are about to give $770,000 bonuses to nearly 30,000 of their favorite employees and managers, to identify likely purchasers and to handle the transaction.
Here's another thing that raises my suspicion: With "the Dow" just having completed, since March, its most rapid seven-month increase in value since the 1930's, why is it that, over the past nine months, the "smart money" people on Wall Street, according to the Bloomberg Report, moved $254.6 billion into bonds, and only $14.5 billion into the hands of stock managers?
But, perhaps, this is the most worrisome thing of all to consider: Can we be absolutely sure, in a market characterized by unethical and illegal business practices, by excessively high fees, usurious interest rate levels and astoundingly high executive salaries and bonuses, that the Dow Jones Average, itself, is not being manipulated?
It's an unsettling thought, but one we simply have to consider -- whether we are a black factory worker in Philadelphia trying to restore the value in his or her 401-k or the President of the United States, in Washington, D.C., trying to restore domestic and international confidence in the U.S. economy.
And, finally, seriously, how can we ever have a true economic recovery without creating new jobs? Without jobs, people can’t buy cars, houses, clothing or anything else that used to drive the U.S. economy. Without jobs, it’s hard to imagine people qualifying for the bank loans that the Obama administration keeps saying we need.
The great hypocrisy is that all of the high-powered economists and all of the president’s advisors clearly understand that. They also understand that our country's current business model includes absolutely no incentive to businesses to increase human resource-related expenses. Until that happens, jobs will not be created, especially by the companies that are “too big to fail”and that are currently laying people off in droves.
Instead, we'll continue hearing the empty jargon of the "jobless recovery," from people who clearly know better but don’t have the “guts” to make the systemic changes the country needs to place a real priority on job creation. In the meantime, there will continue to be ongoing free access to “the vault” by the captains of the financial services industry, and even more economic marginalization for the nation's underclass and black people.
Dear Mr. President, please, say it ain't so.
########
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Media Mobs and Making Your Own Decisions
The great American humorist, self-proclaimed early Confederate sympathizer and latter-day abolitionist, Mark Twain once said, after he was mistakenly believed to have died in 1897: “The report of my death is an exaggeration.”
If Twain were alive today, we could roll him out to say the very same thing about America’s media outlets and the state of journalism, itself, and he would, once again, be “dead right.”
It appears that the more we hear about the imminent demise of “traditional media,” such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, the more influential and intrusive they manage to become.
A recent Pew research report informs us that “nearly one out of every five journalists working for newspapers in 2001 is now gone,” and that newspaper ad revenues have declined, by about 23 percent, in the last two years. In addition, a division of one of the global advertising agency holding companies recently announced that overall U.S. media advertising revenues in the second quarter 2009 had declined by 18 percent and are expected to be down by 14.5 percent for the full year – the worst performance since the Great Depression.
If this is the end for “mainstream media,” however, they seem to be, collectively, “going out with a bang.”
In fact, over recent years, and especially over the past two, it seems that media outlets have done much more than simply report the “news.” Today, driven by aggressive cable news networks, they have begun to craft and, then, totally dominate the public agenda and to dictate the directions taken by an increasingly intimidated body of elected officials.
National legislation, it seems, no longer starts from the ground up (the voters), or even from the top down (the president and the Congress). Instead, public issues are initiated and driven to action by increasingly revenue-challenged, ratings-desperate media outlets.The observations of their pundits and analysts are cobbled together with carefully edited video clips and “sound bites” and repeated numerous times each day—all designed to move polling numbers and to influence the men and women for whom we actually vote. Anymore, this is how we, in America, determine which issues are worthy of public attention, which appointed government official deserves to continue his or her employment, which non-profit agency should continue to receive federal funds and how healthcare will be delivered to American citizens, among other things.
I’m aware that right-wing commentators have taken great issue with their followers being described as members of a “mob,” but that description also seems to be appropriately applied to some of the media outlets, themselves.
I’ve watched, for example, the virtual overnight re-branding of ACORN, a politically ambitious but fundamentally constructive advocate for the poor and for low-income housing needs. In less than two weeks, ACORN, which was founded in 1970, by mainstream community activists, was conveniently portrayed by Fox, in virtually every video clip and audio reference, as a primarily black-managed enterprise.(To Fox producers and audience members, I imagine, that made them more readily suspicious and prone to ethical lapses).
ACORN’s nearly 40 years of credible achievements were marginalized and dismissed during a legally debatable, secretly videotaped entrapment exercise and amid subsequent allegations that the organization had been involved in unethical and/or illegal activities. It was, in short order, stripped by overwhelming, media-inspired votes in the House (345-75) and the Senate (83-7) of its federal funding.
That, friends, is how mobs generally operate: frenzied, irrational, remorseless, outcome-oriented, and, sometimes, lethal. It’s been scary to watch. Today, ACORN…tomorrow, who knows?
All I do know is that, years ago, when I worked at one of the country’s largest commercial banks, there was, arguably, only one community-based organization--locally or nationally ─ that banks respected and responded to, and that was ACORN. I remember quite clearly ACORN’s representatives speaking out in defense of poor and black people who had been denied mortgages, unfairly, by the banking industry. I recall how the bank’s executive managers would get nervous and go immediately on the defensive when ACORN would show up, asking for evidence that the financial institution had been adhering to its obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act(CRA), which required banks to make loans in communities consistent with the value of deposits drawn from those neighborhoods. The banks, including the one where I worked, knew that ACORN’s people had a firm knowledge of the CRA laws and that they understood that when banks were in violation of those laws they could have expansion, merger or acquisition plans delayed or totally derailed. That was a huge, potential financial impact – and the banks didn’t like it and they hated ACORN.
That was the ACORN I remember – far different than the way it’s been presented by the Fox News Channel. It should also be noted that, in several conservative media outlets, the work that ACORN did as advocates for low-to-moderate income mortgages has been blamed, illogically, as the reason for the collapse of Wall Street and the country’s financial markets. Can you spell “ludicrous?”
I’m sure you’ve heard the oft-repeated and entirely unsubstantiated argument posed by otherwise intelligent economic observers that the financial markets went into a tailspin because “people who really didn’t deserve to own their own homes,” i.e., poor black people, were brought into the residential real estate market under CRA and ACORN. Even if they don’t really believe what they’ve been saying about ACORN’s work for the economically disadvantaged, these guys will never, it seems, stop saying it. They seem to be holding a grudge.
It’s been disappointing to me that people who should know a lot better haven’t publicly denounced that blatant racist, wholly inaccurate reasoning. If they really believe that it was irresponsible African Americans who single-handedly brought down the American and global economies, I can’t wait to hear their explanation for the imminent melt-down of the commercial real estate market. Too many undeserving, poor, black people owning suburban shopping malls, office skyscrapers and luxury condominiums?
It’s also been a disappointment that our Congressional representatives have been so quickly and easily led to dismiss ACORN’s 40-year history of support for poor people. It’s been a disgrace that our new president, who was so dependent on ACORN, and groups like it, to do legally sanctioned voter registration that led to his victory in 2008, has been so mum on the subject, watching as his former supporter, ACORN, continues to be unfairly vilified.
What’s happening to ACORN – at the hands of conservatively biased, ratings-challenged media-- carries unsettling implications for us all. Even if there is evidence that some people at ACORN have conducted themselves unethically, and that they, as individuals, deserve to be dismissed or adjudicated, we really can’t afford to make the philosophical jump to believing that ACORN, in its entirety, should be closed down. We shouldn’t treat that institution any differently than we have treated banks, credit card companies, investment firms and automobile manufacturing companies, whose executives have violated the public trust and enriched themselves, inappropriately and unethically.
The final decision for ACORN, the “mob” notwithstanding, should be no different.
Recently, the public editor of the New York Times, in a column in that paper, apologized to readers for being late in its coverage of Fox’s version of the ACORN story. He also disclosed that the Times was assigning an editor, now, to monitor “opinion media,” to ensure that the newspaper won’t miss out, or be late, the next time the journalistic mob is being formed.
As if all of this hasn’t been outrageous enough, two weeks ago, Saturday Night Live (SNL) presented a sketch in which one of its cast members, Fred Armisen, played the part of President Barack Obama. During the bit, Armisen/Obama looked out at the audience, sitting presidentially behind his desk, and said, “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far – and that is nothing.”
The sketch was not so much notable for its humor--it was just marginally funny ─ as it was for the fact that it showed that the network, through its comedy writers, has apparently decided to publicly communicate precisely what Obama’s critics have been saying among themselves, for awhile now.
While that kind of political humor has been a staple of Saturday Night Live for years, the disturbing thing about the sketch was the tone of national media coverages it produced the next day, most of which marked their outlets as anxious to join “the mob,” if they hadn’t done so, already.
For example, the headlines on the CNN website read: “SNL Obama Sketch Marks End of Honeymoon.” As Syracuse University Professor Robert Thompson curiously explained, the SNL sketch indicates that Obama is “vulnerable to more serous damage.”
Let me make sure I understand this: In November 2008, more than 130 million people went to the polls to vote for a president of the United States and 52.9 percent of them (69 million people) voted for Barack Obama. Now, however, because the cast of Saturday Night Live told a joke about him, the media seriously consider him to be “vulnerable…” I don’t get it.
This is all starting to feel really uncomfortable. Let’s be careful about getting caught up in the growing, reactionary mob mentality that we’re seeing from so many of our media outlets and their most loyal followers.
At times like these, it’s especially important to do your own thinking, to “connect your own dots” and to make decisions that are within the best interests of your own family and community.
####
If Twain were alive today, we could roll him out to say the very same thing about America’s media outlets and the state of journalism, itself, and he would, once again, be “dead right.”
It appears that the more we hear about the imminent demise of “traditional media,” such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, the more influential and intrusive they manage to become.
A recent Pew research report informs us that “nearly one out of every five journalists working for newspapers in 2001 is now gone,” and that newspaper ad revenues have declined, by about 23 percent, in the last two years. In addition, a division of one of the global advertising agency holding companies recently announced that overall U.S. media advertising revenues in the second quarter 2009 had declined by 18 percent and are expected to be down by 14.5 percent for the full year – the worst performance since the Great Depression.
If this is the end for “mainstream media,” however, they seem to be, collectively, “going out with a bang.”
In fact, over recent years, and especially over the past two, it seems that media outlets have done much more than simply report the “news.” Today, driven by aggressive cable news networks, they have begun to craft and, then, totally dominate the public agenda and to dictate the directions taken by an increasingly intimidated body of elected officials.
National legislation, it seems, no longer starts from the ground up (the voters), or even from the top down (the president and the Congress). Instead, public issues are initiated and driven to action by increasingly revenue-challenged, ratings-desperate media outlets.The observations of their pundits and analysts are cobbled together with carefully edited video clips and “sound bites” and repeated numerous times each day—all designed to move polling numbers and to influence the men and women for whom we actually vote. Anymore, this is how we, in America, determine which issues are worthy of public attention, which appointed government official deserves to continue his or her employment, which non-profit agency should continue to receive federal funds and how healthcare will be delivered to American citizens, among other things.
I’m aware that right-wing commentators have taken great issue with their followers being described as members of a “mob,” but that description also seems to be appropriately applied to some of the media outlets, themselves.
I’ve watched, for example, the virtual overnight re-branding of ACORN, a politically ambitious but fundamentally constructive advocate for the poor and for low-income housing needs. In less than two weeks, ACORN, which was founded in 1970, by mainstream community activists, was conveniently portrayed by Fox, in virtually every video clip and audio reference, as a primarily black-managed enterprise.(To Fox producers and audience members, I imagine, that made them more readily suspicious and prone to ethical lapses).
ACORN’s nearly 40 years of credible achievements were marginalized and dismissed during a legally debatable, secretly videotaped entrapment exercise and amid subsequent allegations that the organization had been involved in unethical and/or illegal activities. It was, in short order, stripped by overwhelming, media-inspired votes in the House (345-75) and the Senate (83-7) of its federal funding.
That, friends, is how mobs generally operate: frenzied, irrational, remorseless, outcome-oriented, and, sometimes, lethal. It’s been scary to watch. Today, ACORN…tomorrow, who knows?
All I do know is that, years ago, when I worked at one of the country’s largest commercial banks, there was, arguably, only one community-based organization--locally or nationally ─ that banks respected and responded to, and that was ACORN. I remember quite clearly ACORN’s representatives speaking out in defense of poor and black people who had been denied mortgages, unfairly, by the banking industry. I recall how the bank’s executive managers would get nervous and go immediately on the defensive when ACORN would show up, asking for evidence that the financial institution had been adhering to its obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act(CRA), which required banks to make loans in communities consistent with the value of deposits drawn from those neighborhoods. The banks, including the one where I worked, knew that ACORN’s people had a firm knowledge of the CRA laws and that they understood that when banks were in violation of those laws they could have expansion, merger or acquisition plans delayed or totally derailed. That was a huge, potential financial impact – and the banks didn’t like it and they hated ACORN.
That was the ACORN I remember – far different than the way it’s been presented by the Fox News Channel. It should also be noted that, in several conservative media outlets, the work that ACORN did as advocates for low-to-moderate income mortgages has been blamed, illogically, as the reason for the collapse of Wall Street and the country’s financial markets. Can you spell “ludicrous?”
I’m sure you’ve heard the oft-repeated and entirely unsubstantiated argument posed by otherwise intelligent economic observers that the financial markets went into a tailspin because “people who really didn’t deserve to own their own homes,” i.e., poor black people, were brought into the residential real estate market under CRA and ACORN. Even if they don’t really believe what they’ve been saying about ACORN’s work for the economically disadvantaged, these guys will never, it seems, stop saying it. They seem to be holding a grudge.
It’s been disappointing to me that people who should know a lot better haven’t publicly denounced that blatant racist, wholly inaccurate reasoning. If they really believe that it was irresponsible African Americans who single-handedly brought down the American and global economies, I can’t wait to hear their explanation for the imminent melt-down of the commercial real estate market. Too many undeserving, poor, black people owning suburban shopping malls, office skyscrapers and luxury condominiums?
It’s also been a disappointment that our Congressional representatives have been so quickly and easily led to dismiss ACORN’s 40-year history of support for poor people. It’s been a disgrace that our new president, who was so dependent on ACORN, and groups like it, to do legally sanctioned voter registration that led to his victory in 2008, has been so mum on the subject, watching as his former supporter, ACORN, continues to be unfairly vilified.
What’s happening to ACORN – at the hands of conservatively biased, ratings-challenged media-- carries unsettling implications for us all. Even if there is evidence that some people at ACORN have conducted themselves unethically, and that they, as individuals, deserve to be dismissed or adjudicated, we really can’t afford to make the philosophical jump to believing that ACORN, in its entirety, should be closed down. We shouldn’t treat that institution any differently than we have treated banks, credit card companies, investment firms and automobile manufacturing companies, whose executives have violated the public trust and enriched themselves, inappropriately and unethically.
The final decision for ACORN, the “mob” notwithstanding, should be no different.
Recently, the public editor of the New York Times, in a column in that paper, apologized to readers for being late in its coverage of Fox’s version of the ACORN story. He also disclosed that the Times was assigning an editor, now, to monitor “opinion media,” to ensure that the newspaper won’t miss out, or be late, the next time the journalistic mob is being formed.
As if all of this hasn’t been outrageous enough, two weeks ago, Saturday Night Live (SNL) presented a sketch in which one of its cast members, Fred Armisen, played the part of President Barack Obama. During the bit, Armisen/Obama looked out at the audience, sitting presidentially behind his desk, and said, “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far – and that is nothing.”
The sketch was not so much notable for its humor--it was just marginally funny ─ as it was for the fact that it showed that the network, through its comedy writers, has apparently decided to publicly communicate precisely what Obama’s critics have been saying among themselves, for awhile now.
While that kind of political humor has been a staple of Saturday Night Live for years, the disturbing thing about the sketch was the tone of national media coverages it produced the next day, most of which marked their outlets as anxious to join “the mob,” if they hadn’t done so, already.
For example, the headlines on the CNN website read: “SNL Obama Sketch Marks End of Honeymoon.” As Syracuse University Professor Robert Thompson curiously explained, the SNL sketch indicates that Obama is “vulnerable to more serous damage.”
Let me make sure I understand this: In November 2008, more than 130 million people went to the polls to vote for a president of the United States and 52.9 percent of them (69 million people) voted for Barack Obama. Now, however, because the cast of Saturday Night Live told a joke about him, the media seriously consider him to be “vulnerable…” I don’t get it.
This is all starting to feel really uncomfortable. Let’s be careful about getting caught up in the growing, reactionary mob mentality that we’re seeing from so many of our media outlets and their most loyal followers.
At times like these, it’s especially important to do your own thinking, to “connect your own dots” and to make decisions that are within the best interests of your own family and community.
####
Monday, October 19, 2009
Don't Rush to Believe "World Opinion."
Just when you think you’re beginning to understand what’s really going on in the world, you stumble across a new piece of information that allows you to further “connect the dots” and that reminds you, once again, just how misinformed and naïve you actually are.
Happened to me just the other day.
I’ve been going around and around, in my own mind, on the whole issue of Iran and the way in which Western media have tried to paint that country as an outlaw, as non-cooperative, as belligerent and as one that condones “human rights violations.” As part of all of that, every now and then, we’re reminded that Iran and other nations, which with we happen to disagree, suffer from “unfavorable” world opinion.
It’s been clear that the whole point has been to communicate to all of us that Iran’s leaders were not only too irresponsible to have access to nuclear power, they were also probably not suited to run their own country, and that the members of "the world" are in general agreement in that regard.
For awhile, they almost had me – especially when I began to see the news reports about the “secret” nuclear facilities that the Iranians have been operating away from the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the rest of the so-called “world leaders." That brought to mind, again, my nagging curiosity about the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which seems to be dragged out only when nations ruled by people of color begin to explore the advantages of creating their own nuclear energy.
If you’re anything like me, you’ve asked yourself, from time to time, why the same “stink” isn’t raised when European nations, or nations controlled by people of European descent, begin to explore their nuclear options. Recently, you’ll recall, it was North Korea that was sharply criticized for having nuclear ambitions, followed, in quick order, by Iran.
A lot of this began to become very clear for me a few weeks ago, when I revisited the United Nations Charter.
You remember the United Nations, don’t you?
That’s the organization that was established, by the Western Powers, in the mid-1940's, to control the political and economic affairs of the world, and to launch joint military initiatives, if necessary, all in the name of world peace.
There are 6.7 billion people on earth and 238 separate nations, and 192 of those nations, or 80.6 percent of them, are members of the U.N. Being a member essentially permits them to sit as delegates to the U.N. General Assembly and to cast votes on resolutions, whenever they’re presented.
There’s another separate, more powerful, body within the U.N., itself, called the Security Council. You remember the scene in George Orwell’s "Animal Farm" when the pig (either Snowball or Napoleon, I can't remember which one) said to the other farm animals that although all animals were created equal “some are more equal than others?” Well, that’s the Security Council.
The Council is comprised of 15 members, 10 of whom are rotating participants with two-year terms. The other five members – and this is where the “more equal than others” part comes in ─ are what are known as “permanent” members." They include the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China, and each has unilateral veto power. Any single one of the Security Council members can, with their one “no vote,” shut down any proposal that comes across the table from the other 191 members.
At the same time, there happens also to be a small number of nations, under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, that are defined as being full-fledged “nuclear weapons states.” Guess who they are….the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, the same countries, coincidentally, that make up the U.N. Security Council.
There are four other nations – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – that have conducted tests and that are believed to have some nuclear capability, but only the Security Council “permanent members” have been identified as full “nuclear weapons states."
So, is this what the game has been all the time? Is becoming a "nuclear weapons state" the price of admission to permanent Security Council status? Is that what you have to do to get your hands on that veto power? Is that what constitutes true world leadership? It seems that you don't necessarily have to be a huge supporter of "world peace" or even agree philosophically with the other Security Council members. All you have to do is have "the bomb" and the means to deliver it, and you are, apparently, in.
No wonder China and Russia are so routinely at odds with their fellow-Security Council member nations--the U.S., France and Britain. No wonder U.N. sanctions against Iran have been so difficult to come by.
I must admit that, in the middle of these high-profile nuclear discussions and reports about how “world leaders” feel about those things, I’ve been just a little confused about who the “world” actually is, and who its leaders are supposed to be, anymore.
You hear in the news that “world opinion” is solidly against Iran or solidly opposed to the Somalians, or is showing signs of impatience with the Nigerians, or now reflects clear frustration with the whole litany of Middle Eastern nations. It makes you scratch your head and wonder who these guys in “the world” actually are.
When the Associated Press, CNN, Fox or the New York Times give us their periodic updates on how the “world” feels, you have to wonder if they’ve remembered that there are increasingly populous and economically powerful African, Asian and Latin American nations in that world? We also have to wonder whether any of those people, from any of those places, have been asked to offer their opinions on the topic of the day?
Apparently, it seems, our media outlets still believe that it’s possible to offer a fair and accurate report of global attitudes while ignoring the input from 85 percent of the world’s population.
Has it ever occurred to them that it may be finally time to include responses from the three billion Asians other than the Chinese, from the one billion Africans, from the 349 million residents of the Middle East, and the 382 million South Americans? Don’t their opinions count?
After all, when you only consider the input of those who represent the interests of the five Security Council members you leave about five billion people on earth without a voice in global affairs, and there are growing signs that the non-Security Council members, those who constitute the rest of the world, are getting a little tired of that arrangement.
Maybe U.S. leaders and the Security Council haven’t been paying enough attention to the fact that political alliances outside of the Council are also being formed among the six Middle Eastern nations, the two South American nations, and four African nations that comprise the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and that those alliances are finding their way into discussions and relationships on the floor of the U.N. Maybe some of those relationships are behind the talk you hear about restructuring the Security Council, or even the “buzz” about moving U.N. headquarters to a country outside the U.S.
According to one definition, “world opinion” can be identified when there is general consensus among informed and interested individuals around the world, involving major global issues.”
The problem, however, is that many experts doubt that the concept has any true validity. They hold that true “world opinion cannot be measured because there is no single, general framework capable of drawing credible responses" from people in rural areas of emerging and developing nations. What, for example, does the villager in China, or in Zimbabwe or in Colombia really think about Nuclear Proliferation?
Hence, it seems, the “world opinion” we’ve been routinely given on nations, including Iran, Somalia, Nigeria and China, is almost certainly bogus, manufactured to hold onto a rapidly deteriorating status quo and to create political and media advantage.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, we’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there really is a world beyond Europe, the U. S. and Canada, and that pretending that it doesn’t exist is just not going to “get it” anymore.
I hope it’s not already too late.
######
###############
Happened to me just the other day.
I’ve been going around and around, in my own mind, on the whole issue of Iran and the way in which Western media have tried to paint that country as an outlaw, as non-cooperative, as belligerent and as one that condones “human rights violations.” As part of all of that, every now and then, we’re reminded that Iran and other nations, which with we happen to disagree, suffer from “unfavorable” world opinion.
It’s been clear that the whole point has been to communicate to all of us that Iran’s leaders were not only too irresponsible to have access to nuclear power, they were also probably not suited to run their own country, and that the members of "the world" are in general agreement in that regard.
For awhile, they almost had me – especially when I began to see the news reports about the “secret” nuclear facilities that the Iranians have been operating away from the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the rest of the so-called “world leaders." That brought to mind, again, my nagging curiosity about the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, which seems to be dragged out only when nations ruled by people of color begin to explore the advantages of creating their own nuclear energy.
If you’re anything like me, you’ve asked yourself, from time to time, why the same “stink” isn’t raised when European nations, or nations controlled by people of European descent, begin to explore their nuclear options. Recently, you’ll recall, it was North Korea that was sharply criticized for having nuclear ambitions, followed, in quick order, by Iran.
A lot of this began to become very clear for me a few weeks ago, when I revisited the United Nations Charter.
You remember the United Nations, don’t you?
That’s the organization that was established, by the Western Powers, in the mid-1940's, to control the political and economic affairs of the world, and to launch joint military initiatives, if necessary, all in the name of world peace.
There are 6.7 billion people on earth and 238 separate nations, and 192 of those nations, or 80.6 percent of them, are members of the U.N. Being a member essentially permits them to sit as delegates to the U.N. General Assembly and to cast votes on resolutions, whenever they’re presented.
There’s another separate, more powerful, body within the U.N., itself, called the Security Council. You remember the scene in George Orwell’s "Animal Farm" when the pig (either Snowball or Napoleon, I can't remember which one) said to the other farm animals that although all animals were created equal “some are more equal than others?” Well, that’s the Security Council.
The Council is comprised of 15 members, 10 of whom are rotating participants with two-year terms. The other five members – and this is where the “more equal than others” part comes in ─ are what are known as “permanent” members." They include the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China, and each has unilateral veto power. Any single one of the Security Council members can, with their one “no vote,” shut down any proposal that comes across the table from the other 191 members.
At the same time, there happens also to be a small number of nations, under the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, that are defined as being full-fledged “nuclear weapons states.” Guess who they are….the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China, the same countries, coincidentally, that make up the U.N. Security Council.
There are four other nations – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – that have conducted tests and that are believed to have some nuclear capability, but only the Security Council “permanent members” have been identified as full “nuclear weapons states."
So, is this what the game has been all the time? Is becoming a "nuclear weapons state" the price of admission to permanent Security Council status? Is that what you have to do to get your hands on that veto power? Is that what constitutes true world leadership? It seems that you don't necessarily have to be a huge supporter of "world peace" or even agree philosophically with the other Security Council members. All you have to do is have "the bomb" and the means to deliver it, and you are, apparently, in.
No wonder China and Russia are so routinely at odds with their fellow-Security Council member nations--the U.S., France and Britain. No wonder U.N. sanctions against Iran have been so difficult to come by.
I must admit that, in the middle of these high-profile nuclear discussions and reports about how “world leaders” feel about those things, I’ve been just a little confused about who the “world” actually is, and who its leaders are supposed to be, anymore.
You hear in the news that “world opinion” is solidly against Iran or solidly opposed to the Somalians, or is showing signs of impatience with the Nigerians, or now reflects clear frustration with the whole litany of Middle Eastern nations. It makes you scratch your head and wonder who these guys in “the world” actually are.
When the Associated Press, CNN, Fox or the New York Times give us their periodic updates on how the “world” feels, you have to wonder if they’ve remembered that there are increasingly populous and economically powerful African, Asian and Latin American nations in that world? We also have to wonder whether any of those people, from any of those places, have been asked to offer their opinions on the topic of the day?
Apparently, it seems, our media outlets still believe that it’s possible to offer a fair and accurate report of global attitudes while ignoring the input from 85 percent of the world’s population.
Has it ever occurred to them that it may be finally time to include responses from the three billion Asians other than the Chinese, from the one billion Africans, from the 349 million residents of the Middle East, and the 382 million South Americans? Don’t their opinions count?
After all, when you only consider the input of those who represent the interests of the five Security Council members you leave about five billion people on earth without a voice in global affairs, and there are growing signs that the non-Security Council members, those who constitute the rest of the world, are getting a little tired of that arrangement.
Maybe U.S. leaders and the Security Council haven’t been paying enough attention to the fact that political alliances outside of the Council are also being formed among the six Middle Eastern nations, the two South American nations, and four African nations that comprise the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and that those alliances are finding their way into discussions and relationships on the floor of the U.N. Maybe some of those relationships are behind the talk you hear about restructuring the Security Council, or even the “buzz” about moving U.N. headquarters to a country outside the U.S.
According to one definition, “world opinion” can be identified when there is general consensus among informed and interested individuals around the world, involving major global issues.”
The problem, however, is that many experts doubt that the concept has any true validity. They hold that true “world opinion cannot be measured because there is no single, general framework capable of drawing credible responses" from people in rural areas of emerging and developing nations. What, for example, does the villager in China, or in Zimbabwe or in Colombia really think about Nuclear Proliferation?
Hence, it seems, the “world opinion” we’ve been routinely given on nations, including Iran, Somalia, Nigeria and China, is almost certainly bogus, manufactured to hold onto a rapidly deteriorating status quo and to create political and media advantage.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, we’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there really is a world beyond Europe, the U. S. and Canada, and that pretending that it doesn’t exist is just not going to “get it” anymore.
I hope it’s not already too late.
######
###############
Monday, October 5, 2009
Obama Attack May Be a Blessing to Governor Paterson.
For those of you who may have been wondering when President Obama would finally get around to making a political decision that would be specifically helpful to the black community – or to any specific black person, at all – it seems your prayers have been answered.
It appears that the President’s heavy-handed, wrong-headed effort to remove David Paterson, one of only two black U.S. governors, from the 2010 New York Governor’s race in favor of State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, may very well wind up turning public opinion in favor of Paterson.
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration, through Gregory Meeks, a black Queens Congressman, who, hereinafter, will be referred to as "Brutus," sent Paterson a message that the president wants him to step aside and not run for governor because of his low approval ratings in the polls, which, they said, would make him a political liability for the National Democratic Party in the upcoming mid-term elections. There was also some far-reaching political logic released, at the same time, that projected that if Paterson did run, his Republican opponent would likely be Rudy Guiliani, who, the administration feared, would "crush" Paterson, cause the loss of New York State for the Democratic Party and position himself to run for president in 2012 against Obama.
Whew!
That’s some serious speculation, but that was their excuse for throwing the black governor under the bus – right next to Rev. Wright, next to Van Jones, next to Eric Holder, next to Kanye West, next to Louis Farrakhan, next to Jesse Jackson, next to "irresponsible" black males all over America, next to equally “irresponsible” and “corrupt” black males in Ghana, etc., etc., etc.
Let me make sure that I understand how the president and his people approach Democratic candidates that are being challenged at home…when it’s Senator Specter, if you’re Barack Obama, you fly to his state and appear at a fundraiser for him, when it’s Governor Corzine, you do the same. Why, other than the disconcertingly obvious reason, are the rules different, when it’s an African-American governor named Paterson?
Somewhere in the back of your mind, you just had to know that, sooner or later, the chickens really would come home to roost on the administration's blatant pattern of callous treatment of black folks for political advantage, and now it seems that the cracks are starting to appear in Obama's facade of political invincibility, based, in no small part, on his unconscionable attack on David Paterson.
Right after the White House sent its “get lost” message to Paterson, a Niagara Gazette columnist named Dan Glynn wrote: “Any New Yorkers who voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election undoubtedly have a different opinion after his visit to the Albany area this week.”
Glynn went on to call Obama’s action “….a rude and unwarranted intrusion into the 2010 race for Governor.”
Even more graphic was the New York Post, a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid that has arguably been most responsible for the sensational, unrelenting, anti-Paterson news coverage that has driven down the Governor’s standing in the polls.
Two weeks ago, however, there was this from the Post, describing Obama’s arrival at the New York airport where Paterson was among his greeters: “Obama Embraces Governor And All That’s Missing Is The Knife In His Hand.”
A caption under the photo carried this warning to Governor Paterson: “Watch your back, Dave.”
Later that day, with Paterson and Cuomo both in the audience for the president’s speech at Hudson Valley Community College, Obama, consistent with his previously established, anti-black-governor agenda, damned Paterson with faint praise as a “wonderful man” then went on to shower a great deal of favorable comments on Cuomo, his yet-unannounced "horse" in the Governor’s race, offering special plaudits for Cuomo’s work as attorney general.
By early indications, New Yorkers aren’t having any of it. They seem to be very much opposed to Obama’s intrusion into their local politics; more so, even, than they have been receptive to the negative images created about Paterson in their home state’s news outlets.
In fact, a Marist poll released two weeks ago revealed that 62 percent of New Yorkers do not support Obama’s involvement in the Governor’s race. Only 27 percent believed Obama's action was justifiable.
In my opinion, the Obama administration has gotten caught up in something other than what may be in the best interest of New Yorkers in this whole issue. The president also may have seriously underestimated the “juice” still left in the powerful Paterson political family.
First of all, people are beginning to wonder out loud, not just in New York, but all across the country, why the president chose to come out against Paterson, as opposed to any other incumbent Democratic governor with low approval ratings.
Aside from the obvious, it might have had something to do with David Axelrod, who handled media operations for Obama’s presidential run and who is now “senior political advisor” to the president. It seems that Axelrod had also been the communications consultant for the New York Attorney General campaign for Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former New York governor whom Paterson was brought in to succeed, and for Andrew Cuomo, the all-but-official, new gubernatorial aspirant, when he, himself, ran for New York State Attorney General. According to one media account, which quotes an unnamed White House source, “The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisors to Mr.Obama, but approved by the president, himself.”
Almost makes you wonder who’s really running the White House, huh?
Can this blatant attack on Paterson’s candidacy really be reduced to Axelrod dragging the weight of the President's Office into a political scrap on behalf of his client, Cuomo, and against one of only two U.S. black governors?
There's a growing feeling that once black, and other, voters in New York fully realize that a major reason why they have been inclined to believe the worst about Paterson is the unrelenting barrage of negative news--and opinion-- about the Governor in the New York press, they may return to being effectively supportive of him. The Obama attack may just be that kind of "wake-up call."
For black New Yorkers, especially, Paterson has a very impressive political heritage. His grandmother, Evangeline, worked as a secretary to Marcus Garvey, after arriving in this country from Jamaica. His father Basil’s contemporaries and “roadies” in New York, and especially in Harlem, included David Dinkins, New York City’s first black mayor; Charles Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee; and Percy Sutton, the former Manhattan Borough President, and media mogul, who served as an attorney to Malcolm X, as a young man. When Basil Paterson, a powerful labor lawyer by profession, was being elected to the New York State Senate in 1965, Barack Obama was just four years old. When Obama was in his senior year of high school in beautiful Hawaii, Dave’s pop was Deputy Mayor of New York City. The year Obama graduated high school, Basil Paterson was already Secretary of State for New York.
That’s an unprecedented political legacy, and those old dudes still have a lot of “chips” to cash, and will no doubt use them to help young David in any way they can – even, if necessary, against the wishes of the first black president.
The other issue for the Obama administration is that the person who will, arguably, have the largest impact on this entire situation will be Murdoch, who not only owns the New York Post, but also the Fox Cable News Network and Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal.
When the extremely conservative Murdoch only had the black governor to kick around, the New York Post and his other outlets were all-too-happy to abuse Paterson on an almost daily basis. But now that building support, or at least empathy, for Paterson can further drive down Obama’s poll numbers, Murdoch can actually be supportive of Paterson, at Obama’s expense.
It’s going to be interesting to see which way it goes, but as they say, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” It appears that President Obama's Axelrod-influenced strategy, in this case, has the potential to drive New York’s state-wide voters and its largest city’s most powerful black leaders into the same political camp – at least for the upcoming primary election.
Go get some popcorn. It’s going to be fun to watch.
##########
It appears that the President’s heavy-handed, wrong-headed effort to remove David Paterson, one of only two black U.S. governors, from the 2010 New York Governor’s race in favor of State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, may very well wind up turning public opinion in favor of Paterson.
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration, through Gregory Meeks, a black Queens Congressman, who, hereinafter, will be referred to as "Brutus," sent Paterson a message that the president wants him to step aside and not run for governor because of his low approval ratings in the polls, which, they said, would make him a political liability for the National Democratic Party in the upcoming mid-term elections. There was also some far-reaching political logic released, at the same time, that projected that if Paterson did run, his Republican opponent would likely be Rudy Guiliani, who, the administration feared, would "crush" Paterson, cause the loss of New York State for the Democratic Party and position himself to run for president in 2012 against Obama.
Whew!
That’s some serious speculation, but that was their excuse for throwing the black governor under the bus – right next to Rev. Wright, next to Van Jones, next to Eric Holder, next to Kanye West, next to Louis Farrakhan, next to Jesse Jackson, next to "irresponsible" black males all over America, next to equally “irresponsible” and “corrupt” black males in Ghana, etc., etc., etc.
Let me make sure that I understand how the president and his people approach Democratic candidates that are being challenged at home…when it’s Senator Specter, if you’re Barack Obama, you fly to his state and appear at a fundraiser for him, when it’s Governor Corzine, you do the same. Why, other than the disconcertingly obvious reason, are the rules different, when it’s an African-American governor named Paterson?
Somewhere in the back of your mind, you just had to know that, sooner or later, the chickens really would come home to roost on the administration's blatant pattern of callous treatment of black folks for political advantage, and now it seems that the cracks are starting to appear in Obama's facade of political invincibility, based, in no small part, on his unconscionable attack on David Paterson.
Right after the White House sent its “get lost” message to Paterson, a Niagara Gazette columnist named Dan Glynn wrote: “Any New Yorkers who voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election undoubtedly have a different opinion after his visit to the Albany area this week.”
Glynn went on to call Obama’s action “….a rude and unwarranted intrusion into the 2010 race for Governor.”
Even more graphic was the New York Post, a Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid that has arguably been most responsible for the sensational, unrelenting, anti-Paterson news coverage that has driven down the Governor’s standing in the polls.
Two weeks ago, however, there was this from the Post, describing Obama’s arrival at the New York airport where Paterson was among his greeters: “Obama Embraces Governor And All That’s Missing Is The Knife In His Hand.”
A caption under the photo carried this warning to Governor Paterson: “Watch your back, Dave.”
Later that day, with Paterson and Cuomo both in the audience for the president’s speech at Hudson Valley Community College, Obama, consistent with his previously established, anti-black-governor agenda, damned Paterson with faint praise as a “wonderful man” then went on to shower a great deal of favorable comments on Cuomo, his yet-unannounced "horse" in the Governor’s race, offering special plaudits for Cuomo’s work as attorney general.
By early indications, New Yorkers aren’t having any of it. They seem to be very much opposed to Obama’s intrusion into their local politics; more so, even, than they have been receptive to the negative images created about Paterson in their home state’s news outlets.
In fact, a Marist poll released two weeks ago revealed that 62 percent of New Yorkers do not support Obama’s involvement in the Governor’s race. Only 27 percent believed Obama's action was justifiable.
In my opinion, the Obama administration has gotten caught up in something other than what may be in the best interest of New Yorkers in this whole issue. The president also may have seriously underestimated the “juice” still left in the powerful Paterson political family.
First of all, people are beginning to wonder out loud, not just in New York, but all across the country, why the president chose to come out against Paterson, as opposed to any other incumbent Democratic governor with low approval ratings.
Aside from the obvious, it might have had something to do with David Axelrod, who handled media operations for Obama’s presidential run and who is now “senior political advisor” to the president. It seems that Axelrod had also been the communications consultant for the New York Attorney General campaign for Eliot Spitzer, the disgraced former New York governor whom Paterson was brought in to succeed, and for Andrew Cuomo, the all-but-official, new gubernatorial aspirant, when he, himself, ran for New York State Attorney General. According to one media account, which quotes an unnamed White House source, “The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisors to Mr.Obama, but approved by the president, himself.”
Almost makes you wonder who’s really running the White House, huh?
Can this blatant attack on Paterson’s candidacy really be reduced to Axelrod dragging the weight of the President's Office into a political scrap on behalf of his client, Cuomo, and against one of only two U.S. black governors?
There's a growing feeling that once black, and other, voters in New York fully realize that a major reason why they have been inclined to believe the worst about Paterson is the unrelenting barrage of negative news--and opinion-- about the Governor in the New York press, they may return to being effectively supportive of him. The Obama attack may just be that kind of "wake-up call."
For black New Yorkers, especially, Paterson has a very impressive political heritage. His grandmother, Evangeline, worked as a secretary to Marcus Garvey, after arriving in this country from Jamaica. His father Basil’s contemporaries and “roadies” in New York, and especially in Harlem, included David Dinkins, New York City’s first black mayor; Charles Rangel, chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee; and Percy Sutton, the former Manhattan Borough President, and media mogul, who served as an attorney to Malcolm X, as a young man. When Basil Paterson, a powerful labor lawyer by profession, was being elected to the New York State Senate in 1965, Barack Obama was just four years old. When Obama was in his senior year of high school in beautiful Hawaii, Dave’s pop was Deputy Mayor of New York City. The year Obama graduated high school, Basil Paterson was already Secretary of State for New York.
That’s an unprecedented political legacy, and those old dudes still have a lot of “chips” to cash, and will no doubt use them to help young David in any way they can – even, if necessary, against the wishes of the first black president.
The other issue for the Obama administration is that the person who will, arguably, have the largest impact on this entire situation will be Murdoch, who not only owns the New York Post, but also the Fox Cable News Network and Dow Jones, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal.
When the extremely conservative Murdoch only had the black governor to kick around, the New York Post and his other outlets were all-too-happy to abuse Paterson on an almost daily basis. But now that building support, or at least empathy, for Paterson can further drive down Obama’s poll numbers, Murdoch can actually be supportive of Paterson, at Obama’s expense.
It’s going to be interesting to see which way it goes, but as they say, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” It appears that President Obama's Axelrod-influenced strategy, in this case, has the potential to drive New York’s state-wide voters and its largest city’s most powerful black leaders into the same political camp – at least for the upcoming primary election.
Go get some popcorn. It’s going to be fun to watch.
##########
Monday, September 28, 2009
A Curious Time for Black America.
This is a most curious time to be black in America. At the same time that there has been so much early pride that the president of the United States is, himself, black, opportunities for African Americans -- including jobs, contracts, public school quality, equal access to health care, etc., are all approaching historically low levels.
Curiously, despite our worsening circumstances, African Americans, in recent years, have stopped advocating for their own issues in a forthright manner. In fact, public demonstrations, demands for fair treatment, and direct commentary on race-based issues are all frowned upon in our community -- even by some in our historic civil rights organizations. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of white, right-wing conservatives, many of whom are clearly possessed of racist values, have been demonstrating on a daily basis across the country, and recently marched on Washington to press their own agendas. (We used to do that!)
Right here in Pennsylvania, labor unions don't hesitate at all to grab picket signs and bull horns and converge on the state capital to make their wishes known to elected officials on job - related issues.
Curiously, black folks have been taught, in recent years, that this kind of activity is now "unsophisticated" and, somehow, "beneath them."
Here's something else: during the late 60's and early 70's, by most estimates, there were approximately 300 black elected officials nationwide. In a report done in 2001, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies estimated that that number had grown to more than 9,100. Current estimates stand at about 10,000. Curiously, the increase in black elected officials has not led to expanded economic opportunity for African Americans. In fact, in 2007, blacks were nearly three times as likely as whites to live in poverty, 8.6 percent for whites versus 24.7 percent for blacks.
It's curious that the political process has not produced outcomes for blacks commensurate with the time, effort, and money we've invested in it.
Talking about curious, why is it that when black mayors are elected, even with overwhelming support from black voters, that those mayors are so quick to make clear -- through word, deed and budget allocation -- that they plan to offer absolutely no special support, whatsoever, to their black political base?
That practice is not limited to black mayors, as we've recently discovered.
In the same way, the position of the Obama loyalists has always been that he can't possibly take time to address black-specific issues--even though we gave him 96 percent of our vote-- because he was elected to be "President of all the people" -- not just the "President of Black America."
On the other hand, when George W. Bush was elected with overwhelming support of right-wing conservatives, his administration catered to every whim of those voters. He didn't even make a pretense of supporting African Americans, or poor people, or people who lived in urban centers, or blue collar workers, of any kind. "W" never had to say that he was not "the President of all the people," he simply took care of those who supported him. Isn't that called 'The American way?"
Even more curious, we are now living through a period of the most clearly raced-based political discourse in recent memory. Every day, on tv and on the Internet, we see anti-Obama healthcare demonstrators bearing posters depicting the "first black President," among other things, as a witch doctor in the African bush. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, whose political idol was legendary Dixiecrat and segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond, and who fought to keep the Confederate flag flying at South Carolina's state capitol, recently screamed "You lie" at the "first black President" at a joint session of the U.S. Congress.
Outrageous, unprecedented, but we all saw it happen.
Subsequently, we've seen pundits on the left and right, black and white, weighing in on whether Wilson, the healthcare demonstrators, and their ilk, are really just, newly packaged racists.
Arguably, the most important voice we've heard on this topic has been that of former President Jimmy Carter, who described the anti-Obama healthcare activists, in no uncertain terms, as racially inspired.
We've also heard from Bill Cosby, who, I believe, shocked white conservatives, who have always been big fans of his "black responsibility" speeches, by emphatically agreeing with Carter.
For me, however, this is where "curious" begins to turn ugly and stupid: I woke up the other day and saw an attractive, business-like, black female pundit being interviewed on the Fox News Channel. She was unabashedly "trashing" Jimmy Carter, Bill Cosby, the NAACP and virtually all American black people for "playing the race card" in these recent discussions.
As she cogently explained, she saw no racial undertones, whatsoever, in anything that is currently taking place, or being said.
Under her image, on the screen, was her name -- Deneen Borelli (her maiden name, I later discovered, was "Moore") -- and her affiliation with something called the National Black Leadership Network.
I found out that the National Black Leadership Network was actually an organization named Project 21, and that it had been established in 1992 by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a right-wing, white conservative think tank, based in Washington, D.C.
I also discovered that the mission of Project 21 was to "provide broadcasters and the print media with prominent African-American conservative commentators as columnists and guests." (So, that's where they get them from!)
I learned further that, since 1992, the group's members have been published, quoted or interviewed more than 12,000 times on media outlets and shows such as the New York Times, the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy and the Michael Reagan Radio Show.
The National Black Leadership Network was the group that was rushed out to respond, in 2005, after the U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for lynching. They Network's press release said that blacks shouldn't "wallow in the apologies and regrets offered by senators, who couldn't be, in any way, responsible for what occurred, but supply our own closure by forgiving those who trespassed against us and moving on."
On another occasion, these same "professionally attired sell-outs" embarrassingly compared the beliefs of conservative Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to those held by Martin Luther King, Jr.
The scary part is that, every day, groups such as Project 21 are "fronting" on traditional media outlets and on the Internet for the right-wing conservatives who pay their bills. Unfortunately, most times, we simply see them, quite incorrectly, as independent-thinking black professionals, and, frequently, we pass along what they say as the valid opinion of a "black leader" we've seen on tv, or read about in the newspaper.
But wait, that's not the most curious thing about the Project 21 "black conservative network." No, the most curious part is that the group's director, the guy who calls the shots, the guy who books the media appearances, the guy who crafts the scripts spoken by these black "Judas goats," is a man by the name of David Almari, who happens to be 100 percent Caucasian.
Even in 2009, it appears, the "overseer" is still alive and well and controlling the activities and pronouncements of numerous black opinion-makers -- even those who appear, on the surface, to be most analytical and intelligent.
Here’s some advice: Pay careful attention to the people who offer you opinions on the issue of race in America. They, too, may be working for David Almari.
This is clearly a most curious and disappointing time to be black in America.
xxxxxxx
Curiously, despite our worsening circumstances, African Americans, in recent years, have stopped advocating for their own issues in a forthright manner. In fact, public demonstrations, demands for fair treatment, and direct commentary on race-based issues are all frowned upon in our community -- even by some in our historic civil rights organizations. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of white, right-wing conservatives, many of whom are clearly possessed of racist values, have been demonstrating on a daily basis across the country, and recently marched on Washington to press their own agendas. (We used to do that!)
Right here in Pennsylvania, labor unions don't hesitate at all to grab picket signs and bull horns and converge on the state capital to make their wishes known to elected officials on job - related issues.
Curiously, black folks have been taught, in recent years, that this kind of activity is now "unsophisticated" and, somehow, "beneath them."
Here's something else: during the late 60's and early 70's, by most estimates, there were approximately 300 black elected officials nationwide. In a report done in 2001, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies estimated that that number had grown to more than 9,100. Current estimates stand at about 10,000. Curiously, the increase in black elected officials has not led to expanded economic opportunity for African Americans. In fact, in 2007, blacks were nearly three times as likely as whites to live in poverty, 8.6 percent for whites versus 24.7 percent for blacks.
It's curious that the political process has not produced outcomes for blacks commensurate with the time, effort, and money we've invested in it.
Talking about curious, why is it that when black mayors are elected, even with overwhelming support from black voters, that those mayors are so quick to make clear -- through word, deed and budget allocation -- that they plan to offer absolutely no special support, whatsoever, to their black political base?
That practice is not limited to black mayors, as we've recently discovered.
In the same way, the position of the Obama loyalists has always been that he can't possibly take time to address black-specific issues--even though we gave him 96 percent of our vote-- because he was elected to be "President of all the people" -- not just the "President of Black America."
On the other hand, when George W. Bush was elected with overwhelming support of right-wing conservatives, his administration catered to every whim of those voters. He didn't even make a pretense of supporting African Americans, or poor people, or people who lived in urban centers, or blue collar workers, of any kind. "W" never had to say that he was not "the President of all the people," he simply took care of those who supported him. Isn't that called 'The American way?"
Even more curious, we are now living through a period of the most clearly raced-based political discourse in recent memory. Every day, on tv and on the Internet, we see anti-Obama healthcare demonstrators bearing posters depicting the "first black President," among other things, as a witch doctor in the African bush. South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, whose political idol was legendary Dixiecrat and segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond, and who fought to keep the Confederate flag flying at South Carolina's state capitol, recently screamed "You lie" at the "first black President" at a joint session of the U.S. Congress.
Outrageous, unprecedented, but we all saw it happen.
Subsequently, we've seen pundits on the left and right, black and white, weighing in on whether Wilson, the healthcare demonstrators, and their ilk, are really just, newly packaged racists.
Arguably, the most important voice we've heard on this topic has been that of former President Jimmy Carter, who described the anti-Obama healthcare activists, in no uncertain terms, as racially inspired.
We've also heard from Bill Cosby, who, I believe, shocked white conservatives, who have always been big fans of his "black responsibility" speeches, by emphatically agreeing with Carter.
For me, however, this is where "curious" begins to turn ugly and stupid: I woke up the other day and saw an attractive, business-like, black female pundit being interviewed on the Fox News Channel. She was unabashedly "trashing" Jimmy Carter, Bill Cosby, the NAACP and virtually all American black people for "playing the race card" in these recent discussions.
As she cogently explained, she saw no racial undertones, whatsoever, in anything that is currently taking place, or being said.
Under her image, on the screen, was her name -- Deneen Borelli (her maiden name, I later discovered, was "Moore") -- and her affiliation with something called the National Black Leadership Network.
I found out that the National Black Leadership Network was actually an organization named Project 21, and that it had been established in 1992 by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a right-wing, white conservative think tank, based in Washington, D.C.
I also discovered that the mission of Project 21 was to "provide broadcasters and the print media with prominent African-American conservative commentators as columnists and guests." (So, that's where they get them from!)
I learned further that, since 1992, the group's members have been published, quoted or interviewed more than 12,000 times on media outlets and shows such as the New York Times, the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy and the Michael Reagan Radio Show.
The National Black Leadership Network was the group that was rushed out to respond, in 2005, after the U.S. Senate passed a resolution apologizing for lynching. They Network's press release said that blacks shouldn't "wallow in the apologies and regrets offered by senators, who couldn't be, in any way, responsible for what occurred, but supply our own closure by forgiving those who trespassed against us and moving on."
On another occasion, these same "professionally attired sell-outs" embarrassingly compared the beliefs of conservative Supreme Court Justice John Roberts to those held by Martin Luther King, Jr.
The scary part is that, every day, groups such as Project 21 are "fronting" on traditional media outlets and on the Internet for the right-wing conservatives who pay their bills. Unfortunately, most times, we simply see them, quite incorrectly, as independent-thinking black professionals, and, frequently, we pass along what they say as the valid opinion of a "black leader" we've seen on tv, or read about in the newspaper.
But wait, that's not the most curious thing about the Project 21 "black conservative network." No, the most curious part is that the group's director, the guy who calls the shots, the guy who books the media appearances, the guy who crafts the scripts spoken by these black "Judas goats," is a man by the name of David Almari, who happens to be 100 percent Caucasian.
Even in 2009, it appears, the "overseer" is still alive and well and controlling the activities and pronouncements of numerous black opinion-makers -- even those who appear, on the surface, to be most analytical and intelligent.
Here’s some advice: Pay careful attention to the people who offer you opinions on the issue of race in America. They, too, may be working for David Almari.
This is clearly a most curious and disappointing time to be black in America.
xxxxxxx
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
If Even Babies Are Racist, How Can Racism Be Wrong?
Have you taken a good look at the September 14 issue of Newsweek magazine? That’s the one with the close-up cover photo of the innocent-looking, “butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-its-mouth” little white baby and the headline: “Is Your Baby Racist? Exploring the Roots of Discrimination.”
I have absolutely no doubt that, in the midst of our self-proclaimed “post-racial society,” that issue of the magazine will sell even better than hotcakes. I’m convinced, in fact, that the seven-page story with the controversial title will be widely read, faxed, downloaded, e-mailed and blogged about.
And because it is in Newsweek, its content will be believed and repeated as if it were the 11th Commandment.
The problem is that much of this stuff, no matter how “scientifically researched,” is irresponsibly written and downright dangerous, and will simply fan the flames of racial separatism and antagonism that we see reflected every day in the news. In fact, the story’s basic premise, that adults grow up to be racists "honestly," that they can’t help but have racially separatist views, because such attitudes are with us, naturally, from birth, is explosive and will probably be added promptly to most white supremacists’ handbooks.
Among the key points drawn from the two authors, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, are the following: Children, at a very young age, absolutely do see racial differences and it takes “remarkably little” for them to develop "in-group preferences." Anything a child doesn’t like…belongs to those who look least similar to him, and there is a "spontaneous tendency," by children, to assume that their own group shares characteristics such as “niceness” or “smarts.” The writers went on to say that when kids in a study turned three years old, and were asked to select from photos of kids they’d like to have as friends, "86 percent of white children picked children of their own race.”
The article also shoots down the validity of school desegregation and, maybe, that is appropriate, and long overdue. The concept that black children will necessarily receive a better education just because they sit next to white children in school, has, in my opinion, always been suspect. What we should have always wanted, instead, is to ensure that schools in predominantly black neighborhoods had equal access to quality teachers, books and learning formats. In any event, the article goes on to point out that the social benefits of desegregation, based on something called the Diverse Environment Theory, have, in recent studies, been proved to be substantially lacking. “Going to integrated schools,” the article continues, "gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them.”
Also cited was a study by Duke University’s James Moody, which included 90,000 teenagers in 112 different schools. Among other things, Moody found that "the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school.”
Drawing from Moody, the authors, somehow, concluded: “More diversity translates to more division among students. The increased opportunities to interact are also increased opportunities to reject each other.” Is it a stretch to assume that this same logic will soon be used, by some, as justification for across-the-board reductions in diversity initiatives in American workplaces? We're fooling ourselves, if we think not.
Also disturbing, according to the article, is that the odds of a white high schooler in America having a best friend of another race, even today, is only eight percent. On the other hand, 15 percent of blacks claim a "best friend" who is not black.
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing fundamentally improper with blacks and whites "being friends" in this society. At the same time, there are apparently thousands of black kids – and black adults – out there who think that their white friend is their “best friend,” but that sentiment, in a substantial number of cases, is clearly not shared by the white person. That confusion, that excessive desire by blacks to be considered a part of a “best friend” relationship with whites, who are simply their friends, is a sad and dangerous delusion, and one that, unfortunately, may extend far into adulthood.
As always, the people who will most believe this newly packaged “racism is natural, pure and inevitable" data will be those who consider themselves most highly educated, because publications such as Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report, newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and radio networks, such as NPR, are where they learn everything they think they know.
Over time, the highbrow sources of information to which they turn have become accepted as being “safe” and “worthy” to read and to quote, wherever other “well-informed” people gather. Once members of this “intellectual elite”--black or white-- hear or read what is reported by those outlets, they simply accept the data as the irrefutable truth, and that “truth” trumps any "other truths" found in “less prestigious” media outlets. The "Racist Baby" article will, almost certainly, be treated in that way.
When I was in the service, I had an African-American friend who attended law school at a prestigious Ivy League university and he had, at a very young age, “bought the whole package,” in that regard. I asked him one day why he still had to depend on me in my “hoopty" to pick him up and drive him to our weekend Army Reserve meetings. He told me that, according to all the information he had read, the only automobile worth having was a Mercedes-Benz, and since he couldn’t afford one, yet, he simply wouldn’t buy any car until he could. (Shortly after that conversation, of course, I stopped picking him up).
This is the same guy who would tell me he wouldn’t go to see a certain, new movie because the person who produced the movie reviews at Esquire Magazine had written that the new film wasn’t very good. It didn’t matter, of course, that my friend had been born and raised in North Philadelphia, and that he and the middle-aged, Caucasian, Esquire editor who wrote the review came from two different cultural and artistic worlds. For him, if Esquire, a magazine that he respected without question, said it, that was good enough.
That was all very sad to watch.
At the same time I found it extraordinarily informative. It let me know, early on, the awesome power that media have with regard to all of us, every day, in almost every way.
In my opinion, there is a major problem with the Newsweek cover story, which is obviously designed to capitalize on the rise of more negative, more directly confrontational and race-based activity and politics in our country.
The problem is that it makes no mention, whatsoever, of the role that the economic marginalization of African Americans and the lack of control, by blacks, over image- creation tools, such as mainstream media, play in the perceptions that children and adults have about them.
It’s true, even a three-year-old can see that black folks, on average, are more unemployed, have older cars (or none at all), own smaller homes, and don’t, with rare exception, have positions of authority and respect in the United States. That doesn’t make white babies racist, it makes them observant.
The only way to change the negative perceptions that whites have about blacks, and that blacks have about themselves, is to finally include and engage African Americans in the domestic economy.
Having 1.2 million black-owned businesses, as African Americans now have, doesn’t mean a thing if those businesses, collectively, generate just .4 percent of the country’s gross receipts, as they do. Until that and other economic disparities are corrected, let’s be really careful about highly promoted, misleading cover stories that explain the pervasiveness and inevitability of racism.
The argument in this case, especially, is poorly made, and it’s very dangerous.
##############
I have absolutely no doubt that, in the midst of our self-proclaimed “post-racial society,” that issue of the magazine will sell even better than hotcakes. I’m convinced, in fact, that the seven-page story with the controversial title will be widely read, faxed, downloaded, e-mailed and blogged about.
And because it is in Newsweek, its content will be believed and repeated as if it were the 11th Commandment.
The problem is that much of this stuff, no matter how “scientifically researched,” is irresponsibly written and downright dangerous, and will simply fan the flames of racial separatism and antagonism that we see reflected every day in the news. In fact, the story’s basic premise, that adults grow up to be racists "honestly," that they can’t help but have racially separatist views, because such attitudes are with us, naturally, from birth, is explosive and will probably be added promptly to most white supremacists’ handbooks.
Among the key points drawn from the two authors, Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, are the following: Children, at a very young age, absolutely do see racial differences and it takes “remarkably little” for them to develop "in-group preferences." Anything a child doesn’t like…belongs to those who look least similar to him, and there is a "spontaneous tendency," by children, to assume that their own group shares characteristics such as “niceness” or “smarts.” The writers went on to say that when kids in a study turned three years old, and were asked to select from photos of kids they’d like to have as friends, "86 percent of white children picked children of their own race.”
The article also shoots down the validity of school desegregation and, maybe, that is appropriate, and long overdue. The concept that black children will necessarily receive a better education just because they sit next to white children in school, has, in my opinion, always been suspect. What we should have always wanted, instead, is to ensure that schools in predominantly black neighborhoods had equal access to quality teachers, books and learning formats. In any event, the article goes on to point out that the social benefits of desegregation, based on something called the Diverse Environment Theory, have, in recent studies, been proved to be substantially lacking. “Going to integrated schools,” the article continues, "gives you just as many chances to learn stereotypes as to unlearn them.”
Also cited was a study by Duke University’s James Moody, which included 90,000 teenagers in 112 different schools. Among other things, Moody found that "the more diverse the school, the more the kids self-segregate by race and ethnicity within the school.”
Drawing from Moody, the authors, somehow, concluded: “More diversity translates to more division among students. The increased opportunities to interact are also increased opportunities to reject each other.” Is it a stretch to assume that this same logic will soon be used, by some, as justification for across-the-board reductions in diversity initiatives in American workplaces? We're fooling ourselves, if we think not.
Also disturbing, according to the article, is that the odds of a white high schooler in America having a best friend of another race, even today, is only eight percent. On the other hand, 15 percent of blacks claim a "best friend" who is not black.
Don't get me wrong. There's nothing fundamentally improper with blacks and whites "being friends" in this society. At the same time, there are apparently thousands of black kids – and black adults – out there who think that their white friend is their “best friend,” but that sentiment, in a substantial number of cases, is clearly not shared by the white person. That confusion, that excessive desire by blacks to be considered a part of a “best friend” relationship with whites, who are simply their friends, is a sad and dangerous delusion, and one that, unfortunately, may extend far into adulthood.
As always, the people who will most believe this newly packaged “racism is natural, pure and inevitable" data will be those who consider themselves most highly educated, because publications such as Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report, newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, and radio networks, such as NPR, are where they learn everything they think they know.
Over time, the highbrow sources of information to which they turn have become accepted as being “safe” and “worthy” to read and to quote, wherever other “well-informed” people gather. Once members of this “intellectual elite”--black or white-- hear or read what is reported by those outlets, they simply accept the data as the irrefutable truth, and that “truth” trumps any "other truths" found in “less prestigious” media outlets. The "Racist Baby" article will, almost certainly, be treated in that way.
When I was in the service, I had an African-American friend who attended law school at a prestigious Ivy League university and he had, at a very young age, “bought the whole package,” in that regard. I asked him one day why he still had to depend on me in my “hoopty" to pick him up and drive him to our weekend Army Reserve meetings. He told me that, according to all the information he had read, the only automobile worth having was a Mercedes-Benz, and since he couldn’t afford one, yet, he simply wouldn’t buy any car until he could. (Shortly after that conversation, of course, I stopped picking him up).
This is the same guy who would tell me he wouldn’t go to see a certain, new movie because the person who produced the movie reviews at Esquire Magazine had written that the new film wasn’t very good. It didn’t matter, of course, that my friend had been born and raised in North Philadelphia, and that he and the middle-aged, Caucasian, Esquire editor who wrote the review came from two different cultural and artistic worlds. For him, if Esquire, a magazine that he respected without question, said it, that was good enough.
That was all very sad to watch.
At the same time I found it extraordinarily informative. It let me know, early on, the awesome power that media have with regard to all of us, every day, in almost every way.
In my opinion, there is a major problem with the Newsweek cover story, which is obviously designed to capitalize on the rise of more negative, more directly confrontational and race-based activity and politics in our country.
The problem is that it makes no mention, whatsoever, of the role that the economic marginalization of African Americans and the lack of control, by blacks, over image- creation tools, such as mainstream media, play in the perceptions that children and adults have about them.
It’s true, even a three-year-old can see that black folks, on average, are more unemployed, have older cars (or none at all), own smaller homes, and don’t, with rare exception, have positions of authority and respect in the United States. That doesn’t make white babies racist, it makes them observant.
The only way to change the negative perceptions that whites have about blacks, and that blacks have about themselves, is to finally include and engage African Americans in the domestic economy.
Having 1.2 million black-owned businesses, as African Americans now have, doesn’t mean a thing if those businesses, collectively, generate just .4 percent of the country’s gross receipts, as they do. Until that and other economic disparities are corrected, let’s be really careful about highly promoted, misleading cover stories that explain the pervasiveness and inevitability of racism.
The argument in this case, especially, is poorly made, and it’s very dangerous.
##############
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
