Black History Month; The Subject that Segregates
copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org The history of Black Americans is a glorious one. It is a chronicle filled with much triumph, as well as many trials and tribulations. Yet, many debate whether a month that commemorates people, pitch in color, defies reason. Do the days dedicated to the acknowledgement of African American achievements divide us as a nation? The answer, some say is a complex one. Consider the thoughts of Columnist, Clarence Page of The Chicago Tribune. Is Black History Month already history? Well, it depends. Another view comes from a fellow Journalist and contributor to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Cynthia Tucker. She is more emphatic in her evaluation. Ms Tucker writes; Month robs blacks of part in U.S. history, It seems the subject, Black History Month, segregates opinions.
A newborn was brought to his adopted parents who, while well educated, seemingly ethical, and definitely well-established in the community were cruel to the infant. The proud father and mother were happy to take the neonate in. "Dad" and "Mom" were fine folks. Each spoke eloquently. They wrote wondrous words such as "all men are created equal." Yet, in the New World they acted as barbarians would. All that they said they thought sacred was negated. The patriarch brutally beat the baby. He may not have physically laid a hand on the toddler. Nonetheless, he had overseers do the dirty deeds. The matriarch, while outwardly sweeter, swiped at the "boy" whenever he was near. The man who acted as a father, and his spouse, did all they could to ensure the tot remain enslaved.
The head of the family provided no books for the little tyke. His wife did not discuss deeper issues with the child. Ignorance would surely suppress desires for advancement. If nothing else, a lad, without formal erudition, would not believe, he could succeed. Surely, a child who had not learned to express himself well or to imagine would not wander far. It would be best, the couple conceded, if the Black baby did not have the means to survive without assistance from the Lord and Lady of the land.
As much as the couple worked to keep the dark-skinned "boy" in his place, the curious lad proved to be creative. He invented. He was innovative. At times, he achieved beyond expectations. Still, the youngster, the adolescent he grew to be, and the adult man, pitch in hue, was not rewarded for his achievements. Traditionally, his caregivers took credit for his achievements. The pinker persons who housed him, confined the Black man to a symbolic cage, a field of cotton, a city slum, or a prison, far from civilized society.
The ebony man escaped when he could. He sought an education. He excelled when given a semblance of equal opportunities. However, even in good times, someone, somewhere sought to subjugate him. Away from his parents' home, from father and mother's persistent grip, the Black man remained subordinate. What he did well, he had to be better than his white counterparts. For Caucasians, it seemed impossible to separate him from his color.
Given an inch, an inspired "Negro" would take a mile, a week, or a month, his parents once mused. Indeed, children of color did. In 1926, Historian, Carter G. Woodson, a man born to former slaves, went on to earn a doctorate degree from Harvard and invite Americans to adopt Negro History Week. In 2009, with the first African-American President of the United States in the White House, countless citizens conclude, Black History Month isalready history.
Today, Americans are told the narrative is no longer relevant. Accounts of African ancestors "robs" purplish-brown persons of the prominent role they played in the United States. Journalist Cynthia Tucker writes, "The commemoration is a damaging form of apartheid, setting the contributions of black Americans aside as separate and unequal."
Commentator, John Ridley disagrees. He opines, and offers, Yes, We Still Need Black History Month. He believes the legends must be shared. Mister Ridley fears the anecdotes will be forgotten. Most, he observes, are yet to be told, or taught in school. Society remains segregated when the subject is race relations, or Black History Month.
Perchance that is why people in this country are, as the first African-American Secretary of State says the actions of pale skinned Americans are,"polite, restrained" when the races mix or muse over their shared history. The story of what was, and was not, in a country founded on freedom for all, is a sensitive topic, When broached, anger boils over. Excuses are made, or the embarrassed blame the Black man or woman for overreacting.
On February 18, 2009, Artist, Sean Delonas. appeared in the New York Post, The Artist once nicknamed the Picasso of prejudice, castigated the Commander-In-Chief, the first American charcoal in color to occupy the Oval Office,
Mister Delonas penned a political cartoon many thought racist. In the image, a chimpanzee lay dead in the grass. Blood streams from the two bullet holes in the primate's chest. Police shooters, gun in hand, look at the slain beast and state; "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." While some would wish to say the toon is but an innocent commentary, readers cannot negate an historic association. Anglos have long referred to Black brethren as apes. An African-American, even a President, the author of the financial package, is not exempt from scorn.
Perhaps, in a cynical way, this is the proof those who prefer we not observe Black History Month seek. In America, all men are created equal. Any American might receive praise or punishment. Surely, a defiant The New York Post Editor, Col Allen would concur.
Upon receipt of reprimands for the pictorial essay, newspaper executive Allen issued a statement in defense of the stimulus/chimp cartoon. He said the caricature was but a parody of current events. An actual chimp shot down in Connecticut was coupled with acts of Congress, or at least that is what thePost hoped people would believe.
However, many Americans remember their history. In the year 2000, long after the adoption of Black History Month, Doctor Marcus Neiman, Chairman Emeritus of Creation Anthropology at Landover Baptist University, published what was characterized as "his important findings."
In an article entitled "It Took A True Christian To Find The Missing Link," the esteemed scholar stated; "God created human beings separate from primates. There are different kinds of hominids, just like there are different kinds of mustard. There are small primates called chimpanzees. They are the cute little fellows who live in trees, like the one in that movie our greatest President, Ronald Reagan, starred in -- "Bedtime for Bonzo." . . . There are large primates that live on the jungle floor and scare missionaries, who, being Christians, are armed against them. They are called gorillas. There are even primates that play basketball, rob liquor stores, organize marches and make some attempt at imitating human speech. They are called Negroes. Regrettably, if there is such a thing a "natural selection," most of them have selected to be naturally lazy. They are living examples of the Lord's unfinished business because these more primitive hominids are still evolving."
Granted, those who think there is no need to teach Black History might argue there are infinite illustrations that counter a single comic strip or an eccentric scientist. The little Black lad of yore lives no more in modern American history.
African-Americans have arrived. Barack Obama is our President, elected by the people, Black and white. Michelle Obama, America's First Lady, an African-American scholar in her own right, by her very presence teaches Black History literally and figuratively.
Oprah Winfrey is among the wealthiest women in the world. The entertainer's entrepreneurial story is a "phenomenon, a modern-day Horatio Alger, up from roots in poorest America." Tiger Woods is highly successful. Perhaps, these accomplished individuals demonstrate "race no longer defines us,"or as Eric Holder so aptly stated, what "now passes as meaningful interaction . . . in reality accomplishes very little." Surely, we are separate and unequal when we pretend that our past does not still define us, or that there is no reason to discuss the differences that continue to divide us.
Rather than rant or rage, Black History month is no longer relevant, as a nation we might realize as our Attorney General offered, "This nation has still not come to grips with its racial past." (What) will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful," will reap rewards.
What we may learn when we honor Black History, will be "potentially great," As Eric Holder espoused on the same day the controversial Delonas cartoon appeared. The subject of segregation need not divide us. When we acknowledge a problem, we can begin to solve it.
Those who think there is no need to actively honor African-American history might wish to ponder the prominence of African-Americans who are unfamiliar to most. Might those whose names we do not know from the past, and in the present, be representative of the young Black "boy" whose parents protected him, punished him, and did not honor him, or acknowledge his accomplishments?
Please ponder the draftsman, engineer, and inventor, Lewis Howard Latimer who worked as the original draftsman for Thomas Edison. Scientist Latimer invented an electric lamp with an inexpensive carbon filament and a threaded wooden socket for light bulbs. He also helped advance our current conversation, when he drafted the patent drawings for Alexander Graham Bell's telephone. Yet, American's, for the most part do not memorialize the man who allowed us to chat more freely. Black Americans' History, a month of homage? Let us talk.
Might many have thought purplish-brown Americans arrived in 1941? When the United States went to war, Doctor Charles Richard Drew was named Director of the Blood Bank for the National Research Council. His expertise, allowed America to collect blood for the American Armed Forces. The groundwork for the American Red Cross, blood collection, and procedures that allow for the storage of plasma are attributed to this African-American. Yet, few know his name.
White patriarchs were, and are, perhaps more prominent in the minds of many who have forgotten the tale of the young lad and his adopted parents. In America, absentmindedness for a prideful past affects our present.
The African-American man or woman who sits beside his Anglo brethren is not segregated by homage to history. A lack of awareness, acceptance, and praise for a people divides America.
Perhaps the question Americans might ask is not whether to set aside days to discuss the trials and tribulations of Black people. The query, instead, might be, is colormuteness characteristic in a country segregated, not by Black History Month, but by the actions of man. Could it be that citizens wish to claim American culture is a colorblind. In a nation where racism remains rampant, albeit politely restrained, and better hidden, would Americans rather not remember the glorious history of Black brothers and sisters?
Certainly, a commemoration of feats and foibles, trials, and tribulations will not divide the country as much as ignorance of our past and present does.
References for race relations, and a reality too long restrained . . .
- A History Lesson in the East Room, By Rachel L. Swarms. The New York Times. February 18, 2009
- Learning to treat Negroes like human beings. The Landover Baptist Website. July 2000
- Delonas for Wednesday February 18, 2009. New York Post. February 18, 2009
- U.S. Is a 'Nation of Cowards' on Race, Says Holder, By Bernie Becker. The New York Times. February 18, 2009
- Month robs blacks of part in U.S. history, By Cynthia Tucker. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Sunday, February 08, 2009
- Yes, We Still Need Black History Month, By John Ridley. Morning Edition. February 17, 2009
- Is Black History Month already history? Well, it depends, By Clarence Page. Chicago Tribune. February 15, 2008
- Oprah is course focus and jumping off point for study of race issues. By Andrea Lynn. University of Illinois. February 1, 2001
- cablinasian like me, By Gary Kamiya. Salon. April 199
- New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate, By Same Stein. Huffington Post. February 18, 2009
- Unbound: Profiles in Black History. Charles Drew. 1904-1950
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 18, 2009 at 02:45 PM in Black History, Past/Present, Civics, Civil Rights, Racial Discrimination | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Are African-Americans Black Enough or Anglo Americans Too White?
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
This year, perhaps more than any time in the past, Americans are reminded of race relations each and every day. On televisions, on the radio, airwaves are filled with talk of the current Presidential campaign. For the first time in this nation's history, a viable Presidential hopeful is not a white. Barack Obama is a Black man; he is profound and has purpose. Early on, Anglo Americans, and even some people of color, wondered if Obama authentically represented African-Americans. Countless inquired of Obama's experience, not in Congress, but in the ghettos of this country. The prominent periodical, Time Magazine, published a cover story titled, "Is Obama Black Enough? As Sociologists assess, there is reason to believe another question is apt, "Are Caucasians white enough, or are they too white to understand the Black experience?"
The Black experience is as all other occurrences. Each is unique to the individual. Nevertheless, in a society where clear delineations are evident, we can observe, life as an African-American is not as easy. Circumstances common among Blacks are unthinkable to Caucasians. Anglos rarely appreciate persons of color are not truly different, only the conditions they live under vary.
While white Americans are happy to acknowledge that the Black man or woman they work with, as a singular person, is wonderful, Caucasians are quick to avow, that the individual they know is not like the rest of "those" people. Pinkish people do not understand. Hence . . .
Whites Underestimate the Costs of Being Black
Columbus, Ohio – How much do white Americans think it “costs” to be black in our society, given the problems associated with racial bias and prejudice?The answer, it appears, is not much.
When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.
In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.
The results suggest most white Americans don't truly comprehend the persisting racial disparities in our country, said Philip Mazzocco, co-author of the study and assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University's Mansfield campus.
“The costs of being black in our society are very well documented,” Mazzocco said. “Blacks have significantly lower income and wealth, higher levels of poverty, and even shorter life spans, among many other disparities, compared to whites.”
For example, white households average about $150,000 more wealth than the typical black family. Overall, total wealth for white families is about five times greater than that of black families, a gap that has persisted for years.
“When whites say they would need $1 million to give up TV, but less than $10,000 to become black, that suggests they don't really understand the extent to which African Americans, as a group, are disadvantaged,” Mazzocco said.
What Anglos do understand are the generalizations they hold dear. Black persons are different than whites, and they are, in large part because a society that favors people of pinkish paler hues has created a cast system that bars African-Americans from achieving as they might.
Incomes are lower, access to adequate educational facilities are few. Health Care coverage is out of reach for those with limited opportunity and wealth. Discrimination against those whose color differs from the main is ample. In the abstract, Anglo Americans grasp that those placed lower on the socio-economic ladder suffer. White Americans know they would not wish to live as a Black American does.
[I]n one study, whites were told to imagine that they were about to be born as a random white person in America, but they were being offered a cash gift to be born as a random black person. Once again, white participants requested relatively small sums to make a life-long race-change. In addition, some were given a list of some of the costs of being black in America, such as the racial wealth disparity. The result was that whites in this latter scenario requested significantly higher amounts than those in the previous studies – about $500,000.Finally, some participants were given a similar scenario except all references to blacks, whites, and America were taken out. They were asked to imagine they were born into the fictional country of Atria, and were born either into the “majority” or “minority” population. They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by blacks in America). In this case, white participants in the study said they should be paid an average of $1 million to be born as a minority member in Atria.
“When you take it out of the black-white context, white Americans seem to fully appreciate the costs associated with the kinds of disparities that African Americans actually face in the United States,” Mazzocco said. “In this case, they asked for a million dollars, similar to what they want for giving up television.”Mazzocco said blatant prejudice was not the reason for the findings. Results showed that whites who scored higher on a measure of racial prejudice did not answer significantly differently than others in the study.
Often those who are out of touch with what is true for another are not knowingly bigoted. As children, we learn to believe as we do. Most Americans are oblivious, no matter how well informed they, we might be.
However, if we are honest with ourselves, people know what is philosophically true for them personally, may not be valid. We are each similar, yet, never the same. A human desire to categorize places us in jeopardy. When we define others, or ourselves as Black or white we cripple our communities, as evident through statistical data. The numbers speak volumes, so too do people if we bother to ask them of their values.
Social Scientists surveyed those of disparate groups, and discovered what we could know intellectually. Those who physically do and do not resemble us share our values. Although experiences may be divergent, we need only think of our siblings to realize the adage "All men are created equal," does not mean every being is identical in appearance; nevertheless, essentially we are related. My blue eyed-sister is not as I am. She sees the world through her own lens. A brown-eyed brother cannot think, say, do, feel, or be as me. Still, we are akin. Biologically persons may be similar. They are never the same; nor are there stark contrasts.
Every human values principles that honor all men, women, and children unvaryingly. Innately, two-legged creatures crave caring connections. We all want to have the rights reverence affords, just as our brethren do. Every person is made of blood, sweat, and tears. Humans have inherent worth. Shared ignorance does not allow people to act on our deepest beliefs. the essence of our beauty is not just skin deep. It is part of our being whether we are Black or white.
Researchers remind us, in November 2007, it is time to "Redefine What It Means to Be Black in America." The Social and Demographic division of Pew Research Center, in conjunction with National Public Radio surveyed a large group of Americans, a large portion of those who participated were Black. This fact alone sets this report apart from earlier examinations which most relied on data from white Americans. The review titled, Blacks See Growing Values Gap Between Poor and Middle Class, Optimism about Black Progress Declines, we discover the times and trends are changing, or perhaps our awareness of what is has been altered. Many African-Americans do not identify themselves with the accepted definition of Black.
A Single Race?
Another revelatory finding in the Pew poll is that 37 percent of African Americans now agree that it is no longer appropriate to think of black people as a single race. A little more than half of the black people polled, 53 percent, agreed that it is right to view blacks as a single race. And the people most likely to say blacks are no longer a single race are young black people, ages 18-29.Forty-four percent of those young black people say there is no one black race anymore, as compared to 35 percent of the 30- to 49-year-old black population, and 34 percent of the black people over age 65.
The split in the black race comes down to a matter of values, according to the poll. In response to the question, "Have the values of middle-class and poor blacks become more similar or more different?" 61 percent of black Americans said "more different." White Americans agreed, with 54 percent saying there is a growing values gap between the black middle class and the black poor; 45 percent of Hispanics agreed, too.
At the same time, 72 percent of whites, 54 percent of blacks, and 60 percent of Hispanics agree that in the last 10 years, "values held by black people and the values held by white people (have) become more similar."
While the ethos may appear equivalent, upon closer examination a variance among respondents emerges. In nationwide telephone interviews, with a representative sample of 3,086 adults, conducted from September 5-October 6, 2007, we learn what an "over-sampled" total of 1007 African Americans, 388 Hispanics, and 1671 Anglos believe.
Big gaps in perception between blacks and whites emerge on many topics. For example, blacks believe that anti-black discrimination is still pervasive in everyday life; whites disagree. And blacks have far less confidence than whites in the basic fairness of the criminal justice system.
Over the past two decades, blacks have lost some confidence in the effectiveness of leaders within their community, including national black political figures, the clergy, and the NAACP. A sizable majority of blacks still see all of these groups as either very or somewhat effective, but the number saying "very" effective has declined since 1986.
These statements may correlate to what is real for too many African-Americans. Income Gap Between Blacks, Whites Expands. The Brookings Institute in cooperation with National Public Radio revealed in a recent report, while Black Americans can no longer be thought of as a distinct group, if they ever were, as a whole, people of color have not benefited from a "free and open" society, as Caucasians have. Anglos remain oblivious. Intolerant attitudes inform whites. The same bigoted perspectives hinder an ability to relate, and recognize how different the Black experience is.
Again, in November 2007, Americans were given an opportunity to assess the clash bias has created. In a culture, founded on the principles of equality, Americans prefer to practice prejudiced policies. In the United States, people whose skin is dark are not afforded the opportunities bestowed upon their counterparts, Caucasian Americans.
Economic Mobility of Black and White FamiliesIn brief, trends show that median family incomes have risen for both black and white families, but less so for black families. Moreover, the intergenerational analysis reveals a significant difference in the extent to which parents are able to pass their economic advantages onto their children. Whereas children of white middle-income parents tend to exceed their parents in income, a majority of black children of middle-income parents fall below their parents in income and economic status. These findings are provided in more detail below.
Median family income for both black and white families has increased over the last 30 years, but income gaps still persist.
Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline among black men. However, median family incomes for both racial groups increased, because of large increases in women's incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white women.The lack of income growth for black men combined with low marriage rates in the black population has had a negative impact on trends in family income for black families.
There was no progress in reducing the gap in family income between blacks and whites. In 2004, median family income of blacks ages 30 to 39 was only 58 percent that of white families in the same age group ($35,000 for blacks compared to $60,000 for whites).
Black children grow up in families with much lower income than white children.
White children are more likely to surpass parents' income than black children at a similar point in the income distribution.
Overall, approximately two out of three blacks (63 percent) exceed their parents' income after the data are adjusted for inflation, similar to the percentage for whites.However, a majority of blacks born to middle-income parents grow up to have less income than their parents. Only 31 percent of black children born to parents in the middle of the income distribution have family income greater than their parents, compared to 68 percent of white children from the same income bracket. . . .
White children are more likely to move up the ladder while black children are more likely to fall down.
Startlingly, almost half (45 percent) of black children whose parents were solidly middle class end up falling to the bottom of the income distribution, compared to only 16 percent of white children. Achieving middle-income status does not appear to protect black children from future economic adversity the same way it protects white children.Black children from poor families have poorer prospects than white children from such families. More than half (54 percent) of black children born to parents in the bottom quintile stay in the bottom, compared to 31 percent of white children.
Perhaps, the way in which the Black population experiences income inequity and discrimination, accounts for the lack of confidence in African-American leaders among the population, or did until very recently. In the Fall of 2007, before the first caucus in Iowa or the initial primary ballots in New Hampshire were cast, people of color in the United States expressed a glimmer of hope. While many people whose skin cast a brownish-purple hue were devoted to the Clinton campaign, they recognized that Barack Obama shed a powerful light on the issue of color. Again, the Pew Research Center, Social and Demographic Trends division concluded . . .
The most newsworthy African American figure in politics today - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama - draws broadly (though not intensely felt) favorable ratings from both blacks and whites. But blacks are more inclined to say that his race will detract from his chances to be elected president; whites are more inclined to say his relative inexperience will hurt his chances.
Three-quarters of blacks (76%) say that Obama is a good influence on the black community. Even greater numbers say this about Oprah Winfrey (87%) and Bill Cosby (85%), who are the most highly regarded by blacks from among 14 black newsmakers tested in this survey. By contrast, just 17% of blacks say that rap artist 50 Cent is a good influence.
Months prior to these results a conversation ensued that may have helped to alter a long accepted perception. The son of a white woman from Kansas, whose father was native to Kenya, Barack Obama was asked, "How important is race in defining yourself?" Perhaps, esteemed Senator, and Presidential candidate, Obama spoke for many African-Americans, most of whom understand their bloodline may be mixed. He might have also addressed what Anglo Americans understand, if not consciously. No matter the color of our skin, few of us are purebred. While people may presume to know who we are based on a preconceived notion, we are all more than our appearance. [If only as a society, we acted on this veracity.]
Obama: I think all of us in America and particularly African-Americans have to think about race at some point in our lives. The way I like to think about it, I am rooted in the African-American community, but I'm not defined by it. I am comfortable in my racial identity and recognize that I'm part of a very specific set of experiences in this country, but that's not the core of who I am. Another way of saying is that's not all I am . . .One of the things that helped me to resolve a lot of these issues is the realization that the African-American community, which I'm now very much feel a part of, is itself a hybrid community. It's African. It's European. It's Native American. So it's much more difficult to define what the essential African-American experience is, at least more difficult than what popular culture would allow.
What I also realized is that the American experience is, by definition, a hybrid experience. I mean, you know one of the strengths of this country is that we have these people coming from, you know, all four corners of the globe converging, and sometimes in conflict, living side by side, and over time coming together to create this tapestry that is incredibly strong.
And so, in that sense, I feel that my background ironically, because it's unusual, is quintessentially American.
Americans of any race know that their ancestry is likely mixed. Whites are not pedigrees; nor are Blacks. Yet, pinkish people feel they can or must delineate when they define a dark complexioned person. Too often, in the United States, an African-American is described by their visible lineage, set apart because of the color of their skin. Yet, what of whites? How do we classify a paler person who may be part Irish, Italian, German, or English?
Apparently, a year ago, in February 2007, 60 Minutes Host Steve Kroft thought he knew what it meant to be Anglo or to be raised among white people. Mister Kroft made repeated references to the candidate's Caucasian mother, and Obama's childhood history. He said, "You spent most of your life in a white household." "I mean, you grew up white." "You were raised in a white household?" These statements were presented as though they were significant. The presumption was, in a white home people think, say, do, feel, and are different than those in a Black family. The evidence says this is not so. Yet, the myth remains firm. Hence, the journalist offered an observation, odd as it may be to some.
Kroft: [A]t some point, you decided that you were black?
The answer might have informed Black and white alike. The response may have encouraged African-Americans to be more vocal by the time they were surveyed nine months later. Possibly, the response had no influence. After centuries of racial discrimination, Black person may just be sick and tired of being sick and tired.
Whatever the reason for the realizations that emerged in the Pew Research report, finally, there is an incentive to believe. Hope is alive. A Black American, or many African-Americans, together, can change the persistent culture.
Presidential aspirant, Senator Obama spoke a truth that rattled a rigid reality. Stereotypes are exactly that. They need not characterize any of us, nor do we, as a nation need to endorse what divides us. Barack Obama explained . . .
Well, I'm not sure I decided it. I think if you look African-American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. And when you're a child, in particular that is how you begin to identify yourself. At least that's what I felt comfortable identifying myself as . . .[T]here is racial prejudice in our society that we do continue to carry the historical legacy of Jim Crow and slavery. We've never fully addressed that. It manifests itself in much higher rates of poverty and violence and lack of educational achievement in minority communities. But I know in my heart that there is a core decency to the American people, and that decency can be tapped.
I think America is at the point now where if a white person has the time to get to know who you are, that they are willing on average to look beyond race and judge you as an individual. That doesn't mean that they've stopped making snap judgments. It doesn't mean that before I was Barack Obama, and I was just Barack Obama, that if I got into an elevator, a woman might not clutch her purse a little tighter. Or if I'm walking down the street, that you might not hear some clicks of doors locking, right. I mean, there's still a host of stereotypes that I think a lot of people are operating under. But I think if they have time to get to know you, they will judge you as they would judge anybody else, and I think that's enormous progress.
We've made progress. Yes, things are better. But better is not good enough. And we've still got a long way to go.
Indeed, America has much to do as a nation if we are to heal what has harmed us as a people. If this country is to be truly healthy and authentically honorable, we must act as equals. To allow Black Americans to suffer at the hands of "compassionate" Caucasians, to deny the similarities, and amplify the differences does not bode well. A man, woman, or child must be judged by the quality of his character, not the color of his skin. Let us have the courage of our convictions. It is time to create a culture of community.
~ Soren Kierkegaard [Danish Philosopher]
Sources and Stereotypes . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 18, 2008 at 01:45 PM in American Dream, Americana, Being Black in America, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Civil Rights, Communities, Economics, Education, Effects of Poverty , Income Inequity | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Race Relations in America; Colormute, Not Colorblind
copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
In any Presidential election year, we hear of the race. Yet, discussions of "race" are void, or are since a truce was tendered. Americas would like to think of themselves as colorblind. We are not. Citizens of this country embrace “colormuteness, a term coined by Mica Pollock, Associate Professor of Education at Harvard University. What Professor Pollock observes in classrooms and in the hallways of schools throughout the nation occurs each day on the campaign trail. Children who wish to achieve excellence in the classroom are restricted by conventions they learned at an early age in our nation's communities.
When a young Caucasian child encounters a Black being, if they have never seen a person with a dark complexion, may point, tug at the a parent's trouper, point, and say, "Mom, Why is his skin so brown?" A lass might inquisitively exclaim, "Daddy, What is wrong with her complexion? Characteristically, Mother or Father will say, "Shush! It is not polite to point." Then the parent will pass on the message that they learned at their parent's knee. That communication will vary dependent on the family. Nonetheless, what is true, no matter who the guardian might be, the tone will be hushed. The tot will learn, we do not discuss the differences in skin tone or facial features.
What we were taught in our youth resonates in adult life. We see it on the campaign trail. Certain topics are acceptable and the one is forbidden. This etiquette is evident in our most recent election. Criticism is fine, as long as we do not broach the single most sensitive subject, "race," as it relates to the color of one's skin.
Candidates compete as they sprint towards the White House. They rack up the votes, and rail against their rivals. As Presidential hopefuls run for the Oval Office, they find themselves embroiled in discordant campaigns. Whatever they might say, the electorate will react. A delicate balance must be maintained.
Attack advertisements will fill the airwaves. Hurdles will be jumped in an attempt to make an opponent look or sound bad. The war veteran is no hero, and the soldier who stayed behind did not truly serve. In cyberspace, the calculations are conventional. The conversation can be extremely cruel. Religion will rule if he or she becomes President. His or her faith is not "right." His wife, her husband is [fill in the blank.] Can a damsel deliver as Commander-In-Chief, or will a drama result in her distress. However, the question that is addressed tentatively is, "Is America ready for a Black President?"
Americans are intimately familiar with the scandals. Constituents have witnessed what a little gossip can do. Within each campaign, people observe divisiveness. The demise of a fellow Democrat is fine. A rival Republican can ridicule another with reason. All is fair in love and war. While an aspirant may be fond of Party loyalty, in a Presidential campaign, faithfulness and friendship are not generously applied to adversaries. It is important to focus on differences if a candidate wishes to be the nominee for his or her Party, as long as the variation in skin color is not mentioned.
Our countrymen think it vital to understand Mitt Romney is a Mormon. The public believes it is important to contemplate, Mike Huckabee is a Preacher. It is grand that Hillary Clinton is a woman, but do we need to say aloud, Barack Obama is Black.
Sure, the words are said and the response is consistent. "It should not make a difference." Yet, it does. No one wishes to be labeled a bigot. As adults, individuals recall what their parents said, "African-Americans are people too," or one would hope they were thought to be in the United States. Still, each citizen of this country understands, Black people fight for parity. Even when conditions and circumstances improve for African-Americans, a few thrive, most struggle to survive.
Our Constitution claims "all men are created equal." However, in the States it seems that has never been the case. While Americans are proud of the fact that finally they can choose to vote for someone who is not white, they do not wish to speak of "race," only of the race. Ah, how well-trained Americans are.
Supposedly, citizens have progressed beyond our repressive roots. However, in truth, racism is rampant. Just as Americans have done in past Presidential election years, and do each day of our existence, we place one "race" above another.
Being Black in the United States is a topic discussed among those who are, and balked at by persons who rather believe themselves without bias. Carefully colormuted Caucasians do not wish to admit that that the sight of a dark skinned person can cause them to tightly clutch the pocketbook that hung loosely at their side. Anglos do not wish to confess that they feel an the urge to clench a fist, or place keys between their fingers, just in case they need to use the pieces of metal as a weapon when in the presence of a person whose complexion is a purplish-brown.
Few white individuals will tell of how they tremble when near an African-American stranger. Fortunately, many need not think of what they might do if a Black individual was near. In the United States, numerous neighborhoods are segregated, sometimes subtly, often overtly.
"Is it true that "Anna" stands for "Ain't No N*gg*rs Allowed?" I asked at the convenience store in Anna, Illinois, where I had stopped to buy coffee."Yes," the clerk replied. "That's sad, isn't it," she added, distancing herself from the policy. And she went on to assure me, "That all happened a long time ago."
"I understand [racial exclusion] is still going on?" I asked.
"Yes," she replied. "That's sad."
~ conversation with clerk, Anna, Illinois, October, 2001Anna is a town of about 7,000 people, including adjoining Jonesboro. The twin towns lie about 35 miles north of Cairo, in Southern Illinois. In 1909, in the aftermath of a horrific nearby "spectacle lynching," Anna and Jonesboro expelled their African Americans. Both cities have been all-white ever since. Nearly a century later, "Anna" is still considered by its residents and by citizens of nearby towns to mean "Ain't No N*gge*s Allowed," the acronym the convenience store clerk confirmed in 2001.
It is common knowledge that African Americans are not allowed to live in Anna, except for residents of the state mental hospital and transients at its two motels. African Americans who find themselves in Anna and Jonesboro after dark — the majority-black basketball team from Cairo, for example — have been treated badly by residents of the towns and by fans and students of Anna-Jonesboro High School.
Towns like Anna and Jonesboro are often called "sundown towns," owing to the signs that many of them formerly sported at their corporate limits — signs that usually said, "N*gge*r, Don't Let The Sun Go Down On You In ____." Anna-Jonesboro had such signs on Highway 127 as recently as the 1970s. In some areas, these communities were known as "sunset towns" and, in the Ozarks, "gray towns." In the East, although many communities excluded African Americans, the term "sundown town" itself was rarely used. Residents of all-white suburbs also usually avoided the term, though not the policy. . .
The overlooking of sundown towns, stands in sharp contrast to the attention bestowed upon that other violent and extralegal race relations practice, lynching. The literature on lynching is vast, encompassing at least 500 and perhaps thousands of volumes; at this point, we have at least one book for every ten confirmed lynchings. Still the books keep coming; Amazon.com listed 126 for sale in 2004.
Yet, lynchings have ceased in America. Sundown towns, on the other hand, continue to this day.
Nonetheless, the threat of such an act looms large in the United States. In the enlightened era of the Twenty-First century, Americans have discussed or dismissed the appearance of nooses throughout our homeland. More than a year passed before the mainstream media reported on the appearance of three nooses hung on a tree in Jena, Louisiana. Naturally, the incident was said to be a Southern phenomenon. However, weeks after a march on the city, in support of Civil Rights, another hangman's rope was displayed on the office door of a Black faculty member at the Teachers College at Columbia University. At a prestigious, Northern educational institution of higher learning, Americans were subject to lessons from the past. In this nation, Blacks, regardless of their economic status, or social stature are not safe; nor are they respected as peers.
Granted, the goodly among us will state as Lee C. Bollinger, President of Columbia University, declared, “This is an assault on African-Americans and therefore it is an assault on every one of us;” however, unless we speak of the unmentionable, those not victim to an attack, cannot imagine the wounds. Niceties do not heal the invisible and deep scars. Wounds are easily opened for they were never attended to. Colorblind as Caucasians allege to be, they are not cured of the ills of prejudice.
Only weeks ago, Americans again observed how easily we move from the topic of racial discrimination to decrees of settlement. No harm done, no words of division will be uttered. The offender and the offended do not discuss inequity, injustice, insults, and intolerance; the reality of race relations is left behind. School grounds, the campaign scene, and the world of sports are as the streets of America, battlegrounds for bigotry. Yet, in each of these venues, participants replace the actual topic with another. Apologies suffice. Our parents would be proud. Americans can admit when they are wrong and move on, or pretend to.
When Golf Channel commentator Kelly Tilghman joked on-air during the second round of the Mercedes-Benz Championship that ambitious young players should "lynch (Tiger Woods) in a back alley," she set off yet another incidence of the stagecraft that passes for racial discourse in this country, with a tragic moment followed by the requisite scenes of accusation, remorse and demands for the protagonist's head, all backed by a chorus of conflicting voices echoing to the rafters.There were plenty of soliloquies but distressingly little dialogue and no catharsis. For her part Tilghman was held accountable through a public scolding by the punditocracy and a two-week suspension by her employer; but for me, there's another, far more interesting character in this drama — Tiger Woods. . . .
Whether Woods likes it or not, the episode serves to remind him, and everyone else, that regardless of how he attempts to transcend race with his accomplishments on the golf course, he can never fully escape his status as a person of color.
Much the way the fried-chicken-and-collard-greens joke Fuzzy Zoeller made at the 1997 Masters pushed Woods into the role of African-American Golfer, Tilghman's gaffe reinforces his heritage and its burdens, lumping Tiger in with the estimated 5,000 men who were lynched in America between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement of the '60s. . . .
For his part Tiger was quick to forgive and forget, saying through his agent, Mark Steinberg, that the incident was a "nonissue" and later releasing a statement that said, "Regardless of the choice of words used, we know unequivocally that there was no ill intent in her comments."
Rarely does the individual who delivers a racist epithet mean to offend. The child who points does not intend to hurt someone's feelings. The parent who speaks in hushed tones purposely attempts not to insult. For those raised in a world where in the privacy of a home, unkind comments in reference to people of color abound, such assertions seem sound. Empathy escapes those who are not victim to the wrath of whites.
Anglos do not understand how a seemingly innocent statement can slice an African-American to the core.
To suggest that a successful Black man might need to be put in his place, or lynched, is to acknowledge a truth that is always apparent to an African-American gentleman or lady. A dark-brown-complexioned person who is perceived as one who does not know his or her station can expect to be reminded regularly, he or she is not equal to whites.
Decidedly, a dark-skin man or woman may do well in school or in the work place. A gentleman or a lovely lady may excel beyond all belief. A few elite Afro-Americans might be invited to live among Caucasians in an all white neighborhood, even in a Sundown Town. A token or two is always welcome. One with fame, fortune, and finesse may actually be appreciated. After all, a community must make a good impression. No locality would wish to be labeled intolerant, just as a parent, or child, does not desire to discriminate aloud. Consider cities in the Northern region of the United States. These humble townships have long maintained a noble image, false as it maybe.
Outside the traditional South—states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare—probably a majority of all incorporated places kept out African Americans. . . .Ironically, the traditional South has almost no sundown towns. Mississippi, for instance, has no more than 6, mostly mere hamlets, while Illinois has no fewer than 456.
Appearances are a lovely illusion. Indeed, the presence of a Black person in a white world can be wrought with peril. Driving While Black is a common crime. Even so, in an automobile, there is some protection for the brownish-purple complexioned person passing through a predominantly Anglo section of town. If a Black man, or women, were to walk alone in an alley, in an affluent area, or in a slum, unaccompanied by an entourage, his or her life could be in danger. Tiger Woods, [Michel Jordan, Denzel Washington, Venus and Serena Williams,] in casual clothes, without the cameras, or a gold plated golf club to identify him, could easily become a casualty of racial chauvinism. Anglos, when alone or amongst an allied group of racists, are not colorblind. Nor are they colormuted. Whites will see, and say, as they truly believe. Indeed, if a successful man or woman, whose facial features, and color, are not characteristic of a Caucasian, they may well find themselves in a position to be attacked. In all likelihood, a Black person will be assaulted.
At times, the barbs will be verbal. On occasion, physical jabs will be offered. Perchance, a Black person may suffer a slight. Most who react to 'race' are subtle in their approach. However, it is rare when a white American does not express the bias that has been building for centuries sooner or later. What simmers and stews within eventually will come to a boil. The pain that hate gives rise to will spill out. As a culture, when we pretend to be colorblind, and act on colormutedness, we give no air to what is real. Racism has caused us to rot from within.
Intellectually, Anglos know that to diminish the worth of those whose complexion is a brownish-black, to scorn or snub an African-American merely because their appearance is considered less "acceptable," or to suggest that someone of color might be lynched is outrageous. Yet, as long as Americans refuse to acknowledged the roots of racism, and recognize their own bigotry, intolerance will flourish. If conversations are hushed, as they have been in this year alone, what we have witnessed will continue to burgeon.
Within days of the Tilghman incident, Golf Week Magazine glorified the schism. The sportscaster and her employer were the cover story or were meant to be. So much for these intentions, be they ill-willed or wise.
Golfweek Noose Elicits Strong Reaction
By Doug Ferguson
The Associated Press
Friday, January 18, 2008; 12:18 AMThe editor of Golfweek magazine said he was overwhelmed by negative reaction to the photo of a noose on the cover of this week's issue, illustrating a story about the suspension of a Golf Channel anchor for using the word "lynch" in an on-air discussion about how to beat Tiger Woods.
"We knew that image would grab attention, but I didn't anticipate the enormity of it," Dave Seanor, vice president and editor of the weekly magazine, said from the PGA Merchandise Show in Orlando, Fla. . . .
"Look at the executive suites at the PGA Tour, or the USGA, or the PGA of America. There are very, very few people of color there," he said. "This is a situation in golf where there needs to be more dialogue. And when you get more dialogue, people don't want to hear it, and they brush it under the rug. This is a source of a lot of pushback." . . .
Asked if he regretted the cover, Seanor paused before answering.
"I wish we could have come up with something that made the same statement but didn't create as much negative reaction," he said. "But as this has unfolded, I'm glad there's dialogue. Let's talk about this, and the lack of diversity in golf."
Golfweek Editor Seanor may have thought the conversation vital; however, the mainstream, the average Joe and Joanna, the persons in power, and those who have none, would rather not discuss the disparity that envelops us. Remember, etiquette is essential. Colormuteness and colorblindness are cool. Those who do not heed these calls are not. Editor, Dave Seanor was replaced one day after a racially insensitive graphic, a noose, 'graced' the cover of Golfweek.
Any lack of compassion, when public, can cause quite a controversy. When the same deficit is subtle, there are few problems, that is, if the offender's skin is pinkish in color. This contrast is sharply evident in this election season, just as it was in Elementary School. Our Presidential candidates and political Parties, like Mom and Dad, endorse colorblindness and colormuteness. The electorate embraces a truce that prohibits colorful conversations.
When race relations are discussed, the Democrats wish to appear more compassionate than the Conservatives. While it may be a tad true that the Democrats did better for Black America than the Republicans have, still, every Administration since America became a nation, did not authentically embrace equality. The statistics, even when improvement is apparent, reveal an awful truth.
The Conservative Agenda: Serving African Americans?
By Tim Westrich and Amanda Logan
Center For American Progress
January 17, 2008How have African Americans fared since conservatives have been in charge of the economy? Not very well. Their increases across key economic indicators have been slower under Bush as compared to the 1990s. Here’s a look at the numbers:
African Americans’ median income declined by an average of 1.6 percent per year under the current administration.
In 2006, African Americans’ median income was $32,132, which is actually $2,603 lower than their median income of $34,735 (in 2006 dollars) in 2000. This is an annualized average growth rate of -1.6 percent. In contrast, this number increased at an annual average growth rate of 3.2 percent from 1992 to 2000. And African Americans’ median income is still substantially lower than Whites: In 2006, their median income was $32,132, as compared to $52,432 for Whites.Under Bush, the percent of African Americans without health insurance has increased from 18.5 percent to 20.5 percent.
In 2006, 7.9 million African Americans were not covered by health insurance. The rate of African Americans not covered by health insurance increased by an annual average percent point change of 0.30 between 2000 and 2006. This is a much different picture compared to the 1990s. From 1992 to 2000, the number of uninsured African Americans decreased from 20.1 percent to 18.5 percent, an average annual percent point change of -0.20.The employment to population ratio for African Americans has declined faster than that of the Whites under the current administration.
In 2007, the employment to population ratio - the percentage of the civilian population that is employed—for African Americans stood at 58.4 percent compared to 63.6 percent for white Americans. Between 2000 and 2006, the employment to population ratio for African Americans declined by an average of - 0.4 percent each year after increasing by 0.8 percent on average between 1992 and 2000. The employed share of the African-American population grew faster than the employed share of the White population throughout the 1990s, but has shrunk faster than Whites since then.The increase in African-American homeownership has been slower under Bush than the 1990s.
The homeownership rate for Whites increased three times faster than the homeownership rate for African Americans between 2000 and 2006. During this time, the homeownership rate for African Americans increased by an average annual growth rate of just 0.1, from 47.2 percent to 47.9 percent, whereas Whites’ homeownership rate increased by an average annual growth rate of 0.3 percent. This trend is in part because African Americans have actually seen their rate decline since 2004. Compare this to the 1990s, when African Americans’ homeownership rate increased by an average annual growth rate of 0.8 percent from 1994 to 2000. Whites' rate was 0.6 percent during this time (homeownership data by race are not available before 1994).More African Americans are in poverty under Bush.
More African Americans were in poverty in 2006 than in 2000, just after we saw a vast improvement the 1990s. In 2006, 24.2 percent of African-American individuals were in poverty. Compare this to 2000, when 22.5 percent were below the poverty line, a percentage point change of 0.28. Poverty among African Americans decreased substantially from 1992 to 2000, going from 33.4 percent to 22.5 percent, or an annual average percent point change of -1.36.
The number of impoverished persons of color frequently increases. At times, it decreases. On occasion, it remains the same. Yet, no matter who is in the Oval Office, Americans worry less about the fact that the dark skinned among us are more likely to live in poorer neighborhoods. African-Americans are less likely to have adequate Health Care. Doctors discriminate.
Schools are segregated along racial lines. Citizens of this country understand that a person who lives on the wrong side of the railroad tracks is probably Black. Sundown Towns may have begun to allow Afro-Americans in; however, these persons better realize, they have their place. Dark-skin people are encouraged to believe they are powerless to create genuine change, and Anglo Americans like it that way.
There was hardly a rumble when the former First Lady, and Presidential aspirant explained, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964," Clinton continued. "It took a president to get it done." This statement seemed reasonable to those who have deterred the dreams within the Black community. Rival candidate, and Senator Obama softly declared the comment "unfortunate and ill-advised"; nonetheless, he too was willing to remain colorblind and colormute. A Black person knows better than to incite a riot. African-Americans, in the childhood are taught as well as whites.
In this country, citizens of all colors accept the truth and dare not drastically change it. It is for this reason the electorate is barely disturbed by statements from a former President, his aides, or allies. Even prominent Black Americans, grateful for small favors, and Presidential appointments, will stand by the side of a spouse and a former Commander-In-Chief when he states bigotry is believable and logical.
Voting for president along racial and gender lines "is understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time," the former president told a Charleston audience while campaigning for his wife. . . .Bill Clinton said civil rights leaders Andrew Young and John Lewis have defended his wife. "They both said that Hillary was right, and the people who attacked her were wrong, and that she did not play the race card, but they did," he said. . . .
Clinton also told about 100 people in Charleston that he was proud of the Democratic Party for having a woman and a black candidate.
For the former President, colorblindness and colormuteness helped to heal a division that he now justifies. In America, racism, and chauvinism, are not only acceptable, these characteristics are considered a source of pride, and not a sign of prejudice. Americans would rather be smug [and self-important] than address the sad fact people are not treated equally.
However, the message is mixed. On one hand, the Clintons are prideful of the support they receive from the African-American population. On the other, the two Clinton's conclude Blacks will automatically congregate around their brethren. When people do not admit to the color they see and will not hear of it, there is ample confusion.
The puzzlement continues. As votes are tallied, the temptation is to discount a rival's win, or blame it on the color barrier, the one that supposedly does, or is it, does not exist. When a Presidential aspirant or her husband speaks of the race [to the White House], the implicit untouchable topic of "race," is tenderly tackled.
In Charleston [South Carolina, during the 2008 primaries] last week, Bill Clinton said, "They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender, and that's why people tell me that Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."
Again, Americans must decide, does a person's race make a difference? Can people of color perform miracles as an Anglo might? In this country, we still argue whether we have seen this occur in the past.
Hillary Clinton reminds white Americans of the accepted wisdom, even a great and honorable Black leader, such as Reverend, Doctor Martin Luther King Junior could not "get the job done." This prominent person of color needed the white man [or woman] in the White House to achieve what had never been accomplished before. Senator Clinton's words help cultivate the belief, a Caucasian, has the power to change the nation or make dreams come true. Americans cannot know with certainty if this is true for even as some select Black persons climb, the old adage is reinforced.
"Race doesn't matter!" the crowd at Obama's victory celebration in Columbia chanted last night, and when he spoke, the senator elaborated on the theme. He said his victory disproved those who argue that people "think, act and even vote within the categories that supposedly define us" -- that blacks will not vote for a white candidate and vice versa."I did not travel around this state and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina," he said. The election, he said, "is not about rich versus poor or young versus old, and it's not about black versus white. This election is about the past versus the future."
Americans wonder what will the future bring. Can the United States, as a country, change so significantly. After all, although voters are older and hopefully wiser, each was trained as a toddler. Perhaps, we must go back to school, to begin at the beginning. It may be that what we witness among adults could be quelled in the early years. Conventionally, in Elementary School, and on into Secondary Schools children were separated or tracked. In a desire to create a more balanced educational environment, the racial divide can be more apparent.
Beth C. Rubin, an assistant education professor at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., describes how a school system’s efforts to end tracking—the practice of grouping students in separate classes by academic ability—inadvertently stigmatized minority students in one high school classroom. In that class, a teacher’s careful efforts to balance student work groups by race, gender, and ability enraged an African-American student.“You trying to get all the black kids away from each other, before we cause a nuclear holocaust!” the student exclaimed. Meanwhile, the white students in the class, most of whom were high-achieving, relegated the minority students in their groups to roles that gave them little opportunity to hone their academic skills, according to Ms. Rubin’s account.
“I guess I’m asking teachers to think about race a little differently, and not so much about having to have kids equally distributed among groups,” Ms. Rubin said in an interview. “And also,” she added, “to think of group work as skill-building over the course of the year.
Americans are reminded each day, integration without conversation does little to create balance. People must not merely live together in neighborhoods, or work with one another in schools, or in offices. We must learn to be open, honest, and willing to work through our differences. What we do not understand will destroy us.
A word, a look, will be interpreted through our personal background and experience. If you are Black, a criticism might mean, "Get Back!" If white, the same statement might be construed as, "It will be all right." If we remain colormute and colorblind, if we never bother to learn who each of us is, we can be certain, change will not come. This is evident in numerous studies. Our expectations rule.
Balance is also key to the kind of instructional climate teachers should provide in racially diverse classrooms, [communities or campaigns] according to Ronald F. Ferguson, the director of Harvard’s Achievement Gap Initiative . . .Geoffrey L. Cohen, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, recommends that, in offering students critical feedback, teachers convey the idea that the criticism reflects a high standard, and that they believe in the student’s ability to reach that standard . . .
Mr. Cohen has found that such messages can be more motivating for minority students, who are often wary of the feedback they get from teachers, than when educators overpraise them or give the same feedback to all students.
“Being a member of a stereotyped group puts one in a sort of bubble in which one can’t be certain whether the critical feedback comes from bias against their group or a teacher’s motivation to help one improve,” Mr. Cohen said in an interview. “In general, though, whites can enter a school situation thinking, ‘Teachers here believe in me.’”
For many Black Americans, an educator is frequently another white person who works from a premise of fear or futility. Too often, a teacher seems pompous or pretentious. It is not uncommon for an African-American to feel patronized when in the presence of an Anglo authority figure. A comment meant to express care, can be heard as contrived.
Every individual, regardless of color, has a history. Experience teaches us more than a professional mentor might. It is hard to trust that a person might be colorblind, if that is even possible, if they are colormute.
As long as Americans choose to avoid the discussion of diversity, to deny differences, and to reject hat our distinctive appearances enhance our experience, then life will be as it is and was. Change cannot come. Admittedly, Anglos are [color] blind. Apparently, Caucasians, and even Blacks prefer to be [color] mute. This must end if we are to evolve.
When Americans, teachers, preachers, or Presidential hopefuls, do not empathetically approach the topic of intolerance then, as a society, we will continue to clash and crumble. We may wish to hide from what haunts us. However, there is a price to pay for racial discrimination and the income inequity we accept.
Economically and emotionally, bigotry is expensive. Americans can see the cost of dilapidated schools. Residents in this Northern region of the globe experience what occurs when students do not have the opportunity to soar. Employment possibilities are limited. Without a satisfactory job, homeownership is not feasible. Even apartment life is not cheap. In a culture that creates illiteracy, the streets may provide the only shelter.
A society that houses hordes of those with dark skin in slums does not truly serve us equally. Citizens of the United Sates might understand, when a person is poor, as too many Black people are, they cannot afford adequate Health Care. Hence, everyone, the affluent, and those who struggle but survive, contribute to the costs an ill and impoverished America creates.
In this country, in our local communities, during this political campaign, if Americans remain colorblind and colormute, nothing will change. The possibility that conditions will worsen is one we must acknowledge.
Barack Obama may be correct. Differences exist. However, they need not divide us. Conversations about colorblindness and colormuteness can make his dream, our shared hope, come true. Let us imagine that one day, this vision will be ours together. As one people, united, perchance in time Americans will say . . .
The choice . . . is not between regions, religions, or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.It’s about the past versus the future.
It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions, distractions, and drama . . . or whether we reach for . . . common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity . . .
When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide . . . I think . . . Don’t tell me we can’t change.
Yes, we can change.
Yes, we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.
Anglo-Americans must no longer hold their children tightly when in the company of Black man or woman. Pinkish people cannot continue to caution their progeny, to tell them they must pretend to be colorblind, and authentically become colormute. If we are to ever heal, Caucasians in this country must mentor their offspring to believe, colors are beautiful. Americans need to see the tone of a person's skin, to speak of an individual's race, and the realities without criticism. If this country is going to change, if the United States expects to excel, then, we, the people must truly be, and act as equals.
Resources For Racism . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 1, 2008 at 11:00 AM in "Take me as I am!", Americana, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Civil Rights | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Climate of Fear Permeates; Morton High School Students Protest
Climate of Fear
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It was a quiet day in America; yet, the feeling of fear was palpable. Oceans away, in Baghdad, the air was filled with the smell of napalm. Frightened, as the young contemplated their future, seventy some courageous and committed students filed into the Morton West High School cafeteria in Berwyn, Illinois. Trepidation for their lives, and the lives of friends, family, and those innocent Iraqi citizens they never met prompted these pupils to take action. The young and eligible enlistees protested the war in Iraq.
Years earlier, dissent against this unjust battle was unthinkable. The Twin Towers fell. The Pentagon was hit. Other buildings were threatened and the nation panicked. America could not comprehend there might be blood shed on the tranquil shores of their homeland. Citizens were willing to do anything to ensure no more lives would be lost in the land of their birth. If it meant countrymen must sacrifice their freedoms, so be it. Immediately, Congress was called into session. Bills were passed and liberties lost. America was attacked; and thus, we were at war.
Theories were bantered about. Osama Bin Laden, the enemy behind the assault, was in Afghanistan. Terrorists were within our country. Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. The thousands killed on September 11, 2001 were just the beginning. Certainly, we must know as a continent, North America is no longer safe. Air travel has opened all borders. Trains, boats, and planes were no longer means of transport. These are potential missiles.
Acquiescent, the American public believed they were not safe. Yet, fearful as the people were they knew this country must come together and show its strength. At ground zero a crowd stood and chanted, "USA, USA!" The Commander-In-Chief took the bull by the horn or the bullhorn and calmed the throng. He said . . .
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,"
It was then that the former friendly fellow, the man that had failed in most all of his business ventures, the son of a President whose success was said to be tied to his name, appeared decisive. The President, placed into the Oval Office by the Supreme Court, not by the people, became the protector. From the moment Bush stood on the mound of rumble and raised his voice, Americans followed his lead.
George W. Bush led his Secretary of State astray. Colin Powell addressed the United Nations with what Bush and Vice President Cheney knew was not "solid" intelligence. The Commander prompted his Cabinet to lie to Congress. The President's pal and Attorney General told a nation the Rules of the Geneva Convention are quaint. Our leader authorized torture. He trolled telephones. President Bush took us to the airport and asked us to take our shoes off. He read our library records and convinced us there was reason to forfeit our rights. The President of the United States played on our fears and we accepted his truths. Americans became apathetic and perhaps pathetic.
However, just as in years past, when an unpopular war was sold to the American public, when a threat [then communism, now terrorism] loomed large in the minds of those told to fear the youth responded, Morton High School's young scholars decided they must speak out. They entered the dining hall, a nook in the cranny of a huge building, a place where pupils often feel, or felt able to break from bureaucracy. For students, the canteen is considered a safety zone. Every high school has one, a place where pupils can relax, chat, gather, and forget the fears that flank them in the halls, and stalls of academia.
Yet, on this day, November first, All Saints Day, and a national day of peace, the lunchroom furnished no refuge. Apprehensive Administrators swooped down on the young scholars as they exercised their democratic right to free speech. Frightened school officials did just as a petrified President had done. Under the guise of informed authority, the Superintendent and Principal imposed retaliatory measures.
As is often true in a climate of fear, the terrified meet the terrified, and the trouble begins. When filled with fear a person in a powerful position does not wish to show his or her weakness. Thus, they adopt a punitive posture to appear in control; George W. Bush, Superintendent Ben Nowakowski , you decide.
The Berwyn School District bureaucrats selectively singled two-dozen students for expulsion. [Might these individuals be as those sent to Guantanamo Bay Prison, or off to Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other countries with poor human rights records, for interrogation.] Morton West, Morton High School District 201 Superintendent Nowakowski told parents, pupils involved in the protest that are seventeen years or older would also face police charges. [Ah, those of a certain age may be as the persons of Middle Eastern descent. People in power think it just to profile agitators.] High achievers, athletes, and those whose parent are well connected were exempt from the more severe penalties. [Frequent fliers, white businessmen, and little old ladies . . .perhaps these persons are above reproach.] Indeed, school officials telephoned many prominent Moms and Dads and warned them. Take your child home. Be sure your son or daughter returns to class. Cease or dismiss.
The injustice was obvious; even mothers and fathers were distressed. Parents questioned School Board members and Administrators. They asked, what have we as a people become when we suppress speech, suspend dialogue, and arrest those that assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. Perhaps, after all these years of war and Weapons of Mass Destruction that never were, the adults realize they too must question authority.
Parents and students say that penalties were too harsh -- and unfairly dispensed -- for some of those involved in the protest. More than a dozen parents at the meeting in the Morton East auditorium told the board that students who play varsity athletics or have a high grade point average were given less stringent penalties.Maniotis said her daughter Barbara, a junior at the high school, participated in the protest but was given a 5-day suspension and does not face expulsion because she is an honor student with a 4.5 GPA. Other students received 10-day suspensions with the possibility of expulsion.
"She did the same thing they did," Maniotis said. "This entire incident is outrageous. The school missed out on a wonderful teachable moment. Instead, they cracked down on them right away and turned it into a punitive situation."
Parents have said they want their children reinstated and the penalties removed from their records.
However, the Board and the Superintendent chose to exert its power. The community gathered thousands of signatures in support of the students. Parents, neighbors, concerned citizens met with authorities and stated, the punishment for protestors is too harsh. Those in power argued the point. School authorities might have said, "We do not torture." Waterboarding, while repugnant, is just in "real life" situations.
School officials also sent a letter to the parents of all the school’s students calling the protest “gross disobedience” and reminding parents that any disruption to the educational process could lead to expulsion.
Disobedience and dissention must be deterred. There can be no distractions. Our mission is clear. If we are to accomplish our goal, all threats must be eliminated. Presidents and Principals, Secretary's of State and Defense and Superintendents remind us, we have reasons to fear. This is the "age of terror."
Americans know by now, as we accept our telephones are tapped, any time we question authority we are in insubordination. Countrymen chuckle on reflection as they ponder, I almost got sent to Guantanamo. We are anxious regardless of what is real, for in truth, reality is perception. As long as we perceive a threat, there is one, and those in power will act in accordance. Innocents will be sent to [Guantanamo Bay] prison without due process.
Morton High school Principal, Mister Lucas was fretful despite of what occurred or did not. The protesters, pupils were extremely peaceful. They did as they were told to do. Law enforcement officers observed all went well. Nevertheless, fear flourished amongst Administrators.
[S]everal students said the protesters, whose numbers had dwindled to about 25, obeyed the administration’s request to move from a high-traffic area in the cafeteria to a less-crowded hall near the principal’s office. There, they intertwined arms, sang along to an acoustic guitar and talked about how the war was affecting the world, said Matt Heffernan, a junior who took part.“We agreed to move to another side of the building,” Matt said. “We also made a deal that if we moved there, there would be no disciplinary action taken upon us.”
Matt said the group had been told that the most severe punishment would be a Saturday detention for cutting class that day.
Police officers were on the scene, and Berwyn’s police chief, William Kushner, said no arrests were made. “It was all very peaceful and orderly,” he said.
But at the end of the school day, Matt said, Dr. Nowakowski gave the remaining protesters disciplinary notices stating that they had engaged in mob action, that they were suspended for 10 days and that they faced expulsion.
The sense of being actively involved in the community and in the civic process is weighty and can be woeful. As a Morton High School student stated; upon reflection he had "feelings of confidence — of a job well done." However, faced with expulsion he also embraced anxiety "and fright, because my whole educational future is at risk.”
Education for American students is at risk whether they protest the war or not. As the battles in the Middle East intensify, our youngest citizens watch expectantly. Currently, they are not forced to take up arms; yet, the cost of an advanced degree, the expense of living on your own, salaries, or more accurately, practically speaking, minimum wages threaten the security of a young mind. Military recruiters know this, as does the Administration, local and Federal. Armed Forces representatives maximize on the fear and the White House blesses such actions.
The practice began just after America surrendered itself to permanent apprehension. The Twin Towers fell and so too did the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was set aside in favor of the Patriot Act. The Commander-In-Chief of the United States, George W. Bush proposed we leave no child behind. In the spirit of bipartisanship, Mister Bush garnered support for a initiative that would change the lives of young Americans forever. The "Education" President signed the measure and a new military force was born.
Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. "We don't give out a list of names of our kids to anybody," says Shea-Keneally, "not to colleges, churches, employers -- nobody."But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush's sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law's 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
"I was very surprised the requirement was attached to an education law," says Shea-Keneally. "I did not see the link."
The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation's high schools are "problem schools" for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."
Slights or the restricted right of entry seemed odious to pro-war Congressman Vitter, a man too young to have fought in a foreign battle. Attitudes such as his may helped build a system of recruitment that expanded our military defense. Prior to the initiative that allowed military representatives to sell their schpeel to High School students interest and investment in America's youth was not equally distributed. Nor is it now. The difference is, under current law, military recruiters can more easily find men and women willing to enlist. With thanks to No Child Left Behind the armed forces can focus on those most in need. That is best. After all, the affluent have opportunities that ensure economic and academic success. The rich are less likely to enlist.
[I]t appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
"Military service isn't for our son," she told Rivera. "It isn't for our kind of people."
The kinds of people that are targeted are poor or lower Middle Class. Plebeian families will sacrifice their progeny disproportionately. Morton West High School in Berwyn, is nestled in a working-class suburb just west of Chicago. Soldiers dressed in uniform, don sparkly metals, and wear shined shoes as they stroll the halls of this blue-collar neighborhood school campus. They smile and sweet-talk eager teens. Recruiters befriend students and promise them a bright future if they enlist. In part, this helped to provide perspective for the pupils and prompted the protest.
Disabled Gulf War veteran Cesar Ruvalcaba, dressed in his military uniform, chose to lash out at military recruiters allowed to roam the halls of the school."Shame on the administrators who think receiving military money from recruiters is more important than the education of their students," he told the board. "I am 100 percent disabled, and I learned the hard way that education, not carrying a machine gun, is the key to success. It's those people who are pro-war who would never drop everything and go fight for the red, white, and blue. These kids should receive extra credit for speaking up, not expulsion."
Morton High School students are not alone. After years of subjection, some schools are fighting back. Administrators have decisively stood up for their students. Principals refuse to be part of the Bush regime or relegate academics to expulsion. Principals ask whether funds from No Child Left Behind provisions are worth the cost, the lost of freedom.
Rift over recruiting at public high schools
A Seattle high school bars military solicitation, touching off debate over Iraq war and free speech.
By Dean Paton
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 2005Seattle - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.
The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level . . .
High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.
Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."
All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.
Perchance, Americans no longer wish to live a life in fear. Our countrymen finally decided to vote for change. However, it did not come. Now the children take up the cause. Perhaps they will be more successful. With the support of their parents, the impossible may be probable. Indeed, it is, slightly.
Last evening, the Superintendent of Berwyn Schools released a statement. [On the same day some troops are slated to return home to American shores, not because the President heard the people say exit Iraq, but because, physically, they could no longer remain in battle] suspended students could and would return to class. School records will not reflect, peaceful rebellions as a dishonorable reason for discharge. Although Administrative faces are saved, it is important to consider that this is a step. We may move closer to educational experiences and further from a culture of fear. One can hope.
I offer the link for your perusal. Please read the Superintendent's proclamation. Please share your thoughts, quietly. Remember class is in session. Recruiters may still be listening and the Bush regime remains in office.
As you, dear reader, breathe deeply and ponder the protestors' plight, might I submit, alls is not well; nor did this situation truly end well. Granted, the students will be reinstated. Those that wish to pursue a military career will, and those that do not, will not. However, there is more to this story. Power plays; those that instill fear, fear not. Even when we think the Authorities care; they are concerned, and will no longer abuse, use or manipulate, we discover they continue to do as they have done.
Eight million veterans got their education thanks to the World War II GI Bill, which covered tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend while they were in school. A 1988 Congressional study proved that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending and tax revenue.Unfortunately, the current educational benefits offered to veterans are far lower than the original GI Bill. In fact, they cover only 60-70% of the average cost of four years at a public college or university, or less than two years at a typical private college. Our veterans deserve better.
A new GI [Government Issue] Bill is being crafted in Congress. However, Americans have reason to think this too shall not pass. If we the voters learn from the Morton High School students and state what we think, perhaps, veterans will have the chance they were promised . . . that is if they live to return home.
Let s fear no more. Americans cannot sit silent. If you wish to communicate to your Congress Person, please do. The time is now.
Help Veterans Continue their Education.
Sources of Fear; Culture of Care. . .
Thursday, January 6, 2005; Page A01
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 15, 2007 at 01:00 PM in 'Regime Change' , Activism, Adult Influence on Children, Afghanistan, American Patriotism, Americana, Bush 43 Administration, CIA Prisons, Civil Disobedience, Civil Rights, Congress and Bush, Current Affairs, Domestic Security, Education or War, Emotional Decisions, Exit Iraq Now, Fear, Inequality in America, International Security, Iraq War, Lies, Military Missions, National Security, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Peace Movement, Politics, Question Everything, Saddam Hussein, Teach The Children, The Patriot Act , War and Peace, War is in the Wind, Wars Bush Commanded, “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Little Rock Nine Commemorated; Separate and Unequal Survives
Little Rock 9 - 50th Anniversary
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It has been fifty years since America sought to integrate its schools. It was September 25, 1957. The Little Rock Nine, a group of young Black pupils, crossed the threshold into history. Three years earlier, the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled educational institutions could no longer remain separate and unequal. Unity in our schools was sanctioned in 1954. Brown versus Board of Education was the catalyst for change. However, even after the judgment was handed down, in actuality, few Districts altered enrollment. Assimilation was slow and frequently forced.
Two score and ten years ago, a reluctant locality was required to register young learners. Central High classrooms in Little Rock, Arkansas would receive students from the "wrong side of the tracks." The climate was volatile. The community was up in arms. The Governor fought for what he thought right, separation of the races.
Nevertheless, President Dwight D. Eisenhower decreed school populations would be mixed. One thousand soldiers from the 327th Airborne Battle Group of the 101st Airborne Division were deployed to Little Rock from their base in Kentucky. The troops would accompany young Black students as they entered the High School campus. The guards would stay with the scholars during the day to ensure their safety. The Eisenhower Administration was determined to end discrimination. However, the public was not. Perhaps, a prejudiced populace was more successful than principled people were. We did not eradicate the injustice of bigotry. Racism lives large today.
As we commemorate this historic occasion, Americans face a quandary. The doctrine we advocate is contrary to what we adopt. The current Supreme Court, recently ruled in favor of re-segregation. Educational facilities in local neighborhoods returned to a policy of separatism prior to the judgment handed down only months ago. The 'Robert's rule' reinforced what was allowed to occur in the last decade or more.
Yet, half a century later, one of the nine speaks with hope.
''You can overcome adversity if you know you are doing the right thing,'' said Carlotta Walls Lanier, one of the nine.
Four-thousand five hundred [4500] people joined her. On the anniversary of the entrance into Central High School, fifty two [52] percent of the school is Black. One might delude them selves to think this is inspiring; yet, it is not.
Return to a Showdown at Little Rock
By Felicia R. Lee
The New York Times
September 25, 2007CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — When Minnijean Brown Trickey and eight other black teenagers desegregated Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., 50 years ago on Sept. 25, they were escorted by 1,200 soldiers through spitting and jeering white crowds. Those images were beamed worldwide through the new medium of television, and the public response helped propel a civil rights movement energized by the 1954 Supreme Court ruling against school segregation.
On a recent visit to Central High, Ms. Trickey spoke to a self-segregated classroom: whites on one side, blacks on the other. An African-American student apparently dozed as she spoke. Students and teachers alike spoke blithely or painfully of the low educational aspirations and achievements of too many black students. Central, many said, is now two schools in one: a poor, demoralized black majority and a high-achieving, affluent white minority.
Separate and unequal survives. Only the façade varies. Americans are subtle in their manner, more so than they might have been in the past. Nonetheless, ethnic chauvinism, the chill of a cold shoulder, and racial slurs remain. Fifty years have come and gone. The United States is still divided. Hope is but a dream not realized. America, when will we embrace as our founders put forth, "All men are created equal."
Source For Segregation . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 26, 2007 at 02:23 PM in Being Black in America, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Civil Rights, Education, Education, Effects of Poverty , Fear, Racial Discrimination, School Days, Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Jena Six. Justice: Permission Granted. Judgment: Permission Denied
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Please listen to the audio presentation. Interviews Tell Tales. Jena Six: Black Students Charged w/Attempted Murder
I am thankful, not for the strife, the situation, or the state of affairs in Jena, Louisiana. I am grateful for the discussion, the focus on what for too long remains beneath the surface. For weeks, race relations, a topic conveniently hidden, is in the news again. I think this inconvenient truth must be made visible if we are to move beyond the bigotry that is America's signature.
The Jena Six, a group of young Black students in a small southern town, were severely punished by the Courts for possible participation in a schoolyard brawl. One of many unfair judgments was overturned, and some Americans rejoiced. Others understood the deeper dilemma. Conversations commenced. Protests are planned. All that is good.
However, what is not wonderful and brings me no joy is what I fear, the outcome. Americans seem frozen in time. I believe the plague that permeates American society will survive.
Supremacy sickens me. Preeminence is, for me, the profound issue. While many claim in this nation no one race feels a sense of superiority over the another, there is ample evidence to suggest some do. This story may speak to the situation; it is one of many that occur daily in this country. Any of us whose skin is light may wish to deny it, but ask a Black friend or neighbor, if you have one.
Days ago, after a too long delayed mass media coverage, the narrative immerged again. This time the spotlight fell on the Bayou State. The subject of white rule and the inevitable result, Black rebellion, became more public. The details buried in local news and neighborhoods for close to a year, came to the surface.
Last September, a black high school student requested the school's permission to sit beneath a broad, leafy tree in the hot schoolyard. Until then, only white students sat there.The next morning, three nooses were hanging from the tree. The black students responded en masse. Justin Purvis, the kid who first sat under the tree, told filmmaker Jacquie Soohen: "They said, 'Y'all want to go stand under the tree?' We said, 'Yeah.' They said, 'If you go, I'll go. If you go, I'll go.' One person went, the next person went, everybody else just went."
Then the police and the district attorney showed up. Substitute teacher Michelle Rogers recounts: "District Attorney Reed Walters proceeded to tell those kids that 'I could end your lives with the stroke of a pen.'"
Indeed, the District Attorney proceeded to do as he threatened. The town's people stood by. As bad went to worse. Injustice piled onto injustice garnered the attention of a public reluctant to accept what is standard in this country. Racism is rampant.
I believe we must ask ourselves, why in America, or anywhere else on this Earth, might someone feel a need to ask for permission to sit under a tree on public property. I believe that aspect of this narrative alone is, dreadful. When a source of beauty, light, and the symbol for life is designated "For Whites Only," this says more than my heart can bear. I do not solely struggle with the age of the defendant, the criminal charges, the beating or battering of individuals, white or black. For me, the greater concern, the one that causes me to weep is what is often forgotten in news reports.
In this country, citizens are reticent to admit to their own bigotry. White citizens gleefully claim this nation is colorblind. However, if you are Black, step back. If you are Brown, get down. On the ground you go. Pick the crops, or scrub the floors, just do not sit under that tree.
Details differ each time we open our eyes, nonetheless, the saga is the same. Whites want what they want when and how they want it. If Blacks dare to threaten the delicate "balance," even if they ask permission to walk on the path Caucasians occupy, crosses are burned, nooses hung from trees, and the violence unfolds.
People are injured. Some enter prison. No matter the circumstance, whites fare far better than Blacks. On each occasion, when Blacks and whites meet, the question of fairness fills the air. Individuals and families question the fairness of a judicial decision. Slowly, over time, the word spreads; yet, the actual situation is hushed.
As I listen to discussion after discussion I am haunted by the fact that in most reports Journalists, Civil Rights Leaders, historians, literary agents, the little guy or gal on the street, or even the victims themselves dismiss what for me is most daunting. People, Black or White, Yellow or Brown, Red or Green, felt a need to ask for permission to sit under a tree.
It is as though even nature is restricted. "For Whites Only" signs settles into every nuance of life. On September 7, 2007, the story broke throughout the land. I listened to the tale on the radio as I arose that morning. I was grateful. National Public Radio shared the scandalous drama and made mention of what for me was the essence of the yarn.
[T]he black students who sat under the tree had asked the principal's permission to do so.
The account I heard told on that date, addressed more of the significant minutiae people rather discuss. How old was Mychal Bell? Might he have been tried as a juvenile? How badly was Justin Barker, a white student beaten. White students were not as severely punished as Black learners were? All this is true, pertinent, and imperative. We must thrash out each and every aspect of this case.
Yet, if we focus on the symptoms and miss the essence, I believe this scenario will be as similar occurrences in the past, a missed opportunity. The plight of the Jena Six will be over another lesson unlearned.
As the coverage increases, and I read more reports, I am reminded of what we wish to forget. Days turn to night. I watch and listen. Television Journalists clamor. Pundits shout. Social Scientists prophesize. Average people predict. Presidential candidates weigh in. Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree, an advisor to the defendants in the Jena Six case speaks. He too is frustrated by what society forgets.
Collins: And our Sean Callebs is joining us now live this morning from Jena, Louisiana.While Harvard Professor Ogletree and Cable News Network Broadcaster Heidi Collins remember the specifics, they too forget what for me is most telling. Why might a young man or woman enrolled in school need to ask for permission to sit under a tree on campus. In a country with a Constitution that decries "All men are created equal," why would any of us feel compelled to request consent to place ourselves in the shade of an olive branch, an oak bough, a maple limb that quietly graces the grounds of our school. Yet, in America, Black students know what Caucasians shutter to confess. People are separate, separated, and treated as though they are not equal.So, Sean, we saw a little bit of a reaction from people who live in the area. Overall, how do they think this whole process has gone so far?
Callebs: Well, we went to a fair that was held here in Jena over the weekend and we probably tried to talk to 30 people on camera. Only one would speak with us. Many of them unsolicited would actually say to us, you know what, we didn't think that Mychal Bell should have been tried as an adult to begin with, but we're really upset at what they view as outside agitation. Meaning the media coming in, focusing attention on this, and to a big -- in a big way, the civil rights demonstrations planned here.
To show you the kind of press this is getting, this is the local paper. This is the big headline, "Jena prepares to rally." This is this morning. And if you look down here, about three column inches is the O.J. story. So, it really puts the Jena 6 story in perspective in this community. And quickly, a couple of points. We did have a chance to speak with the D.A.'s office and so far the D.A. has not re-filed charges in juvenile court and there's been no movement on a bond hearing for Mychal Bell.
Collins: All right, Sean, we're glad you're there following that one for us out of Jena, Louisiana.
Sean Callebs, thank you.
Want to talk a little bit more about this morning with Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree. He's an advisor to the defendants in the Jena 6 case.
Thanks for being with us, Mr. Ogletree.
We know there's a hearing going on right now, on whether or not the judge in this case should actually recuse himself. Your thoughts on that.
Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School: Well, there are a lot of reasons the judge should recuse himself. And this criminal justice case has been a colossal failure of justice for these young men. The judge has made mistakes in allowing the charges to go forward. Having this man in jail since last year, Mychal Bell. And now the appeals court's involved in it.
So this is a case that was waiting to have some fresh air and publicity. I think now it's very likely this D.A. will try to re- bring these charges. And I hope it means that these other young men will be tried as they should be tried, a schoolyard brawl with a suspension, not federal -- not serious felony charges.
Collins: You do think it's unlikely that D.A. Walters will move forward?
Ogletree: One of the problems that the D.A. in this case has been pointing fingers at these young black men since the schoolyard incidents. We forget there were nooses hung in a tree. We forget an African-American male in that community was hit on the head with a beer bottle. We forget that a gun was drawn on one of these young men.
There's a whole series of failures of the system. And I think the district attorney is being watched nationally. The judge is being watched nationally. Some good lawyers are being brought into the case now. And I hope that these young men will not only avoid criminal charges, but they'll be back in school before this year is out.
Collins: I don't think everybody forgets about the way that this whole case started, certainly with the nooses.
But let me ask you this, your defendant not being tried in an adult court now, possibly as we've said, going to juvenile court system, how will that change things for him?
Ogletree: Well, it will change dramatically. First of all, the lawyer who represented him before did a poor job of challenging the government's evidence. Didn't call any witnesses. Didn't investigate the case. And now, hopefully, a judge, a juvenile court judge, will be able to listen to the evidence dispassionately, hear Mychal Bell's defense and come back with the judgment of not responsible in the juvenile terms. So I think it's going to make a huge difference.
But the most important thing is that he should be released.
There's no reason he should be in jail now having been found not guilty not guilty of some charges, having had some reversed, and facing no charges right now. I think he should be released. And that might change the whole method of this case as well.
Collins: You know, you have to wonder as you watch sort of the process and the way that this story developed, if there was any responsibility that should have been placed on the adults in this case. The adults at the school. People in the community to help sort of diffuse tensions between the kids at the school before it got to this point.
Ogletree: Well, I think Jena never imagined that this case would have the national, international attention it has generated. They never imagined that you'd see civil rights leader, national press coming and watching. And if you look at the school board, which revoked -- reversed the principal's decision to punish those who hung nooses in the tree, if you look at the apathy of the community when these black kids complained about being treated differently, adults played a significant role.
And adults are going to have to cure it.
If they don't think there's a problem of race in Jena, they're not living in the 21st century. And I think hopefully the good news is that black and white families will come together, live together and they'll be a positive result after this case is resolved, hopefully in the next couple of months.
Collins: Yes, we certainly hope so. All right. We'll continue to follow this story as always right here on CNN.
Charles Ogletree of Harvard Law School, thanks for your time this morning.
Ogletree: Thank you.
African Americans, Negroes are regarded as inferior. They are wanted only to serve the needs of those that think them selves supreme. We have not progressed much beyond the days of Reconstruction.
As the citizens of Jena prepare for trial and for a protest, Confederate flags fly. Symbols of support for slavery fill the air. Authentic conversation is stifled. We wish to think that there has been a change. Some muse drastic measures have been taken. Today, Americas Black citizens are free. In a democracy, we question justice and work for civil liberties. However, as long as a Black person, man, woman, or child senses he or she must seek approval to sit and enjoy the serenity of a tree, nothing has changed. Nothing will. Circumstances may be different. The dynamics are not. When Black congregate where whites wish to be the principle is fight or flight.
References to Racism, Jena Six . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 19, 2007 at 10:30 PM in Americana, Being Black in America, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Civil Rights, Communities, Looking at Life, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 1920; Women's Suffrage Day. Election Day; Women Exercise Right
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
August 26, 1920 is a date that lives large in history. Those of the female persuasion may be more familiar with the day; however, few mark it on their calendars. They may instead honor the occasion on the first Tuesday in November, or on another Tuesday in the Spring of the year. On August 26, 1920, women received the right to vote. Since that date the weight of womanly wisdom is exercised on election days throughout the years.
For many decades, women, typically single adult females, did not honor the inherent privilege their predecessors fought to provide. A colonial woman believed the right to vote was a vital liberty. Today, more and more women acknowledge women's suffrage is significant.
Women, older people, and married people are more likely to vote.Among citizens, women were more likely than men to vote in the 2002 election (47 percent compared with 46 percent) . . . Although men historically have voted at higher rates than women, women’s rates surpassed those of men in the entire 18-and-older population for the first time in the Presidential election of 1984. This trend coincides with a number of other social changes for women in recent decades. Educational attainment and the labor force participation rate, both strong correlates of voting, have risen dramatically among women.
These trends point to increased levels of political involvement by women, including voting participation.
It began in 1776, prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. As our forefathers assessed the future of the colonies, so too, did our foremothers. In 1776, Abigail Adams as the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, she penned a note to her husband, John, who attended. Missus Adam asked that he and the other men gathered together to work on the historic document, "Remember the Ladies." She thought John responded with humor; others thought his remark a bone of contention. John inscribed; The Declaration's wording specifies, "All men are created equal." Then and today, some say, what of women.
For many decades more, "The Cult of Domesticity" dominated the American culture. Then, in 1821, Emma Hart Willard founds the Troy Female Seminary in New York. This was the first endowed educational institution solely for girls.
Twelve years later, in 1833 Oberlin College was the first college in the United States to enroll men and women.
In 1841, Oberlin awards the first academic degrees to three women. Early graduates include Lucy Stone and Antoinette Brown.The drum beat on. The rhythm was slow. The path towards authentic progress was slower still. In 1868 and 1869 respectably, women were shunned and gained ground. Females were denied rights and given their full due.1836
Sarah Grimke begins her speaking career as an abolitionist and a women's rights advocate. She is eventually silenced by male abolitionists who consider her public speaking a liability.1837
The first National Female Anti-Slavery Society convention meets in New York City. Lucretia Mott, a Quaker activist, is instrumental in organizing the convention, having had the experience of being denied membership in earlier anti-slavery organizations because she was a woman. Eighty-one delegates from twelve states attend.1837
Mary Lyon founds Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, eventually the first four-year college exclusively for women in the United States. Mt. Holyoke was followed by Vassar in 1861, and Wellesley and Smith Colleges, both in 1875. In 1873, the School Sisters of Notre Dame found a school in Baltimore, Maryland, which would eventually become the nation's first college for Catholic women.1839
Mississippi passes the first Married Woman's Property Act.
1868The fissure grew among women and within the States. There was support for a voting standard in some regions; others rejected the idea outright. Attempts to obtain the provision, failed and succeeded. Women remained undeterred. During the following year and for five years hence . . .
The Fourteenth Amendment is ratified, which extends to all citizens the protections of the Constitution against unjust state laws. This Amendment is the first to define "citizens" and "voters" as "male."1869
The women's rights movement splits into two factions as a result of disagreements over the Fourteenth and soon-to-be-passed Fifteenth Amendments. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony form the more radical, New York-based National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA).Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe organize the more conservative American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA), which is centered in Boston. In this same year, the Wyoming territory is organized with a woman suffrage provision. In 1890, Wyoming was admitted to the Union with its suffrage provision intact.
Several women--including Virginia Louisa Minor, Victoria Woodhull, and Myra Bradwell--attempt to use the Fourteenth Amendment in the courts to secure the vote (Minor and Woodhull) or the right to practice law (Bradwell). They all are unsuccessful.
In the subsequent three years efforts to secure full rights for women did not wane. Finally, in 1878, a Woman Suffrage Amendment is introduced in the United States Congress. However, it would be another forty-one [41] years before the amendment would pass in both houses. The words ratified in the Bill passed in 1919 were identical to those proposed in two score earlier. The text did not change, times did.
More than a century after Abigail Adams expressed her concern, womankind must be awarded equal rights, in 1919, females were granted some liberties. Officially, following ratification by the necessary thirty-six states, the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted on August 26, 1920.
Today, on the anniversary of this rite of passage, I wish all women well. Each election day, as you exercise your right to cast your ballot, please remember the women before you that worked for centuries to ensure that you had the freedom to speak.
Suffrage Sources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 26, 2007 at 11:30 PM in American Dream, American Patriotism, Civil Rights, Women | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
School Diversity Segregates Some. Divided Neighborhoods Isolate All
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Today, I was reminded of how deeply divided this nation is. I read School Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some. I discovered in an attempt to offer equal opportunities, indeed, schools discovered discrimination remained a dominant force. School Boards, Administrators, and the community-at-large concluded educational institutions would be more diverse if learners were assigned to schools based on family incomes. A plan was introduced and implemented. The outcome was mixed; however, the pupil populations were less so. Some races, colors, and creeds were abundant within a given institution; others were not well represented.
This findings were contrary to the expected and desired intent of educators. School Districts were determined to establish a sense of unity in their local schools. They did not wish to register or reject students on the basis of race. Family earnings were used to ascertain eligibility. Enrollment numbers were controlled; however the outcome was not as predicted. In a recent New York Times article Journalists Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder reported.
San Francisco - When San Francisco started trying to promote socioeconomic diversity in its public schools, officials hoped racial diversity would result as well.It is not a mystery why this might occur. Perhaps, as often happens, one child spoke to a classmate of his, stating an interest in a particular school or program. One mother chatted with her neighbor over the backyard fence. They discussed her son's education. A father, in the local barbershop, mentioned his daughter would enroll in this facility or that. Another resident of that small community thought the idea a good one. They too entered their child in that facility.It has not worked out that way.
Abraham Lincoln High School, for example, with its stellar reputation and Advanced Placement courses, has drawn a mix of rich and poor students. More than 50 percent of those students are of Chinese descent.
“If you look at diversity based on race, the school hasn’t been as integrated,” Lincoln’s principal, Ronald J. K. Pang, said. “If you don’t look at race, the school has become much more diverse.”
San Francisco began considering factors like family income, instead of race, in school assignments when it modified a court-ordered desegregation plan in response to a lawsuit. But school officials have found that the 55,000-student city school district, with Chinese the dominant ethnic group followed by Hispanics, blacks and whites, is resegregrating.
The number of schools where students of a single racial or ethnic group make up 60 percent or more of the population in at least one grade is increasing sharply. In 2005-06, about 50 schools were segregated using that standard as measured by a court-appointed monitor. That was up from 30 schools in the 2001-02 school year, the year before the change, according to court filings.
People tend to discuss their decisions with those they know. Word travels; however not as far and wide as it might. We are acquainted with those that live near us. Likely, the person next door or down the street has an income similar to our own. Common interests are usual among people residing in the same community. Often, people of one race, religion, or creed associate with those of similar backgrounds.
Humans are rarely distant from those they relate to. In the workplace, the peons have no choice but to converse with those at their level. Corporate Executive Officers rarely confer with their subordinates. Middle managements lauds over the people that work for them. However, they do not frequently lean over and say, "Would you like to join us in a meeting, come to dinner, or call me, just to talk." Our children watch us; they observe and absorb the characteristics that they experience. Our offspring learn from us.
Young persons typically admire their parents, or at least, those that care for them are an important influence. We teach the children. They learn their lessons well. If we loathe our brethren, we can expect that our offspring will too.
Hate is a learned response; so too is the gravitational pull to certain "types" of people.
As we assess the recent report or other news of the day, we might wonder why segregation is so prevalent. The answer abounds. We heard it again only weeks ago. The logic of Supreme Court Justices loomed large. After assessing the evidence as it relates to Parents Involved In Community Schools versus Seattle School District Number 1 these esteemed Jurists announced their decision.
"Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a plurality that included Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. "The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again -- even for very different reasons."Again, we must acknowledge the attempts in San Francisco. That School district thought they did as the Chief Justice directed. Bay Area locals were resolute in their desire not to segregate on the basis of color. Yet, they realized their efforts led students into greater isolation. When School Boards concluded differences in incomes would lead to diversity, they negated an inherent fact. As cited earlier in this essay, but bears repeating. Frequently we forget, left to their own devices people prefer to be with their kind.He added: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
I believe this reality is not innate; nor is it healthy. It is a habit. Imaginary "boundaries" were developed long ago before any of us was born. The need to build walls and partitions has been passed down through the centuries. Generation after generation does as their parents did.
In prehistoric times, safety and a need for survival might have been a reason for concern. People were nomads; they did not know, nor did they have the time to become acquainted with their neighbors. Much has changed. Civilization led to the growth of communities. Now, we are connected, in cyberspace, and in cities. Even those in the countryside are not far from other people.
I think in order to make change we must be more conscious of our choices and what we accept as common wisdom. Among the most proverbial conventions is there will always be poor persons.
I believe as long as there are underprivileged neighborhoods, there will be disadvantaged schools.
Educational institutions in our slums serve students already facing difficulties in their daily life. The educators willing to teach in these facilities will likely be of lesser quality. There may be a few committed to a cause; however, this is out of the ordinary. Books will be borrowed, or cast-off when the elite schools think them obsolete. Indeed, the pupils in these locals will be fortunate to have text to read. The Center on Education Policy discusses this dynamic.
Black and Hispanic students tend to take less-rigorous courses. Though there are more black and Hispanic students taking academically rigorous courses now than in the past, whites and Asians still tend to be overrepresented in such courses. In part, this situation results from the lack of advanced courses at high-minority schools. In particular, researchers have found that schools in high-minority or high-poverty areas often offer a less-rigorous curriculum to begin with. They thereby fail to challenge students, since they cover less material or give less homework. This is a problem because research has found that students enrolled in challenging courses—in topics such as algebra, trigonometry, chemistry, and advanced English—usually have higher test scores than their peers.While on paper, Americans declare all persons are created equal, students know in practice this is not so. Our pupils experience separate is not equal. Even when "shipped" to schools far from home, they remain detached. Their personalities are split. They are the poor mingling amongst the rich. An education helps; nonetheless, it does not eradicate the deeper divide.There is a lack of experienced teachers. [Nancy Kober, author of the Center on Education Policy's report] points out that black students are more likely to be taught by less-experienced teachers than white students. Researchers have cited this factor as one of the most critical variables for explaining the achievement gap: there is a correlation between higher teacher certification scores and higher student achievement scores. Teachers in districts where there are high percentages of black or Hispanic students tend to have lower scores on their certification tests.
Teachers set their expectations low. Studies have suggested that teachers sometimes have lower academic expectations for black and Hispanic children than they do for whites or Asians. Kober warns that by setting expectations low, teachers run the risk of perpetuating the achievement gap since they do not encourage black and Hispanic students to follow a rigorous curriculum.
Resource disparities handicap schools. Low-minority schools tend to be much better funded and have all-around stronger resources than do high-minority schools. The same relationship holds true for schools in low-poverty versus high-poverty areas. There is persuasive evidence that this factor contributes to the achievement gap. For example, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show the achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty schools increased throughout the 1990s.
Low-income and minority students tend to be concentrated in certain schools. Kober notes that if a school has high levels of poverty, that can depress achievement for all the children in that school, even if they are from higher income families. This fact hits Black and Hispanic children the hardest, since they are more likely to attend higher poverty schools than are whites or Asians.
Student performance anxiety hampers minority students. Some research has suggested that black students can become anxious about corresponding to negative racial stereotypes in their academic work. The result, researchers say, is a kind of vicious circle: Black students can be so worried about seeming stereotypically ungifted academically that their anxiety actually makes them perform less well than they could.
Discrimination is visible and it is our veracity. Those that we judge harshly are characteristically the poorest among us. Frequently and subtly, we deny these individuals their rights, and provide little so that they might achieve their dreams. They huddle in hovels and call these home.
Academics argue there is no need for a poor population. Nonetheless, their perception of why one exists is as skewed as efforts to eliminate poverty are. What is pervasive is too easily accepted, even expected. Expert, scholarly opinions, I believe, do not consider the whole or a truth. It seems what is too real for many is beyond the intellectuals' ability to grasp. I offer one authors reading of the problem, and an answer I find troublesome,
A theorist, a scholar, and a Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, Dinesh D'Souza, writes in an article titled, Why Are There Poor People?
Mister D'Souza acknowledges and accepts the impoverished are victims of a collective configuration that does not reward them. He states . . .
The left-wing view is that poor people are the victims of unjust social structures. Historically this view is sound. Slavery, colonialism—these were oppressive institutions that prevented people from exercising their freedom and rising in society.However, he continues, "institutional structures" that keep the poor down do not exist in America. Dinesh D'Souza states "capitalism and technology" provide opportunities for all.The left-wing argument is also an accurate description of the situation in much of the Third World today. If you take a train through the Indian countryside, you will see farmers beating their pickaxes into the ground, frail women wobbling under heavy loads, children carrying stones. These people are working incredibly hard, yet they are getting nowhere. The reason is that institutional structures are set up in such a way that creativity and effort don't bring due reward. No wonder the people in these countries are fatalistic.
[I]n the West capitalism and technology have worked together to lift the vast majority of the population out of deprivation and up to a level of affluence that, in the words of novelist Tom Wolfe, would "make the Sun King blink."Such is the attitude, the belief, and the perception of many in our society. Numerous persons say, the poor do not avail themselves of the opportunities within the market place. Capitalism offers chances for all. However, I must inquire, do people of color, those of lesser means and little education, truly have the same prospects the prosperous do.So what about the underclass, the inner-city poor that we hear so much about? I agree: it is terrible to grow up in many parts of the Bronx, New York, or Anacostia, Washington DC, or South Central Los Angeles. But that’s not because of material poverty. Rather, it’s because of the shocking moral behavior of the residents. High crime rates, the crack trade, and the absence of stable families all work together to destroy the cultural ecosystem and make normal productive life so difficult in these communities.
This is where the right-wing argument gathers force. Conservatives contend that the bourgeois virtues of family stability, the work ethic, the respect for education and law are essential for individuals and groups to advance, and where those are jlacking, chaos is the predictable result. The solution is to recognize that prosperity does not come naturally.
I observe that not all in the Western world have benefited from free enterprise; nor do each of us have access to technology. Entrepreneurship is but a dream for those that have little education and few funds. People that experience discrimination because of their color or perceived background lack hope.
In America, for hundreds of thousands skills are lacking. Millions of people living in this country are illiterate or not well versed in disciplines that might help them climb from the clutches of poverty. "Equipment" is not evenly distributed. In impoverished areas, children are fortunate to have textbooks and teachers that care. Richer areas [are] more successful in attracting qualified teachers.
I must ask, if I am born to a welfare mother, a woman that is poor, or not white, will I have an equal chance to succeed. We know that schools and society discriminate against those whose flesh is darker and those of lesser means.
If my father had to work as a child to support his family, and therefore, never had the time let alone energy to complete school, am I likely to do well. If my guardian must work long hours, doing manual labor in order to provide me with food and shelter will she or he be available to assist me with my homework. Will they be in the room with me when I need reassurance or feel discouraged. If they are will, they be able to honestly tell me "Everything will be all right, it always is."
Can a parent that has little knowledge of schoolwork or experience learning through scientific method teach me the habits that might benefit me, or society? A child born into poverty does not hope or dream of succeeding as other children do.
Discrimination leaves a legacy. The harmful effects of segregated schooling and similar forms of discrimination will continue to persist for several decades, studies show. These effects can persist as a family link: children whose grandparents’ educational achievement was limited or restricted may not enjoy the benefits of a family that values or encourages rigorous academics. Such values may simply not be a part of the family’s culture, partly because past discrimination inhibited the grandparents’ achievement. Moreover, other forms of discrimination, such as in housing or employment, can also negatively impact a child’s educational opportunities.Contrary to the beliefs Dinesh D'Souza professes, only in rare cases does a blood relation or guardian teach criminal behavior. Most mothers and fathers have the best of intentions. Parents do not work to raise felons. No matter what their background, color, or creed people have ethics and values, customs, and traditions. Humans have emotions; they feel for their children. Moms and Dads want their children to achieve the accolades they did not.Home and community learning opportunities are critical. In general, minority children are less likely than white children to have parents with high levels of educational attainment. This factor, together with others such as lower family income and parents’ work schedules, may limit the extent to which parents can foster positive opportunities for learning at home, Author of the Center on Education Policy's report, It Takes More Than Testing: Closing the Achievement Gap, [Nancy] Kober claims. Hence, opportunities such as having access to books and computers—or even being read to before bedtime—may be more limited for minority children. Also, it is an established fact that high-minority and high-poverty communities tend to enjoy less access to such resources as libraries and museums that can benefit children. Finally, if the family speaks a language other than English at home, that can also affect a child’s learning opportunities.
Good parenting practices need to be encouraged. Parental approaches to learning at home differ, and cultural variations undoubtedly play a role in children’s learning and achievement. However, the most effective practices should be encouraged, although more research is necessary to determine which do provide the greatest benefits.
Frustrations breed the social structure that inhibits achievement. All the computers, cameras, telephones, and televisions in the world cannot provide the connection a parent might. Technology cannot substitute for the tender, caring, touch of a Mom or Dad.
However, in a country where massive amounts of money are a must in order to maintain a menial subsistence, parents may not be as profound an influence as they might be. They may not be the best role models.
Nonetheless, a child can turn to another adult for guidance and quality instruction. Perchance a teacher in a good school will stimulate the mind and rekindle a heart starving for attention. Parents, not your own might help to involve an expectant pupil. That was the hope in the districts intent on initiating socioeconomic diversity.
The purpose of such programs is twofold. Since income levels often correlate with race, they can be an alternate and legal way to produce racial integration. They also promote achievement gains by putting poorer students in schools that are more likely to have experienced teachers and students with high aspirations, as well as a parent body that can afford to be more involved.While this is impressive, and validates that those of any background can and will improve given quality education, the truer problem, for me, is not eradicated. Will these Black students find a way to enter college. Might they cultivate a career that will ensure financial success. If they are able to accomplish much, when they walk down the street will they be accepted as a wealthy white person would be. Might a person of color have the same prospects their Caucasian brethren do. Probably not.“There is a large body of evidence going back several years,” Mr. Kahlenberg said, “that probably the most important thing you can do to raise the achievement of low-income students is to provide them with middle-class schools.”
Economic integration initiatives differ from each other, and from many traditional integration efforts that relied on mandatory transfer of students among schools. Some of the new initiatives involve busing but some do not; some rely on student choice, while some also use a lottery. And so it is difficult to measure how far students travel or how many students switch schools.
The most ambitious effort and the example most often cited as a success is in the city of Raleigh, N.C., and its suburbs.
For seven years, the district has sought to cap the proportion of low-income students in each of the county’s 143 schools at 40 percent.
To achieve a balance of low- and middle-income children, the district encourages and sometimes requires students to attend schools far from home. Suburban students are attracted to magnet schools in the city; children from the inner city are sometimes bused to middle-class schools at the outer edges of Raleigh and in the suburbs.
The achievement gains have been sharp, and school officials said economic integration was largely responsible. Only 40 percent of black students in grades three through eight in Wake County, where Raleigh is located, scored at grade level on state reading tests in 1995. By the spring of 2006, 82 percent did.
“The plan works well,” said John H. Gilbert, a professor emeritus at North Carolina State University in Raleigh who served for 16 years on the county school board and voted for the plan. “It’s based on sound assumptions about the environment in which children learn.”
If we continue, as we have, competing in a free market society will not be possible when the color of your skin is not white. The wad of bills in your pocket may help; however, perceptions too often take precedence.
Before an American child enters the workplace, where supposedly, opportunity abounds. They must obtain an education. We place a huge burden on our children if we remain separate as a society. We can bus our offspring, and perhaps we may have to until parents learn to adjust. However, asking our young to sit idly for hours while they travel to a world not their own gives rise to other issues. The most obvious is the plight of the poor.
As long as we, in the United States continue to have poor neighborhoods, we will have institutions that help sustain the cycle of poverty. If we send all the underprivileged to the better neighborhoods, who will attend the remaining pitiable properties intended to educate our youth? Why would we need facilities that favor no one. Indeed, why do we need communities that propagate a truth that we do not endorse, poverty.
Let us replace the myth that only hinders civilization as a whole. Discard what defines our youth and even their elders as deprived . They, we, are not Black or white, rich or poor, alien or native, advanced or behind. We are individuals; we must furnish all with what they need to thrive.
As Danish Philosopher Soren Kierkegaard cautions, "Once you label me, you negate me."
If as a culture we expect Black and Hispanic children to live in low-income families, they will. If their parents are not educated well, or accepted into society, the children will be less likely to live in neighborhoods that nurture an innate desire to learn. We must be willing to integrate our neighborhoods, and truly provide the means for all our citizens to live as equals.
We need to ask ourselves, do we truly wish to endorse a system where everyone is equal. If so, let us begin to embrace the challenge and create the structure our forefathers' spoke of. If we do not we will continue to look for solutions that shift the responsibility to our children.
I believe we can live and succeed as a Union. We need only invest authentically in our offspring, all of them, and more importantly in ourselves.
If we decide not to fear our fellow man or see him or her as an alien, a stranger, the enemy, or someone we would not wish to be part of our family, then divisions will exist no more.
Diversity need not be our undoing. Please let us look at the United States Constitution and allow the principles that guide us to be our truth. Might we make this country great and preserve our integrity. We are one and all.
When you grow up in a totally segregated society,
where everybody around you believes that segregation is proper,
you have a hard time.
You can't believe how much it's a part of your thinking."
Shelby Foote [Historian, Novelist]
Poor Schools, Poor Neighborhoods, A Sad State of Affairs . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 17, 2007 at 06:15 PM in Americana, Black History, Past/Present, Civil Rights, Communities, Education, Education or Economics, Effects of Poverty , Global Village, Income Inequity, Inequality in America, Looking at Life, Nature or Nurture, Racial Discrimination, School Days, Teach The Children, “Melting Pot”? | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Media Implies "Cameras are Cool." Liberties Are Lost
Michael Moore v. Wolf Blitzer (7/9/07)
copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
Michael Moore is not the topic of this treatise. "Sicko" is not the source of my pain. While I long for Universal Health Care in America, in this missive I am discussing as Mister Moore does in the above interview, the media. The manipulation, or the "objectivity" within a message concerns me.
The mainstream media delivers a message and often the public accepts what they see or hear as truth. I believe an open mind questions all information. However, people easily trust what seems credible. Discerning the nuances can be challenging. We have faith. Those with resources will do the research. However, that is not always so. Granted those on the Right have long claimed journalists are liberal Left leaning masters of the message. In my estimation, the press is not necessarily Left or "right"; nor do they deliver with mastery. While I might offer this story or that, I will refer to only one recent report. Cameras lessen the likelihood of crime, or do they.
Late in June 2007, the world witnessed another possible terrorist attack in the Haymarket District not far from Piccadilly Circus. Local citizens saw what they thought strange, and immediately, contacted the authorities. Throughout the day, America's mainstream media spoke of the situation in London. Journalist and the public alike marveled at the magnificence. Britain is covered with cameras. One reporter stated, "There is no hiding from cameras on this piece of London real estate." Everywhere people go, photographic devices probe and prod. Privacy in England refers to the past.
According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.Big Brother is watching; however, he sees little. What he observes is catalogued and stored. The information is used after the fact or subsequent to an attack.Use of spy cameras in modern-day Britain is now a chilling mirror image of Orwell's fictional world, created in the post-war Forties in a fourth-floor flat overlooking Canonbury Square in Islington, North London.
On the wall outside his former residence - flat number 27B - where Orwell lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.
Orwell's view of the tree-filled gardens outside the flat is under 24-hour surveillance from two cameras perched on traffic lights.
The flat's rear windows are constantly viewed from two more security cameras outside a conference centre in Canonbury Place.
In a lane, just off the square, close to Orwell's favourite pub, the Compton Arms, a camera at the rear of a car dealership records every person entering or leaving the pub.
Within a 200-yard radius of the flat, there are another 28 CCTV cameras, together with hundreds of private, remote-controlled security cameras used to scrutinise visitors to homes, shops, and offices.
The message is reminiscent of a 1949 poster to mark the launch of Orwell's 1984: 'Big Brother is Watching You'.
Yet, America thinks this technology is fine. The government, the media, and countrymen, claim, we here in this nation need to do as the British have done. Surely, Americans will be safer if every action is observed.
Cameras will deter crime. Offenders will think twice before they engage in illegal practices. Much as the masses wish to be reassured, the evidence shows the contrary is true.
Constant surveillance cannot and does not replace vigilance and diligence. Observant and caring people are still the best source of information. Humans are resource that cannot be replaced. Nonetheless, boys and their toys, girls and their games would like us to think differently. Men and women even so-called liberal journalists will justify the need for the latest and greatest plaything.
Today we are told, technology trumps all other forms of protection, or so the "experts" want us to believe.
You may recall on June 29, 2007, the city was under siege.
The manhunt that's going on right now and the search still under way for more of what nearly detonated today in the heart of London.In my own life I learned this lesson as a child. People will do what they intend to do. When I was in second grade a man "broke into" my family home. He pried open an unlocked window. My Mom thought that laughable.Two cars, rigged to kill hundreds of people, came within a cell phone call or perhaps even less of going off. Authorities discovered the first car bomb early this morning outside a nightclub in London's Haymarket district, not far from Piccadilly Circus.
They found the second parked nearby, but didn't know it. Two -- they didn't know that it, too, was rigged, not until hours after they towed it to a lot just off Hyde Park. Now, all of London is on edge, of course. And all of Great Britain is on alert for a pair of would-be bombers who may have been caught on camera.
Robertson: The light-colored green Mercedes discovered almost by chance -- an ambulance crew at the nightclub for a sick patron spotted smoke in the vehicle and called police. As much as 25 gallons of gasoline and five butane tanks discovered. . . .
Thomas Sanderson, Center for Strategic and International Studies: What you have to rely on is the vigilance of the population, the good work of the police and intelligence to prevent this from happening. But nonetheless, if you want to carry out a crude attack with a simple car bomb or the use of a sidearm or an automatic, semiautomatic weapon, that's relatively easy to do.
In stores, well stocked with surveillance cameras, shoplifting continues. Employees witness the questionable behaviors; workers notify the authorities.
In airports, many a suspicious package is discovered. Rarely does a security device do the detecting. Humans help secure the premises.
Nonetheless, all week Cable News Network spoke of how cameras assisted police is preventing what would surely have been an act of terror. After sharing ample evidence of how the Closed Circuit Television Cameras [CCTV] assisted law enforcers after an attack, Cable News Network reporter Christianne Amanpour concluded.
But it is remarkable how much of a treasure trove those CCTV cameras have been.Throughout the week broadcasters spoke of how video recorders might benefit us here in America. A Cable News Network program, 3600 decided to discuss the prospect in greater detail. Program host Anderson Cooper could be heard promoting the upcoming show throughout the week.
The teaser led viewers to think, 'cameras are cool.' This equipment will save the day. Again and again, listeners were reminded of the recent events in London, and the role cameras played. Reports stated CCTVs are ubiquitous; the bombing was foiled. However, it was rarely mentioned, these viewing devices did nothing to deter the terrorists.
Potential viewers might have easily concluded cameras on every street corner in America would cure all societal ills. Indeed, citizens in the United States would be safer if we heed the call as those in Britain have done. What was said on the news was, what I heard people on the street say.
Friends and countrymen claimed, 'American cities need to install watching devices.' No one is safe. Terrorist can strike anywhere, anytime. We need to be mindful. Politicians cried out, and the presumed pundits repeated this assertion.
For me, this exposé negated the truth of what occurred in London weeks ago. I was baffled. I wondered, how could the public be so blind. The report was slightly more balanced than the lead; however, it too was troubling to me.
Cooper: Well, some of the suspects in the latest U.K. terror plot were caught with the help of surveillance cameras. Britain has some 200,000 cameras on its streets, far, far more than any force is using in America. So the question is, if they're working so well, why aren't there more in America? We're "Keeping Them Honest," next on 360.If you scrutinize the story, you realize that in one tale the threat was abated; however, an observant cop on the beat would have caught the criminal, even a caring citizen could have called for assistance quickly. It is somewhat surprising that the person monitoring the movements noticed what was occurring . . . so many screens, so much monotony. Rarely is a person paid to wait, watch, and listen as attentive as a passer-by startled by an occurrence.(Commercial Break) Cooper: You're looking at some of the men who plotted to blow up London's transit system back on July 21, 2005. The attack would have been carried out just two weeks after suicide bombings killed 52 commuters. Today, the four men were convicted. Surveillance pictures played a role in bringing them to justice. It is also part of life in the U.K. In London, it's estimated the same person is taped about 300 times a day. Here in America, more and more cities are also using police cameras, so we wanted to know how effective they really are. To find out, we went to Baltimore, where the issue of Big Brother and privacy unfolded before our eyes. CNN's Joe Johns investigates.
(Begin Video Tape) Joe Johns, CNN Correspondent (voice-over): If London hadn't blazed the trail on security cameras, they may never have come to Baltimore, and this terrifying scene may have had an even worse ending. Let's back it up. Here, caught on camera, you see a young man ambling in the shadows. Next, a young woman walks into camera range. She's smoking, talking on a cell phone. Suddenly, the man grabs her and drags her out of view. In scarcely two minutes, with an apparent crime in progress, the cops arrive at the scene.
Leonard Hamm, Baltimore Police Commissioner: We got there in seconds, because we'd been watching this guy walking around in a suspicious manner.
Johns: That guy is on candid camera. Baltimore now uses about 500 cameras. In Chicago, there are as many as 2,000 and now a plan to mount them in Manhattan. These plans are inspired by London's so-called Ring of Steel, first created to combat terrorist attacks by the Irish Republican Army. Now a weapon in the war against new terrorist threats like the bungled car bomb attacks in the U.K. But in Britain, the number of surveillance cameras is huge, 200,000 or more, and far more advanced than in the United States. But Baltimore's police commissioner says it's almost inevitable that the U.S. will catch up.
Hamm: That's the way of the world. This is what we've come to. And the genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going to go back. The threat of terrorism, the threat of gangs, the threat of violence on the street. It's not going to go back.
Johns: Baltimore claims a 17 percent reduction in violent crime in neighborhoods with the cameras. Though criminals are seldom caught in the act, evidence, witnesses, license plates, still help investigations.
Maj. Dave Engel, Police Intelligence Commander: The feedback from the community has been fantastic, and, as a matter of fact, most people want cameras in their neighborhoods.
Johns: But try to tell that to this woman, who has a beauty shop on a corner where the cameras have been up for more than a year. She asked us not to show her face on TV. (on camera) Has the crime changed at all since the camera came?
Unidentified Female: Absolutely not. No, I have been a victim of crime since I've been here several times.
For the most part, consistently, cameras did not prevent the incident. Actually, culprits were not deterred by cameras. Usually, these instruments are effective only for the information they supply after the fact. Humans are the best and the worst observers. Any of us sitting still for hours surveying video street scenes from some safe and distal location will miss much. The tedious task does not stimulate the mind.
An event executed in a manner that draws attention is evident to all. Those there will do what needs to be done. Rarely does a rebel with a cause wreak havoc loudly. Terror is by definition shocking, for it enters our lives subtly. We know not what hit us.
However, when our every action is monitored, we are aware that our privacy is lost. Might this invasive technique, used to detect deliberate acts of violence not be more threatening than the man or woman intent on committing a crime. At least we can see what the wrongdoer is attempting to do. People can and likely will stop the offender. Can we be certain of those that wish to use film against us.
Johns: But there is this issue: who gets to see the video and control how it's used? Local public defenders wonder whether police preserve so-called exculpatory videos, the kind of tapes that could get a client off the hook.While the actual discussion of the issue may have been a bit more balanced than the teaser was, the implication, the impression heard on the air waves for weeks was imprinted. 'Cameras are cool. In fact, they discourage unlawful activity.'John Markus, Baltimore Public Defender: They get to pick when they want to save them. And we may find out after the fact that it's something that we want to subpoena. It may or may not be available at that point.
What we cannot dispute is that an image captured on film can be manipulated. Minds often see what they expect or believe to be true. I think we must accept, news reporting is inaccurate. Journalists, as are we all, are influenced by attitudes. Videotape is not more vigilant than a human being on the scene might be. Studies substantiate cameras do not curb crime. Indeed, those that view photographs are looking to verify what they believe.
Perhaps, the advantage of an aware public is people, when confronted with the unusual are less likely to have a preconceived notion. They notice nuances and watch their neighborhoods. Might we consider the inevitable, individuals will be less alert if they believe Big Brother is watching. Some may conclude, there is no reason to "get involved." People may become complacent. Why bother to care or concern myself; certainly, someone else will come, sooner or later . . . although perchance, the arrival of authorities may be too late.
Many Americans have turned their lives over to the media. Numerous people believe journalists have better resources; they will do the research and report the findings accurately. Others think paid experts are responsible; "they" will discover what we need to know, A few think Federal agencies are taking care of us. Americans are out of the habit of thinking and acting on their own. We as a nation have allowed many of our freedoms to be lost. Are we now willing to say, "Privacy isn't that important is it?" "Professionals" are telling us it is not. Will we again suspend disbelief and question only what we are told to.
Surveillance Sources . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 11, 2007 at 01:56 PM in Civil Rights, Communities and Communication , Domestic Security, Fear, George Orwell, Author, International Security, Society, Surveillance, Innocent Americans, Terrorism, Violence | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Supreme Court Rules; Brown Versus Board of Education Reversed
Affirmative Action: Separate But Equalcopyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org
It is official Brown versus Board of Education has been reversed. Providing equal education opportunities to all children, regardless of race, color, or creed is no longer a priority. The 1954 Court decision that invalidated the principle of “separate but equal” was overturned on June 28, 2007. This day will live in infamy. In another of the many recent 5 to 4 split decisions, the neoconservative Supreme Court canceled the promise made to students of color.
School integration, which was once considered essential, as of today, is no longer practicable. Perhaps, more accurately, the work needed to improve the quality of education for those living in impoverished areas was not pleasurable. Now, efforts to unify schools need not continue. Endeavors to integrate are illegal.
Today’s Supreme Court ruling has basically nullified the construct of racial equality in the schools. According to the majority, Affirmative Action is no longer thought just. The conservative Justices deemed this principle an illogical inconvenience. The Judges in the majority stated students in white enclaves or Black must travel too far to ensure equal access to quality schools. Justice Roberts declared.
The districts ''failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals.''Perhaps, the school system did not demonstrate a means for combating what is the convention. Schools do not have the power to force people to integrate their local neighborhoods.
Educational institutions are not able dictate who lives in what community. After receiving this ruling, Districts must relent, cease, and desist. School Districts will not have the option to open enrollment to those that do not reside in their region.
Oh, if they could; schools might possibly be given an opportunity to truly teach tolerance. However, for now, that prospect is but a dream, one Martin Luther King hoped we would realize.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.Sadly, the fantasy faded on this morning in June 2007. The nightmare is vivid. Facilitating awareness for diversity is a slow process, made more challenging when elders impose their preconceived notions on innocent children. If we do not endure, then the forces of “evil,” malevolence will.I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
As of June 28, 2007, this newly formed bias will be built into the laws governing school enrollment. The likelihood is bigotry will flourish. Culture clashes are now legal and encouraged by the dominant neoconservative Supreme Court.
Thankfully, there was vocal dissent. Justice Stephen Breyer, ardently voiced his concern; however muted in its effect on the final decision. In his fervent appeal Breyer offered.
Roberts' opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.Justices Breyer went on to express his fury over the fallacy that is now prominent in the Court records. In commenting on the opinion expressed by the Chief Justice Roberts, that the white students who didn't get the school of their choice in Louisville and Seattle were equivalent to the black students in Brown versus Board of Education who were denied access to integrated schools in Topeka, Kansas, Justice Stephen Breyer forcefully spoke with some restraint stating . . .''To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown.'
"You have got to be kidding me, that the efforts in good faith of these schools in Louisville and Seattle to integrate their schools, to make sure that there's diversity, how dare you compare that to the discrimination of Jim Crow?"Nonetheless, it happened. The words were uttered and the wheels of derision were set more deeply into the structure of society.
Division may have been the original intent of this Court. The rulings delivered in this past week would indicate that the Supreme Court is definitively split. The Conservative Jurists have no intention of seeking unity. However, whether that is the actual goal long-term is unclear, as much is in this Court. Chief Justice Roberts declared.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race," he wroteApparently, we are to believe that in our attempt to reverse centuries of racial prejudice, which in my mind equates to fear of the unknown, stranger anxiety, or xenophobia, segregation must stand. Humans will validate their reasons for racial discrimination characterizing these as the “natural.” The unequal ”process of selection” is firmly planted in the minds of many and as of this day mandated by the courts.
It is quite ironic to this author; as we philosophically battle against the idea of ethnic cleansing elsewhere, we here in America are proud to adopt policies that promote it. We honor division in our local communities, and presently, with the Courts blessing.
Perhaps, that has always been the truer agenda. In placing the newest neoconservative members to the Court, we have awarded lifetime positions of extreme power, to those that practice the policy of ‘Divide and Conquer.’ It seems some of the standing Justices already accepted the notion of separation as truth. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas. This Jurist stated his belief; separation is inevitable.
"Simply putting students together under the same roof does not necessarily mean that the students will learn together or even interact. Furthermore, it is unclear whether increased interracial contact improves racial attitudes and relations."Perchance, the evidence is ambiguous because Affirmative Action rules, those that advance unity have not been fully embraced or enacted. Thus, we have this Court case and the oft-repeated belief of Justice Thomas ‘Affirmative Action does nothing to help the disenfranchised.’ Judge Thomas has faith that is was the goodness of one insightful, intelligent, and intuitive individual that altered his life, Father Brooks. In a March 12, 2007 interview Justice Thomas recounted his tale of trials and tribulations.
Why is Father Brooks such an important person in your life?Might we ask what will become of those that do not have a Father Brooks. Will they feel as young Clarence Thomas did before he was given the gift that Affirmative Action provides to those without a mentor, as the youthful scholar felt when he first arrived at Holy Cross college?
That was an era of in loco parentis. It was a transition period unlike today when you have these notions of race entrenched. It was a time, actually, when there was no set road map for kids. Father Brooks understood something intuitively, that we were just kids. He knew we were from a lot of different environments.Father Brooks made a point of trying to recruit a lot more African Americans to campus in the months before you came. Do you think that recruitment drive helped you?
Oh no. I was going to go home to Savannah when a nun suggested Holy Cross. That's how I wound up there. Your industry has suggested that we were all recruited. That's a lie. Really, it's a lie. I don't mean a mistake. It's a lie.I had always been an honors student. I was the only black kid in my high school in Savannah and one of two or three blacks in my class during my first year of college in the seminary. I just transferred. I had always had really high grades so that was never a problem. It was the only school I applied to. It was totally fortuitous.…The thing that has astounded me over the years is that there has been such an effort to roll that class into people's notion of affirmative action. It was never really looked at. It was just painted over. Things were much more nuanced than that….You hear this junk. It's just not consistent with what really happened.
What did Father Brooks do?
Father Brooks realized that we needed to be nurtured—not that we needed it every day—but that we were going to have unique problems. When you have six blacks in a class of 550 kids, you need that. We all came from very different backgrounds. That's something that gets lost in this weird notion of race—that somehow you can come from New York and Savannah and Massachusetts and somehow you're still all the same. That's bizarre, and it denigrates individuals.Father Brooks understood that. He saw people who were individuals who happened to be black who had very different outlooks.
I was a kid. I was confused. I was 20 years old. I had no place to go. I had no precedent for anybody going to college. I had no precedent for anybody being in New England. I had no road map. I didn't know anybody to call. I had nobody to talk to. I had nobody to give me advice. Now, what do you do? You were just a kid, trying to make all these choices.Mental, physical, spiritual exhaustion, exasperation, this is the legacy that we as a nation are leaving our children of lesser means. A person can only live without hope for so long. As the rich become richer and the impoverished plunge further into forced ignorance we can expect that this emotional fatigue will be felt by all of us.Were you angry?
Sure. I was upset. I was upset with a lot of things. You get there and you sort it out. Look at that neighborhood there [Thomas points to a photo of a desolate strip in Georgia]. How do you go from that to Holy Cross? How do you do it? That's why some of us were really concerned about throwing some of these kids into those environments without thinking because you have a theory. That's the neighborhood I lived in before I went to live with my grandparents. Doesn't look very good, does it?There were a lot of changes to absorb. Just to think about it was fatiguing. It's still really fatiguing. It's also fatiguing that people assume we all showed up the same. A friend of mine sent me that print there. [A sketch of an African American man, draped over a desk with his hands extended toward the floor.] He has since passed away. He thought it captured my life.
Does it?
Oh yeah. That's why I keep it there. Look at the hand. Look at the exhaustion.What sort of exhaustion?
Everything. Mental. Physical. Spiritual. Just constant change. You just want to slow down. You see people take a walk and you want to, too.
Perhaps, we, as a country, by promoting principles that further division will experience what comes when the classes are truly separate and far from equal. Once again, we may witness what comes when people are [class] war weary. Possibly, rebellion will be the result. I trust in time revulsion will turn into rage, and why not. Deep division breeds revolution.
In just a few short years the craftsman President George W. Bush has created such strife abroad. Civil War in Iraq is invasive. With his recent appointments to the Supreme Court Mister Bush has secured the eventual possibility here at home. If not Civil War, certainly civil unrest may become our shared truth. Inequitable change often causes conflict.
This President, master of the message George W. Bush has definitely advanced imbalance. Most of us accept that President Bush has altered world politics with precision. He has done so with expediency. It seems this world leader has not ignored the domestic front. His appointments have altered the face of the Supreme Court. The newer members serve to accelerate the schism. Justice Stephen Breyer may have said it best.
"Never in the history of the court have so few done so much so quickly."Indeed we as a nation are deeply divided. We have reason to expect that soon Civil War, will be here. It is the natural outgrowth of a society divided. I can only ask that we remember the words of many and take these to heart.
United we stand; divided we fall.
~ Benjamin Franklin, John Dickinson, Abraham Lincoln
Sources for the Misnomer, ‘Segregation is superior’ . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on June 28, 2007 at 11:22 AM in American Dream, Americana, Civil Rights, Education, Education, Effects of Poverty , Inequality in America, John G. Roberts, Judge, Judiciary, Racial Discrimination, School Days, Society, Standards in Society, Supreme Court, Teach The Children, Who Writes Our History? , Xenophobia, “Freedom” and “Justice” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
