Cliff Notes from the South

The Truth About Dr. King and Economic Empowerment

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:29:00 +0000

“For we know now that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t have enough money to buy a hamburger?” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is recognized throughout the world as a civil rights champion. However, many of us underestimate Dr. King’s increasing focus on economic rights — and more important, economic empowerment — during his final years. A closer look at Dr. King’s final five years demonstrates the point.

For example, the 1963 Birmingham Campaign, which many people remember because of the Children’s Crusade and the police force’s use of water hoses and dogs, was not only about desegregating public facilities. The campaign also was about creating equal employment opportunities for Black residents in the downtown stores, which didn’t mind taking Black money but refused to help create Black income...

Click here to read the full article at AtlantaBlackStar.com.

What Albert Turner’s Support for Jeff Sessions Reminds Us About Black Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 18:42:00 +0000

They say the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree; meaning of course that an individual’s characteristics are often similar to those of his/her parents.

It’s a statement I’ve never been particularly fond of, partially because sayings and religious stories featuring apples and trees are usually problematic. In regards to this specific saying, I’ve always felt that it’s accuracy was shaky, at best. In truth, sometimes the apple falls so far from the tree that it’s not even in the same area code as the tree. Case in point: meet Albert Turner, Jr.

Albert Turner, Jr. is the son of Albert Turner, Sr. and Evelyn Turner, two of the Alabama civil rights activists who were targeted and prosecuted by then-U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions for alleged voter fraud. The Turners along with fellow activist Spencer Hogue became known as the Marion Three, named after the county seat of Perry County which sits in Alabama’s Black Belt region.

Many years earlier in 1965, it was Marion, Alabama where young Jimmy Lee Jackson was murdered, leading to calls for a march which eventually became Bloody Sunday and the Selma to Montgomery March. When the marchers confronted state troopers on Bloody Sunday, Albert Turner, Sr. was in the second row, right behind Rev. Hosea Williams and John Lewis.

During my nine years living in Selma, I was blessed to work and organize with veterans of the Voting Rights Movement, including legendary civil rights attorney J.L. Chestnut, who represented the Turners in 1985. J.L. was crystal clear about Sessions’ overzealous, and in his words “racist”, prosecution of the case. A photo of J.L. alongside the Turners is featured in a recent CNN story about the case—the same story in which Mrs. Turner explains why she has not yet forgiven, and will NEVER forget, what Sessions did.

While Mrs. Turner is convinced that Sessions has not changed his racist ways, her son, Albert, Jr., has become a Sessions supporter. He claims that Sessions was not the driving force behind the voting fraud case and that he [Turner] has “not seen racist tendencies or biases from Sen. Sessions."

To some, Turner’s remarks are a bit confusing, as he presumes to know more about the case than his own mother who was directly involved. Nevertheless, confusing as the remarks may be, few who are familiar with Albert Turner, Jr.’s politics will say that they are incredibly surprised by Turner’s remarks. Turner has a reputation for pursuing whatever is in his own personal interest, regardless of any collateral damage. In some cases, this has involved questionable political alliances, often with individuals whose interests and policies have been in stark opposition to the interests of Perry County’s predominantly Black and low-income community members.

Perhaps the most glaring and most destructive example of Turner elevating himself while taking actions that hurt his community is the example of a coal ash landfill which Turner and the rest of the county commission agreed to place in Perry County. The landfill is meant to hold 4 million tons of toxic coal ash resulting from the TVA Fossil Plant spill in Tennessee. As the landfill was being considered, community members raised a series of concerns. According to Facing South, an online magazine which has done a series of wonderful reporting on the issue:

One of those concerns was about environmental injustice. Roane County, Tennessee, where the spill occurred, is over 94 percent white and less than 3 percent African-American, with about 14 percent of residents living in poverty. Perry County, Alabama, where the landfill is located, is over 68 percent African-American and is the state's poorest county, with over 35 percent of residents living in poverty. In Uniontown, 88 percent of residents are African-American and almost half live in poverty.

Nevertheless, Turner and the county commission decided to move forward with the landfill, arguing that it would provide millions of dollars in revenues. In the process, many community members felt that resident feedback was being minimized, and some felt that conflicting community events were scheduled at the same time that an environmental impact meeting was being held. The following documentary movie trailer provides some background on the decision-making process, or lack thereof.

It’s worth noting that since the landfill has been in operation, residents have complained of health concerns including respiratory problems, headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting. As of 2016, a county health database sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ranks Perry County as 64^th out of 67 Alabama counties in regards to overall health (down from 63^rd in 2011).

In a similar situation, in 2004, Turner and the Perry CountyCommission approved of a private prison facility in the county. As is often the case with prison of any sort, there was community resistance to the idea, based on safety concerns. Nevertheless, Turner and the commission justified the decision largely based on the potential economic impact. Although it was estimated that the facility would cost $20 million to build, it’s unclear how much, if any, of that funding was recycled within Perry County with local businesses. What’s more clear is that the economic boost that was promised never materialized, at least not for most of the residents of Perry County. Any boost that took place seems to have been limited to the county commission and its commissioners.

Thus, when Albert Turner, Jr. speaks admirably of Jess Sessions, one thing should be clear: he is speaking only for himself. He certainly isn’t speaking for his mother; nor is he speaking for the majority of Perry County or the majority of Alabama civil rights activists (See statements from another elected official and other organizations). Just himself. And he is speaking for himself not only in the sense that he is expressing his own viewpoint, but in the sense that he speaking out of personal self-interest. One cannot say for sure if there was a specific quid-pro-quo associated with his remarks in support of Sessions, but if there wasn’t, it certainly wouldn’t be consistent with the character of his political career.

And in that sense, the apple has truly fallen far, far away from the tree. For both Albert Turner, Sr. and Evelyn Turner represent a generation of political leadership for which community service and the interest of the community was priority number one. When Albert Turner, Sr. was first elected to the commission seat his son now holds, you did not have to wonder if his votes and actions would be aligned with the people’s agenda; he had a legacy of service that spoke for itself. It’s a charactestic we need more of today.

But I would be remiss if I pretended that this shortcoming solely belongs to Albert Turner, Jr., just as it would be inaccurate to suggest that he has been the only Black leader to speak out in support of Sessions. There have been Black pastors, other Black elected officials, and even Condoleeza Rice, who’s qualifications to speak out on matters related to civil rights are primarily related to her connection to the four little girls tragically murdered in the Birmingham bombing at 16^th Street Baptist Church.

No, the disconnect between our current style of elected leadership and proven track records of faithfully serving our communities beyond personal self-interest extends far beyond Albert Turner, Jr. It is a disconnect which in many ways has widened at the same rate as our deepening involvement in America’s two party system. The more involved we’ve gotten in traditional party politics, the more we have taken on the culture of those politics. And the more negative aspects of that culture—the overemphasis on individualism, corporate support, pedigree, hierarchy and more—have been extremely detrimental to our collective civic engagement.

Although our affiliation with party politics in recent decades has obviously been closely aligned with the Democratic Party, this is by no means a critique of one party in favor of the other. Instead, it is a recognition that transforming our political leadership will require distinct and independent political structures, with a distinct political culture and, perhaps most importantly, with independent financing.

Failing to pursue such options almost guarantees that we will continue to build alliances with people who do not fully support our interests, or even worse, with the likes of Jeff Sessions and others who are fundamentally opposed to our interests. It’s past time for us to demand better.

Flint Water Charges Address the Symptom, But the Disease Grows

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:40:00 +0000

Earlier this week, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced criminal charges related to the Flint water crisis. Among those facing charges are two individuals who served as Emergency Manager over the city, Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose. These individuals participated in decisions that created the crisis to begin with (by switching the source of Flint’s water supply), and then deepened the crisis by ignoring all sorts of warning signs, including the outcry from the city’s residents.

While bringing charges against those who consciously prioritized finances over the health of Flint’s residents is a decent start, we should all be clear: the battle is not over. The people of Flint are still fighting for clean water, battling for government funding necessary to solve long-term infrastructure need, and protesting ridiculously high water bills and threats that water services will be cut off if bills are not paid.

But as grossly unjust the specific situation in Flint is, there is a larger issue which must be addressed in order to prevent catastrophes like what we’ve seen in Flint from becoming the new normal. There is an existing disease which, with the impending presidency of He Who Shall Not Be Named, threatens to metastasize into something far more dangerous and, quite literally, deadly. It is a disease which attacks democratic institutions in much the same way that a biological disease might attack a human organ. This disease is the trend of state takeovers of local control, and in the case of Flint and other Michigan cities, it shows itself in the form of “emergency management”.

The State of Michigan’s ability to take control of the city’s water supply stemmed from a law which allows the state to takeover cities and school districts that are facing financial trouble. Michigan had allowed for such takeovers for years, but when Republican Governor Snyder and the state legislature expanded the takeover powers in a 2011 version of the law, voters in the state repealed the policy via referendum. The governor and the legislature responded with a 2013 version of the law, which basically allowed for the same things but with different wording.

Currently, 19 states and the District of Columbia have emergency manager laws. The map above can be found in a larger infographic provided by the Council of State Governments. Many of these states have large cities with heavy populations of Blacks and/or Latinos. The matter of removing local power and control from local residents is troubling enough at the theoretical level. However, when the implementation of such policies generally involves taking power from Black and Brown communities and placing it in the hands of White lawmakers who are often Republicans, many view the policy as old school racial disenfranchisement.

Such takeovers have not been limited to financial crisis. Several states without “fiscal emergency” laws have processes by which the state can take over a failing school district. Georgia’s governor and legislature just attempted to pass such a law, but it was defeated in a statewide referendum.

In addition to the potential spread of emergency management or state takeover policies, the country is now facing another potential form of coup—one spearheaded by the great state of North Carolina. December 16, 2016 is likely to become a date that will live in infamy. Some may remember this as the day of President Obama’s final press conference of the year, or the day that news chatter dominated by the FBI joining the rest of the intelligence community in concluding that not only did Russia interfere with the U.S. presidential election, but that it did so in an attempt to support He Who Shall Not Be Named. Others will remember that date because of the extraordinary measures the overwhelmingly Republican North Carolina legislature used to weaken the powers of the incoming Democratic governor.

In an “emergency session” which was supposed to address disaster relief, the Republican legislature passed two bills (SB4 and HB17) which among other things:

Reduce the number of political appointments controlled by the governor from 1,500 to 425, and requires that the governor’s Cabinet appointments face approval by the state Senate
Modify the makeup of local and state boards of elections so that Republicans will control the boards in even years (i.e. years with presidential elections and/or other major offices up for election)
Limit access to the NC Supreme Court, which, in the recent election, became majority progressive. So what better way to minimize the third branch of government than to limit the number and types of cases that can make it there?

These actions were taken by a legislature which is arguably illegitimate due to a court ruling which found that the legislative district lines resulting in the current legislature are illegal and which ordered new elections to take place in 2017. Add on top of that the fact that the legislation was signed by a lame-duck governor who had just lost his re-election bid, and you essentially have what many have called a coup—not a military coup, and not a bloody coup, but a coup nonetheless. More than 50 protesters were arrested at the North Carolina legislative building during the two days of debate and voting on the bills.

And yet, while this was taking place—while a very much “not normal” usurpation of political power was taking place—the major news networks went about their business as if it were just another day. As Media Matters reports:

None of these details, however, have been reported on any national broadcast news programs since Wednesday. A review of the December 14 and 15 editions of ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS’ Evening News, NBC’s Nightly News, and of the December 15 and 16 editions of ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS’ CBS This Morning, and NBC’s Today found no mentions of the attempted power grab. Local affiliates of all three networks did cover the story.

In short, the very nature of democracy is being transformed right in front of our eyes. Acknowledging this is not to say that American democracy has ever been perfect, or even close to it. But what we are seeing now, as changing demographics are challenging the White majority’s ability to dominate an honest majority rule system, is an attempt to change the very nature of democratic institutions in ways that go beyond voter suppression of demographic groups (which is also on the rise with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act). Much the way the Electoral College is a structural feature built to offset the unpredictability of the popular vote, conservatives are testing the waters with other structural mechanisms to offset gains by people of color and progressives, particularly at the local level.

And if we are not vigilant and proactive in regards to these efforts, our communities throughout this country can end up just like Flint’s water—poisoned and out of our control.

Radio Interview: Sameera Khan Reporting from Standing Rock

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:24:00 +0000

This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Sameera Khan, Miss New Jersey 2015 and political activist, who was in Standing Rock supporting Water Protector efforts to block the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Our interview took place just one day after the Army Corps of Engineers announced that it would NOT be granting an easement necessary for construction on the pipeline to continue, a major victory for the Standing Rock Sioux and for all who believe in justice.

In addition to the potential disasterous effects the pipeline could have on the water supply, the Standing Rock Sioux also argued that the pipeline would pass through and likely destroy Native burial sites and sacred places. It's worth noting that an original proposal for the pipeline would have taken it north of Bismark, the capital of North Dakota and a city that is 90% White.

As I mention at the start of the interview, and as I have often said in the past, we cannot fully understand race and politics in America without understanding this country's TWO original sins:

the "peculiar institution" of slavery, which shaped America's constitutional principles--including the Electoral College which many people are currently seeking to change--and which has influenced American politics, either explicitly or implicitly, since that time; and
the theft of Native American lands, genocide (both in terms of lives lost and cultural attacks) against Native American nations, and violations of Native American sovereignty via treaty violations that continue to this very day.

The battle at Standing Rock is the most recent in a string of examples of disrespect toward Native American lives, land and culture. However, in the context of the recent presidential election and attempts to understand "Trump voters", it is also a reminder that White "economic anxiety" has always taken precedence over the rights of "others". This country was founded on White economic anxiety.

Although the recent decision by the Army Corps of Engineers is a victory for the movement, we should be clear that the battle is not over. Sameera addressed this issue during our interview. First, Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, issued a statement clarifying their intentions to move forward with the project. Second, it's very clear that Trump fully supports the project and could pave the way for the project once he assumes office in January--that is, after he gets done with the other 50 things he said he would do on "day one" of his administration. So just as the Water Protectors are bracing for a protracted struggle, we who can't actually make it to Standing Rock should remain vigilant and continue to send whatever support we can (see my previous blog for some ideas).

Enjoy the interview, and please be sure to 1) share it with friends/colleagues and 2) click the follow button so you can receive updates of other upcoming shows. I'm lining up some GREAT interviews with community activists, elected officials and scholars, all of whom will share useful insights as we explore the intersection of race and politics and discuss concrete strategies for building power in communinities of color. Try to catch us live and JOIN THE CONVERSATION!

I'm Cliff, and on that note... I'm out!

Rosa Parks, 61 Years Later: Trump Voters and Other Lessons

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 01 Dec 2016 22:36:00 +0000

On this day in 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus. Today, 61 years later, there are several relevant lessons we can pull from that event and the movement that followed. The following is not an exhaustive list, but includes five lessons that are currently on my mind.

1. Rosa Parks wasn’t just a random person who was tired on the bus. She was an officer in the local NAACP.

Today’s Relevance: Organizations matter. If you’re not in one, join one. And if social media is the limit of your organizing, that’s not enough—helpful, but not enough. Kwame Toure (formerly Stokely Carmichael) spent his entire life speaking about the need to “organize, organize, organize,” and he emphasized the difference between mobilizing for short-term action and, organizing for sustained change. We need to strengthen our organizations.

2. It does us no good to try to Whitesplain away the bus driver who called the police by exploring his economic anxiety over possibly losing his job. He was racist and his actions were in support of a racist policy and belief system. Period.

Today’s Relevance: figure it out on your own. I’m tired of even talking about it.

Actually, I think I will elaborate a little. There are no words for how tired I am of the media, Democratic politicians, or so called allies talking about how the White working class has been ignored and how they just want to be heard. First, such an apologist approach fails to deal with the fact that college educated, upper income White voters also supported Trump, but let’s just ignore that inconvenient truth for a minute and address the “White working class wants to be heard” narrative.

Hell, the Black working class wants to be heard, and the Brown working class wants to be heard, and the rest of the working class wants to be heard. But it was pretty much this one, specific, White portion of the working class that decided “being heard” meant voting for the racist, sexist, religiously intolerant, gay conversion supporting pathological liar who is now filling the swamp with the richest, most blatantly anti-working class cabinet ever.

It makes little difference to me whether they voted for Trump because they agree with his racism, or whether they disagree but didn’t find it important enough to vote against him. Either way, you are not my ally. To me, you are the same as the bus driver who tried to kick Rosa Parks out of her seat.

3. The male leadership in Montgomery rejected the boycott idea, but Jo Ann Robinson refused to let that stand in her way. She and three supporters (including two students) distributed more than 50,000 copies of the boycott flyer… overnight… with no high-powered copy machines.

Today’s Relevance: A couple of points here—one dealing with sexism within our movements, which we must continue to be conscious and intentional about addressing today. Secondly… Brothers, we've got to step the ____ up! Although Black voters were pretty unified in our voting preference, there was a gap between Black women and Black men (no, NOT the deciding factor in results). But it’s not just voting, it’s community meetings, school meetings, etc. Please don’t get me wrong—I’m not riding the “all Black men are trifling” train, and I fully understand our unique challenges. But it’s 2016, and sisters are still making 50,000 copies with not quite enough help.

4. Contrary to popular belief, the original boycott was not meant to last indefinitely. It was not meant to last for a year, or 6 months or even one week. The goal for the original boycott was for it to last one day. Just one day! After the success of the first day, the community decided to keep it going, and the rest is history.

Today’s Relevance: Too often, we fail to start action—or we criticize the actions that others have started—because we’re not absolutely certain of where it will end or what impact it will have. Sometimes we just need to move. That’s not to say that we need to just be reckless, and the people of Montgomery certainly weren’t reckless in launching a one day boycott. But it is to say that we need to stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and more importantly, stop letting fear rationalize our inaction.

Newton’s laws of motion (probably stolen from a Black grandma) state that a body at rest stays at rest until acted on by an outside force. So, if the recent election has left you uncertain, afraid, paralyzed, etc. and you’re not yet moving, let this serve as your outside force. MOVE!

5. Technically speaking, bus segregation did not end because of the boycott. The segregation actually ended because of a concurrent legal case, Browder vs. Gayle, which eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declared the segregation laws unconstitutional, and only then did the community end the boycott. Today’s Relevance: We must remember that we have always used civil disobedience and legal strategies (as well as self-reliance strategies that try to bypass legal barriers). These tactics and strategies are not polar opposites, and when effectively used to complement one another, we can and will make change.

A final note: Some feel that there’s little to be learned from previous movements—that tactics from 60, 30 or even 10 years ago are outdated. But I argue that many of the keys to our future success are rooted in our previous victories (and defeats).

On This Thanksgiving, There Comes a Time When Silence Is Betrayal

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 24 Nov 2016 20:20:00 +0000

These are difficult times. If not for the ironic racial overtones, I might even say these are dark times. I know that many of my friends, like me, are almost burnt out from reading the multiple news and social media stories about the growing number of hate crimes and Trump's latest appointments to his cabinet of deplorables. For many of us, this Thanksgiving is an opportunity for us to gather amongst those we love, and either escape from the difficulties we're facing or vent or frustrations or both.

For most of my adult life, I have found it difficult to gather with family and not raise the historical contradictions associated with Thanksgiving. Coincidentally, I'm also the one who's been known to interrupt 4th of July gatherings with copies of Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave is the 4th of July?" So it seems like a strange paradox that this year--a year in which more than usual we need to just come together and let each other know that we truly love one another--this year it's more important than ever that we NOT ignore the roots of this holiday and the plight of this land's first peoples.

This year, more than ever, we cannot just sit and enjoy our Thanksgiving meals and football games, and ignore the fact the right now--RIGHT NOW--at Standing Rock, North Dakota, our indigenous brothers and sisters, and many supporters, are having their human rights violated as they fight to protect their land and their water.

There is a lot I could say about the long history of African/African-American and Native American solidarity. There's a lot I could say about the Seminole Nation, and other indigenous nations that actively resisted US slavery and welcomed runaway slaves. But for those who don't want that much history, I think the video above speaks for itself. If that video doesn't move you, then perhaps this one will.

There's a lot we need to fight against, and even more that we need to fight for. But it is absolutely unacceptable that we continue to sit quietly as another marginalized group suffers. We can't all travel to Standing Rock, but here are a few things we can do.

1. Contact President Obama: you can use the information at https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call. You'll have options to call and/or submit comments online. Do both! It will take less than five minutes. Ask him to stop construction, or at the very least, to send federal observers to protect the protestors.

2. As promted by Shaun King on Twitter, buy "Wish List" Items at Amazon: The DAPL Water Protectors have created a wish list of items that will help support the movement. There are items at a variety of price ranges. See https://www.amazon.com/registry/wishlist/18FR1AGDPWZLC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_9qRnybRQHT9F1

3. Donate to the Mni Wiconi (Water is Life) Health Clinic is a free health clinic partnership between Standing Rock Sioux Tribe traditional healers, university doctors, nurses and other organizations (also via Shaun King): https://crowdfund.ucsf.edu/project/2913

4. Help spread the word. Forward/share this post, or follow #NoDAPL on social media and share.

If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. And just like Whites who are silent about structural racism and white supremacy, our silence amounts to betrayal. We are better than that.

How Republicans are Modernizing Slavery Era Tactics

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:20:00 +0000

Throughout the 2015-2016 election campaign, there has been discussion of Republican efforts to “turn back the clock”—to dilute, and indeed reverse, a broad range of civil rights related to race, gender, sexual identification, etc. However, as the Trump era begins to take shape, we are starting to see that conservatives are not only turning the clock back in terms of general philosophy, but in regards to specific tactics as well. And they’re not just looking backwards by a few decades; they’re taking it all the way back to slavery.

Show Me Your Papers

Among the more troubling members of Trump’s deplorable transition team is Kris Kobach, currently Kansas’ secretary of state. Kobach’s anti-civil rights pedigree isextensive, and includes the controversial 2010 Arizona law which made it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying their legal paperwork. It also allowed members of law enforcement to stop anyone and ask for their papers if they suspected the person might be undocumented.

The Arizona law is reminiscent of slavery era “Black Codes”, sets of laws which were designed to limit the rights of free Blacks (in contrast to “Slave Codes” discussed below, which dealt specifically with those still enslaved). Free Blacks faced the threat of being captured and re-enslaved at any time, and one tactic which facilitated such re-enslavement was the requirement that free Blacks have their “freedom papers” with them at all times—documents that could verify that they were indeed “free”. The Arizona law is also similar to apartheid era laws in South Africa, requiring Blacks to “show their papers” on demand.

Of course, the impact of the Arizona law extends beyond immigrants—documented or undocumented—and will impact U.S. born citizens as well. All a law enforcement officer needs is a belief that a person is undocumented, which can essentially amount to “you look Mexican”. With Donald Trump setting the standard with his attack on U.S. born Judge Curiel, whom he repeatedly referred to as Mexican, it’s clear that law enforcement will feel able to racially profile and use the law as pretext to harass and potentially arrest Latinos for a variety of offenses, many of which will have nothing to do with immigration status.

Criminalizing Support for Freedom

Similarly, in the state of Washington, a Republican state senator who supported Donald Trump is seeking to intensify the criminalization of protests by declaring certain forms of protest as “economic terrorism”. While many of the activities included in the proposed bill are already punishable as misdemeanors, the bill would classify these activities as felonies, significantly increasing the possible fines as well as jail time involved.

While the attack on protestors is insane in and of itself, another feature of the bill is equally draconian, if not more so. The bill seeks to punish those who fund, organize, and/or sponsor such protests, a provision which could have a chilling effect on those individuals who for whatever reasons cannot directly participate in such activities but who would support in other ways. While the bill’s supporters claim that such limits are aimed at billionaires who are allegedly sponsoring the protests (a complete lie), such a law could be used against a random supporter who donated materials for signs or who contributed $10 in support of the cause.

Such a policy, which seeks to criminalize not only participants but supporters, has its roots in slavery era “slave codes”. Some are aware of how slave codes denied rights to enslaved Africans, but many of us are not as familiar with the restrictions placed on Whites. For example, laws which forbade enslaved Africans from reading were often accompanied by language stating that it illegal for a White person to *teach* a slave to read. More importantly, fugitive slave laws not only made it illegal to support those who had escaped, but went as far as to require on demand that any individual actively assist in capturing a fugitive.

Imagine the modern-day implications of such a policy, perhaps as applied to requiring assistance with mass deportations. Or try extending Donald Trump’s comments during debate #2 regarding Muslims watching their neighbors and reporting (which launched a comical #muslimsreportstuff), and imagine that as a legal requirement.

Local Control

Several months ago, all eyes were on North Carolina as the state legislature and Governor McCrory passed HB2, “the bathroom bill”, which allowed for discrimination against LGBT individuals. Although the civil rights issue involved with the bill rightfully received a lot of attention, an underlying issue was only discussed on the margins, and that was the fact that the state bill was actually nullifying a municipal law passed by the city of Charlotte. While the issue itself is obviously truly important, the tactic used may turn out to be the bigger story over the next few years.

A similar example can be found in Birmingham, Alabama, which in 2015, passed a city ordinance to increase the minimum wage. However; in February 2016, the state government passed a law which prohibits all local governments, including Birmingham, from enacting higher local minimum wage ordinances. Again, a state government nullified a city’s attempt to support its residents. In this case, the racist aspects of the state action are painfully clear; Black residents would have accounted for an estimated 70% of the beneficiaries of the increased minimum wage. In essence, a predominantly White state government was telling a predominantly Black city to “stay in its place.”

Such action is not new in Alabama, which is governed by a constitution that severely restricts the ability of city and county governments to pass legislation covering their own jurisdictions. It’s no coincidence that the Alabama constitution has been in effect since 1901, and that many of its provisions were specifically created to roll back Black progress made during Reconstruction and to control any future attempts at the local level. Thus, the state nullification of local law tactic that we are seeing has its roots in the slavery era—or at least the post-Reconstruction era. This tactic is guaranteed to become more prevalent as cities continue to try to pass progressive policies.

The point here is not that we must run and hide. Quite the contrary, the point is that we must be aware of these tactics and use *our* knowledge of history, combined with our modern strengths and resources, to implement counter-strategies. We can and will defeat these efforts to turn back the clock, but only if we are clear about the nature of our opponents. As David Walker said in 1830, “do not trifle, for they will not trifle with you.”

Election 2016: How and What Now? (Part 1)

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:14:00 +0000

A lot has been said and written about the election since last Tuesday, and certainly, there’s lots more to come. For my part, I can honestly say that I saw this coming. I had been telling people for months that any polling data that showed Clinton with less than a 5 or 6 point lead meant she was actually behind. That’s because I knew that, although some ridiculed the notion, there was a certain percentage of voters, mainly White, who simply would not reveal that they planned to vote for Trump. As Dave Chappelle said the other night on SNL, “I know the Whites… You guys aren’t as full of surprises as you used to be.” I figured no matter what the polls said, Trump had at least 3 or 4 more points than everyone believed.

I also knew that regardless of what the polls said, that Clinton would not get as many votes as people believed. That’s because this was, in fact, the first presidential election since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Some folks may have missed this critical point, because as the Nation recently pointed out,it was the most undercovered story of 2016. People showing up as Clinton supporters in the poll would never make it to the voting booth, either because they didn’t have ID, or their name had been removed, or their polling location had been closed, or Sheriffs had been sent to their house to intimidate them (yes, that happened) or some other tactic that Republicans (and some Democrats in red states) used to minimize the voting by people of color. They even bragged about this being their purpose in TV interviews and in official party memos. Well, in case we didn’t already know it, guess what… voter suppression works, especially when those who have the ability to protect those rights are unwilling or unable to do so, and when those who have the responsibility to report on those rights are preoccupied with email servers.

So yes, I saw this coming. But that doesn’t change the fact that, after spending all of election day coordinating and canvassing with workers in one Georgia legislative district that we actually successfully flipped, I returned home and watched in disbelief as state after state went for Donald Trump. A friend of mine posted that it’s amazing how many radicals actually believe in the system and are shocked by these results. I’m not sure if the shock and pain is so much a reflection of a belief in the system, as much as a painful, stinging reminder of our status in this country. No matter how often we are reminded, there is still the sting of being reminded of how much hate there is in this country. It’s the kind of momentary sting we feel with every policy shooting—not disbelief that such a thing could happen but disbelief that it has happened again, and again… and then again. It’s the kind of sting that makes you wonder, not whether we’ll eventually win (we will!), but why the fight is even necessary to begin with. It’s the kind of shock and pain that I don’t ever won’t to NOT feel when such events occur, because that would mean that my *own* humanity has been changed.

Nevertheless, I’m not writing to say “I told you so” or to explain my own reaction. I’m writing so we can better understand why this happened and where we go from here.

A Lot of Blame to Go Around

A lot of folks played a role in the election results, starting with the candidate herself and her campaign team. Yes, the email story received far more attention than it ever should have, but at the end of the day, 1) it was stupid, and 2) I still don’t understand how, after two years, she and her team NEVER found a good response to the question. More importantly, her team made several strategic mistakes, including chasing fool’s gold in places like Arizona and Utah without consolidating her base in states where they HAD to know she was vulnerable (e.g. Michigan, Wisconsin and others).

And speaking of her base, I’m not particularly interested in giving advice to the Democratic Party, but if they expect to make gains either in Congress or in the next presidential election, someone better pick up Brown is the New White or listen to any of the Black and Brown commentators who have been trying to make it clear that the Democrats have all of the votes they need if they would simply pay serious attention to addressing the needs of Black and Brown communities and then truly investing in mobilizing voters of color.

In terms of the voting population, as The Root explains, “Black women were the only ones who tried tosave the world.” Black men gave only 80% of support to Clinton, compared to 93% of Black women, so a significant group of us are apparently unwilling to vote for a female president. It’s also possible that Trump’s anti-immigration message resonated more with Black men than women, but I’m thinking it had more to do with sexism. We’ll see if someone studies that further.

As for the Latino vote, I’m confused by the 30% of Latinos who saw fit to vote for the man who called many of them murderers and rapists. I’m guessing a significant segment of the Cuban-American community in Florida probably felt that Trump was just talking about Mexicans and that they’re exempt from his racism. I haven’t seen the Florida voter breakdown, but we’ll see.

White Folks

With all that said, I in no way intend to ignore the elephant in the room. White people elected Trump. It’s that simple. Trump and his team waged a campaign based on the belief that if he could galvanize enough White people, he could offset the minimal support he expected from people of color. Trump basically nationalized the Southern Strategy of the 60s and 70s. And it worked. Every demographic of the white vote—men, women, college educated, non-college educated—each segment gave Trump a majority of their support. A vast majority of White America voted for Trump either because they agree with his racism or because they simply aren’t that concerned with his racism.

I don’t want to minimize the role of Trump’s sexism and misogyny, nor do I want to assume that just because a majority of White women voted for Trump that sexism was not at play. Certainly, we should all know that women can internalize sexist oppression just as people of color often internalize racist oppression. Every oppressed group has a tendency to participate in their own oppression to one degree or another. But what we saw at play here was not only that White women chose to vote in support of sexism; what we saw was that White women chose race over gender. Again, to those of us who study history, this should come as no surprise, and yet it has been astonishing to watch it play out.

The Media

A couple of weeks ago, on the radio show that I co-host with Heather Gray on WRFG, I pointed out that Trump’s campaign was highlighting several contradictions in the electoral process, and that in a strange way, he was correct in some of his critiques. He was absolutely right that the media rigs campaigns, but he was absolutely wrong in pretending he was the victim of this rigging. For more than a year, Trump benefited from free advertising as the networks sought big ratings by covering everything he did or said. Even CNN’s presidentrecently admitted it was a mistake giving Trump so much coverage. Perhaps he should also admit that it was a mistake giving nightly access to not one, not two, but often three of his surrogates.

The media strengthened Trump in other ways as well. But what’s more important now is that they are continuing to do what they did throughout the election campaign—they are normalizing Trump. With the exception of a few journalists, mainly Black and Brown, the media is moving on from Trump’s racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, etc. to discuss standard transition plans. And in doing so, they are spreading the mantras of “give Trump a chance”, “let’s wait and see”, and “maybe he’ll be different”.

Most of the those who are spreading this narrative have something in common—they are not the ones whose lives are in grave danger right now. They are not the ones facing increased stop and frisk. They're not the Muslims being attacked and in at least one case killed, like the Muslim brother in Wisconsin. They're not the Latino children being taunted at school, not only by students but by TEACHERS as well! They're not the girls being sexually assaulted and told that it's okay because the president can do it.

For everyone who is tempted to go with the "let's wait and see", I encourage you to read Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail". I suggest reading the entire letter, but especially the section on why we can't wait:

For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never."

The paragraph that follows that quote contains a beautiful defense of extremism, which is exactly what is called for at this time. Not less, but more protest. In fact, when confronted with forces that have such little respect for your lives, or the lives of those you call allies, friends, and loved ones, extremism isn’t even the correct word. Some, like Thomas Paine, might call it “Common Sense”.

Speaking of common sense, part 2 of this Cliff Note will explore Malcolm’s “The Ballot of the Bullet” and discuss potential electoral and non-electoral responses to our current situation. Stay tuned!

My Cliff Notes to Ernie Johnson Regarding the Election

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:03:00 +0000

In the video below, Ernie Johnson, an NBA on TNT sports commentator, offered his thoughts about the election and its aftermath. I saw the video in a friend's Facebook post, and I then posted the comments shown below the video link. I've not edited them since the Facebook post, but I will be expanding on some of the points in a separate article.

No sir, Ernie Johnson. Completely disagree on all three counts, starting with the false equivalency of a man who is by his own words a sexual predator, bigot and hatemonger compared with a woman who set up an email server.

Second, no sir, we do not have to give him a chance. That is NOT the definition of democracy. If he seeks to do all that he SAID he would do, then our obligation is to NOT give him a chance. And it starts today, as the stories of stone cold racists and misogynist across the country who now feel emboldened to intimidate, assault and chant at people of color and grab women (and little girls!) spread, we cannot allow him to just wink at them and act like he hasn't unleashed this.

And third, I'm not trying to hear about how important your Christianity is as you sit by and watch a man who violates at least 4 of the 10 commandments on a daily basis. I'm not trying to hear about you speak about Jesus (whom I love, in all his Blackness) as you ignore that this man violates what Jesus said was the heart of the word: by his own words he has never asked God for forgiveness which makes it hard to believe he loves God with all his heart, and it's certainly clear that he does NOT love his neighbor as himself. I'm not trying to impose a Christian analysis on ANYBODY, but if that's how you chose to use the national airwaves to rationalize your position then perhaps you need to rethink yourself.

Support Needed for Election Day GOTV in Georgia!

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sun, 06 Nov 2016 20:52:00 +0000

Georgia is in position to play a critical role in Hillary’s path to 270. In polls taken as late as this weekend, data suggests that the presidential race in Georgia is a statistical dead heat, with Hillary trailing by just 1%. In a race that will generate roughly 3.8 million votes, a 1% margin means that our state could be decided by less than 38,000. Just 500 votes in every Democrat leaning district could be the difference. Now, more than ever, EVERY VOTE MATTERS! With the closing of the early voting period this past Friday, the focus is now on our election day Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts, and we need your help.

In the process of mobilizing the votes necessary to “turn Georgia blue” in the presidential race, we will simultaneously be mobilizing votes to impact key races for the Georgia State House. During this election cycle, the Georgia Democratic Party, House Democratic Leader Stacey Abrams, the Georgia donor table and others have felt that flipping 2-3 state house districts would be an important step in weakening the Republican majority and making sure that Republicans do not capture a “supermajority” – 66% of seats which impacts veto overrides, constitutional amendments, census redistricting, etc. Regardless of what happens with the presidential election, Georgia will not be able to move forward with progressive and equitable policies until we change the makeup of the state legislature!

One important district where there is a tight race and a great opportunity for Democrats to flip a seat is House District 138, covering the counties of Sumter (Americus), Chattahoochee, Marion and Schley. Currently, District 138 is represented by Republican Mike Cheokas, a local liquor store owner who has supported dangerous and discriminatory legislation, voting for campus carry and the so-called ‘religious freedom’ bills. According to Better Georgia (www.bettergeorgia.org), Cheokas faced controversy earlier this year over his support of several pro-confederate bills. He continued to support the bills, even after the lead sponsor, Rep. Tommy Benton defended the KKK, saying, they were “not so much a racist thing but a vigilante thing to keep law and order.” Cheokas has also repeatedly supported policies which hurt a majority of the district’s residents. Cheokas recently sponsored legislation that changed the structure of the Sumter County School Board in order to dilute Black representation.

With your help, we can implement our election day GOTV strategies which can help win House District 138 while increasing voter turnout that can help “dump Trump” and turn Georgia blue! Financial support will help provide extra workers for canvassing teams, rides to the polls, snacks and water (for canvassers and voters on long lines) and other logistical needs. Donations can be made online at www.blackvotersmatterfund.org. Donations by checks can be made payable to “Black Voters Matter Fund” and sent to:

Black Voters Matter Fund
c/o Cliff Albright
6486 Stonelake Place
Atlanta, GA 30331

BVMF is a 501c4 organization and donations/gifts are NOT tax deductible as charitable contributions.

Where Simone Manuel and Langston Hughes Meet Donald Trump

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:53:00 +0000

When I was young, I used to love watching the Olympics. I remember watching, at the age of 10, the 1980 Lake Placid Olympics and following every game of the U.S. hockey team’s journey to gold, and I can still hear Al Michaels’ “do you believe in miracles” as if it were yesterday. I remember watching the 1984 Summer Olympics, cheering for Carl Lewis and Mary Lou Retton as if they were personal friends of mine.

I can even remember how excited I was when I found out that handball was an Olympic sport, only to find out that the Olympic version was far different than the handball I was exceptionally good at playing on handball courts in the Bronx. So I wasn’t likely to have my own moment on the podium, but I could still feel a sense of pride and joy watching U.S. athletes receive gold as the flag was raised and The Star Spangled Banner was played.

As I became older and more politically conscious (now known as “woke”), the Olympics became more problematic. To be sure, I still loved the athleticism and the incredibly human stories behind every athlete in every event. But the questions of who I was cheering for, and why, were far less clear than in my youth. And the U.S.-centric television coverage, only occasionally muted by a fascination with European athletes, became outright irritating.

Watching the Olympics became another manifestation of W.E.B. DuBois' “double consciousness”. If you’re not familiar with the concept, this quote from his classic The Souls of Black Folks should make it plain: “One ever feels his two-ness— an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.”

Nevertheless, like most Black folks, I have always reserved special hopes and prayers for athletes of color in events where we don’t usually participate. Whether Debi Thomas in 1988, Dominique Dawes in 1996, or the Jamaican bobsled team for that matter, I feel a personal connection to every Black athlete trying to become “the first”. When Debi fell in ’88, my heart sunk, and when Gabby nailed her landings in 2012, my heart raced!

Which brings us to yesterday—a day on which we saw the expected coronation of Simone Biles in the gymnastics all-around competition. However, what was far less expected was the performance of “the other Simone”, swimmer Simone Manuel. I say, “far less expected”, but perhaps it should have been expected, considering she had the second fastest time in the semi-finals. AtlantaBlackStar.com has written about how her performance in the semis received almost no attention from the NBC commentators. And as Slate.com points out, NBC’s pattern of ignoring Simone continued in the finals.

Before the race began, NBC focused its narrative on Australian sisters Cate and Bronte Campbell, whose father was in the stands... If Simone Manuel’s family members were cheering her on, NBC didn’t show them. “And then there is Simone Manuel, the other American in the final,” Dan Hicks said as the camera showed Manuel adjusting her goggles. "The other American in the final"—that was how Simone Manuel was introduced to NBC's star-spangled audience.

The commentators then spent 80% of the race obsessed with the two Australian sisters in the race—neither of whom ended up with a medal. In fairness, NBC did a decent job of capturing the aftermath of the race, capturing Simone’s classic reaction upon seeing her winning time on the board, and an emotional moment with her coach and teammates after leaving the water. But the network then embarrassed itself and infuriated viewers by NOT showing Simone’s medal ceremony live, and instead broadcasting videotaped footage of Russian gymnasts.

So by the time I finally got to watch her ceremony at around midnight, I was already feeling some type of way. And as I watched a tearful Simone during the playing of the national anthem, I couldn’t help to think about (and not for the first time during these Olympics), Langston’s Hughes’ poem, “Let America Be America Again”. I hesitate to excerpt a few verses here, because the entire poem is a must-read, but nevertheless, here are the first few verses:

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There’s never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this “homeland of the free.”)

As powerful as the opening verses are, it was only after re-reading the entire poem, that I realized why this poem has been on my mind. In truth, it’s been on my mind not only since the Olympics started, but ever since the Democratic convention. After four days of praise for American Exceptionalism, the final verses from Langston’s poem have been somewhere in my subconscious. They read:

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that’s mine—the poor man’s, Indian’s, Negro’s, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people’s lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

As so, I’ve come to this conclusion: Donald Trump is right.

We must make America great again.

Not by returning America to some mythical time period, but by demanding that it actually be what it has always claimed to be.

At times, I’m not sure that’s ever going to be possible.

But then I experience some #BlackGirlMagic… and I believe.

Philando Castile, Alton Sterling and a Brief History of Black Gun Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 21:54:00 +0000

As events continue to unfold in relation to the shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, the Dallas shooting, and consecutive nights of protests in more than a dozen cities, there's no shortage of stories and trends that need deeper discussion. Among these are the important connection between police force and municipal revenue stemming from traffic violations, as well as the troubling, but necessary question of whether media outlets would have given the policy/excessive force issue this much attention if the Dallas shooting had not taken place.

However, one issue that is worth discussing, if for no other reason than it's apparent permanence is U.S. history and social reality, is the issue of gun rights, or the lack thereof, for Black folks in America. An aspect in both the Castile and the Sterling shootings is that both were in possession of a gun (not sure if this has actually been confirmed in the the Sterling case, but it seems generally accepted at this point). In the case of Philando Castile, the role that the gun may have played in his shooting is particularly troubling since Castile, according to his girlfriend, did exactly what he should have done--he notified the officer that there was a gun in the vehicle and that he had a permit. In essence he was killed because he dared to exercise his second amendment right to own a gun--that and the fact that the officer felt his "wide nose" fit the description of another suspect, but that's a topic for a-whole-nother article.

While some may choose to look at these tragic shootings and the possession of guns as isolated incidents, it's impossible to understand these events without looking at the history of Blacks and "gun rights" in America. This history dates back to before the United States was actually the United States--back to before the American Revolution, while colonies both with and without slavery had combinations of "Slave Codes" and "Black Codes" which not only made it illegal for enslaved Africans to own/posses guns, but placed limits on FREE Blacks as well. Obviously, this was before there was such a thing as the U.S. Constitution, so there was no second amendment. Nevertheless, these codes and practices established what would be a reality, either de jure or de facto, for more than 400 years: Blacks with guns was simply unacceptable to White America.

This pattern continued even as the American patriots declared that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Most of us know that those rights did not extend to Blacks in America, whether enslaved or free. What most of us don't know if how calculated and thoughtful the effort was to keep Blacks from fighting in the Revolutionary War, out of fear that Blacks should not be allowed to carry guns. General Washington, himself a slave owner, did not want Black soldiers, clearly agreeing with the premise stated above--Blacks with guns was simply unacceptable to White America. It was not until the British began recruiting and arming Blacks, through Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, that the revolutionaries changed their minds. Coincidentally, up until this point, the revolutionaries were not fairing particularly well against the British army. This would not be the last time in U.S. history that a change regarding Black rights was tied solely--SOLELY--to broader strategic needs.

This pattern would later be repeated during the Civil War, with similar results. Once again, the decision to recruit and begrudgingly arm Black soldiers coincided with the tide turning from Confederate victories to Union success.

Fast forward to the late 1960s, and the early Black Panthers' practice policing the police in their California communities by carrying guns openly in compliance with California law. In response, the state of Californina, led by a Republican state assemblyman and Governor Ronald Reagan, attempted to pass the Mulford Act, also known as the "Panthers Bill", which was specifically designed to prevent the Panthers from benefiting from 2nd Amendment rights. This Huffington Post article provides more information, including the interesting note that the gun control bill was passed with support from the NRA. So we should not be surprised that fifty years later, the NRA has been remarkably silent, or at least restrained, regarding such blatant violations of gun rights as we've seen in the Castile and Sterling shootings.

Again, fast forward another fifty years, and the basic premise has been modified slightly. Blacks with guns is no longer completely unacceptable; if it were, you would see some level of gun control. However, the notion and image of Blacks with guns is only acceptable as long as those guns are being pointed at other Blacks. But when the gun is associated with gun rights in general, not to mention any level of political activity, then the premise remains as true as the days of slave codes and Black codes. If you doubt that, just take a look at the video below.

That video was originally distributed in 2015. Perhaps if more of us, including those in law enforcement, truly considered the frightening implications of the clear double standard, shootings such as those we've seen in the past week could have been avoided. Perhaps if congresspeople were as concerned with Blacks lives, as they are with Hillary's emails, just maybe some of these shootings could be avoided. But for any of the pain of the past week to result in anything positive and progressive, we must first understand the systemic nature and historic roots of what we are up against. If we have the courage to start from that space of truth, anything is possible.

If not...

I'm Cliff, and these are my notes.

Injustice Anywhere...

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Wed, 18 May 2016 21:15:00 +0000

The other day, I was listening to a local radio station, and heard the tail end of some comments related to the transgender bathroom issue and the recent guidelines from the Obama administration. The conversation made reference to a post at the station's Facebook page, and after taking a look it became clear that the radio personality had expressed her opposition to President Obama's support for the transgendered population. I generally ignore Facebook posts that I disagree with, mainly because I've never known much good to come out of battling comments, but I decided to respond and posted the following:

Disappointing when we as Black folks are unable to translate the discrimination we've faced in a way that lets us better understand other marginalized groups, whether that be women, immigrants, LGBT or others. Much of the language that conservatives are using against this is the same language that was used to oppose integration, and the same states hollering about states rights on this issue are the same states that wish WE were never allowed in the bathrooms. Yes, all students need to be protected, but the "threat" that conservatives are raising about bathroom predators are about as legitimate as the voting fraud that they said was driving the need for voter ID. This is what they do...they create propaganda that speaks to people's darkest fears in order to justify discrimination. If a pedophile wants to dress like the opposite sex to sneak into the opposite bathroom guess what--they could do that TODAY regardless of policy changes. Nothing the Obama administration is suggesting makes that any more likely, but the people who think he never should have been president want us to believe otherwise. Please don't fall for it.

To view the original post, and some of the other comments, go here. Warning, although there are several supportive and encouraging comments, please don't visit if you have a low tolerance for ignorance.

I have a serious concern that this issue could be used to tap into religiously conservative people of color, the same way that gay marriage was used as a wedge issue by the Bush campaign to increase his share of Black voters to 10% (and even higher for Latino voters). A similar increase this year would be disastrous. It's up to us who know better to nip this propaganda in the bud before it reaches a dangerous level.

I'm Cliff, and on that "note"...

The "Secret" of Trump's Success (aka Don't Ask Questions You Don't Really Want to Know the Answer to)

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 05 May 2016 19:58:00 +0000

So, I was watching Morning Joe earlier today, and enjoying Rob Reiner's take on how crazy the Trump phenomenon is. Then Willie asked the question of the hour--essentially, if Trump is so ridiculous, why are millions of people voting for him. To which, Reiner began his answer with, "There are a lot of people who are racist..." (see below or click here skip to the 8 minute mark).

To my shock and dismay, the response from the entire Morning Joe panel was... well, shock and dismay! In fact, Joe goes as far as to exclaim, "Oh my God, did you just say that!" As if Reiner had just uttered the most ridiculous words ever spoken. I was glad to see Reiner stand his ground and continue his explanation regarding racism and Trump's support. Unfortunately, the brief exchange highlighted two unavoidable facts: 1) the topic requires, and deserves, more time than what it was given, and 2) the topic will never be given that time because no one in traditional news media, nor traditional politics, is willing to have the discussion.

News anchors and political "experts" have fumbled around for months trying to understand the source of Trump's appeal. Most have ended up concluding that he has addressed economic and security fears of typical voters in ways that the Republican establishment simply hasn't, and that's certainly true. But let's dig a little deeper--exactly how has he addressed those fears? Certainly not with concrete policy solutions. In fact, his supporters have often explained that they don't care about those types of details. All they need to know is that he's for them and he's going to make America great again (because the Negro in the White House somehow messed it up)!

I won't go into all of the examples of Trump's racism and xenophobia; there are a lot of other articles that can do that. Many people recognize that the main issues that put him on top of the polls almost a year ago dealt with Latinos, Muslims and the Chinese, with a little anti-Obama and anti-Black Lives Matter sprinkled in. This much the media seems comfortable talking about, even recognizing that he's got an uphill battle to increase support among these demographics.

But to me, the bigger point isn't about Trump's rhetoric and the demographic hole in which he now finds himself. The point isn't about him, it's about his supporters. The point is most of the media seems absolutely unwilling to admit that the VERY thing which has him at such a demographic disadvantage, is the EXACT same thing that has millions of people voting for him. Whether this country wants to admit it or not, millions of predominantly white voters are supporting Trump not in spite of his racist rhetoric, but because of it.

Whether this country wants to admit it or not, the reason "White evangelicals" can give so many votes to someone whose relationship with the bible seems limited to holding it up as a prop during a stump speech, someone who is at best (at worst ?) ambiguous on reproductive rights and LGBT issues--issues which for decades have defined the religious right, is because such evangelicals have always been a little...um, flexible, on religious beliefs as long as it helped to maintain the racial status quo. Thou shalt not kill, unless it's an uppity Negro who was trying to vote. Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you promise to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out.

Whether this country wants to admit it or not, the reason low-income and/or working class White voters throughout the South and Midwest can find a kindred spirit in a billionaire from New York who has somehow become the voice of economic populism, is because poor Whites have ALWAYS been told that the reason they're poor isn't the slave-owner or the wealthy industrialist, it's these other people (read Black, Latino, Chinese, etc.) who are taking their jobs and destroying their country.

The experts can continue to act confused about Trump's electoral success, but his messaging is clear, just as clear as Bush's Willie Horton, Reagan's Philadelphia, Mississippi speech, Nixon's law and order, and Goldwater's... well, all of it. If you don't really want to know the source of Trump's appeal, just stop asking the question.

Is this an indictment of all of White America? Of course not. Even within the Republican party, there are millions who have refused to vote for Trump. And on the Democratic side, there are millions of low-income Whites who have the same fears as the Trump supporters, but instead of giving in to race-baiting, they have responded to Bernie's call for political revolution and Hillary's appeal to "make America whole". One might say they are listening to the better angels of their nature.

At the end of the day, the November election may in fact result in a repudiation of the Trump tactics, but that will not be the end of the story. This country will still be in need of a major conversation about race, and more importantly, there will still be serious questions regarding structural racism. Once again, questions that some may not want to know the answers to.

I'm Cliff, and on that "note"...

Note to Progressives on Hostage Taking: Don't Knock It 'til You Try It

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 21:02:00 +0000

In the aftermath of the brinksmanship which nearly led the United States to default on its debt, and which ultimately led S&P to downgrade the U.S. credit rating, much of the discussion has dealt with the concept of “hostage taking” and the irresponsible behavior of the Tea Party Caucus. As someone who has absolutely no love for the Tea Party and its Archie Bunker tendencies, it almost pains me to say this, but I have absolutely no problem with its hostage taking tactics. Instead of complaining about it, progressive ought to be taking notes.

Arguably, had progressives engaged in some hostage taking of their own during the Democrat controlled 110th Congress, perhaps health care reform would have included a public option. Or perhaps President Obama would not have been forced to cave in on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

What’s that you say? The progressives don’t have the same voting power as the Tea Partiers? Not so. While the House Tea Party Caucus claims 60 members, 17 of whom are freshmen elected in the 2010 Republican takeover, the Progressive Caucus consists of 74 members, making it the largest Democratic caucus. So why is the Tea Party having so much more influence over the Republican Party (and by extension, the national debate) than progressives are having over the Democratic Party.

Winning Isn’t Everything

The truth of the matter is that the Tea Party’s hostage taking did not start with the debt ceiling debate. Its first efforts at hostage taking were during a special election that took place prior to the 2010 midterm elections. During this election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District, the Tea Party zealots demonstrated that not only were they willing to challenge establishment republicans in primary elections, but they were willing to run independent candidates as well -- candidates guaranteed to split the conservative vote. As a result, the Tea Party was blamed for allowing a Democrat to win a New York district that had been held by a Republican for more than 100 years.

Later, during the November elections, Tea Party favorites Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle were blamed for allowing the Democrats to hold a majority in the Senate. So while there are plenty of ideological differences between Tea Partiers and progressives, perhaps the most important difference is a strategic one. Quite simply, the Tea Party doesn’t mind losing in order to make its point.

Although many observers took these losses and widespread criticisms as a sign that the Tea Party would decline in strength, the truth has been quite the opposite. Today, Speaker Boehner’s biggest fear is that the Tea Party will “primary” some of his key members, or even worse, that Tea Party candidates will split the vote in the general election. It’s this fear more than anything else which led him to turn down President Obama’s “grand bargain” on the debt ceiling.

Progressives are usually a lot more attached to getting a win. Possibly it’s because we generally represent interest that don’t get to win much, so we become more willing to compromise in order to get a moral victory. Or possibly it’s because we care so much about those we serve, often society’s most vulnerable, that we can’t stand the thought of the collateral damage that would accompany a strategic loss. Regardless of the source, progressives are going to have to become more willing to lose a couple of battles in order to win the larger war.

All Politics is Local

The Tea Party also understands that all movements start at the local level, or as one wise man once said, “all politics is local”. True enough, we know that the origins of the Tea Party were more Astroturf than grassroots, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Astroturf fertilizer tapped into some very real, very primal (and, I would argue, very racial) emotions at the grassroots level.

After all, it’s no coincidence that at the same time that the Tea Party is exerting its influence in Congress, we are also witnessing a wave of conservative legislative attacks against labor unions, voting rights, abortion rights, immigration and gay marriage.

In contrast, progressives often rely on presidential politics to make a point and/or to start a national movement. This trend may have started as far back as Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson, and it is more recently evidenced by the infatuation with Ralph Nader. Even today there are whispers of challenging President Obama from the left in the Democratic Primary. Progressives would be much better off focusing on Congress and the state legislatures.

Follow the Money

In order to focus on a Congressional strategy, progressives must learn a third lesson from the Tea Party—in order to have independent politics you must have independent funding. Part of the reason the Tea Party Caucus could go against the will of House Speaker Boehner and the Republican establishment is because they did not rely on Boehner or establishment funding in order to win their elections. Quite the contrary, many of the Tea Party candidates won their elections in spite of funds being funneled to other more traditional Republican candidates.

Too often, progressives rely on the support of big time fundraisers like Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic National Committee and other establishment sources to financially carry their campaigns. As long as this is the case, progressive efforts to move the Democratic leadership to the left will be severely limited.

The Way Forward

Some Progressives have recognized that we need to rethink our national campaign strategies. In an analysis written right after the 2010 elections, Darcy Burner of ProgressiveCongress.org outlined 13 suggestions for progressives to consider, including the need to “fix the way we do campaigns” and to be more strategic in how we select districts.

And more recently, Eugene Robinson wrote about how progressives need a “Big Idea”, something that can fit on a bumper sticker in order to counter the conservative mantra of “cut taxes, cut spending”. But all of the recent criticisms of “hostage taking” cause me to worry that even with a well thought out strategy and effective messaging, progressives may still be the ones to blink when the critical moment comes.

Yes, I know that hostage taking is a little harder when you’re in the minority. But heck, if 14 Wisconsin state senators can successfully halt legislation, generate a mass movement and attract the nation’s attention and resources, I refuse to believe there’s nothing 74 congressional Democrats can do. We have a blueprint. We need elected officials willing to take some hostages, and we need waves of supporters willing to take to the streets. What we don’t need is to waste time trying to figure out which needs to come first.

Dr. Laura, Meet Omar Thornton

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:23:00 +0000

Over the past few days, I have been intrigued by the aftermath of Dr. Laura’s racist rant. What’s been most interesting to me is the way that Dr. Laura and her supporters have transformed her from culprit to victim, claiming that her first amendment rights have been taken away. Apart from demonstrating that she clearly doesn’t understand the first amendment, her claims of censorship were not only ironic but amusing considering that she made her announcement on national television while simultaneously plugging her soon to be released book—sales of which will probably skyrocket thanks to this latest controversy.

Oddly enough, this juxtaposition of victimhood and culpability reminded me of another story which had been in the news just a few days earlier—Omar Thornton’s tragic workplace shooting in Manchester. That story could have led to a useful national conversation about workplace discrimination, but that would have required recognizing that the shooting’s perpetrator, Thornton, may have also been a victim, and that some of the victims of the shooting, while not deserving their fate, may have contributed to what would eventually become a deadly situation. Instead, most media coverage of the story treated Thornton as your typical disgruntled employee with psychological problems. Then, 24-48 hours later, it was out of the news cycle completely as the country moved on to more pressing matters such as renegade flight attendants.

Nevertheless, there were brief moments when it looked like the racism issue might be addressed, but those moments usually ended with someone suggesting that if Thornton really was experiencing racism, it would have been addressed by the appropriate company and/or union representatives. To many observers, the thought that he may have actually raised the issue with someone who did not take his complaints seriously seemed out of the question. Perhaps we should consider for a moment what would have happened if Omar Thornton had shared his frustrations with Dr. Larua Schlessinger.

SCHLESSINGER: Hello, Caller. Welcome to the show.

THORNTON: Hi, Dr. Laura. I'm having an issue with some of my co-workers who make racist comments.

SCHLESSINGER: Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? ‘Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive.

THORNTON: OK. The other day they called me the N-word. They said “we need to get rid of that N-word”.

SCHLESSINGER: So what? Black guys say “ni****” all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a Black comic and all you hear is “ni****, ni****, ni****”.

THORNTON: But these co-workers aren’t comics. They drew pictures of a noose. A noose!

SCHLESSINGER: I’m sure they were just trying to be funny. If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, you shouldn’t get a job at a predominantly white company.

THORNTON: You sound like them.

SCHLESSINGER: Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me.

THORNTON: Whatever. I’ll just have to figure it out on my own. [Click] [Dial tone]

In spite of all of the attention being paid to Dr. Laura’s use of the N-word, I actually believe that was the least problematic aspect of her rant. What’s more important than the one word that she repeated eleven times is the overall racial perspective that she demonstrates in sentence after sentence; paragraph after paragraph. In Dr. Laura’s world,

· If you complain about racism you are “hypersensitive” and you have a “chip on your shoulder”;
· Racism no longer exists because we have a Black president who was elected by Whites. In fact, Blacks are more racist than Whites, which is the only reason Blacks voted for Barack Obama;
· Ongoing discussion of racism is the result of Black activists seeking to “demonize” Whites.

The sad reality is that there are a lot of folks who agree with Dr. Laura’s racial perspective, and it’s a perspective that is embedded in systems and institutions all around this country. Many Black employees have lost discrimination cases over the past two decades because judges have essentially said that they were being hypersensitive. The election of President Obama has led several cities and states to try to eliminate affirmative action programs. And notions of Black racism and “reverse discrimination” have reached a point where it’s now easier for a White plaintiff to win a discrimination case than it is for a Black plaintiff. Just ask the city of New Haven, which lost a major Supreme Court case last year to White firefighters claiming discrimination.

In short, the beliefs and propaganda expressed in Dr. Laura’s ignorant rant make it increasingly difficult to deal with the realities of structural racism. Instead, we can all criticize her use of the N-word and then pat ourselves on the back as if we’ve dealt with the problem.

Having said that, I must say that Dr. Laura did make an important point with which I agree. At one point at the end of her tirade, after declaring that Black efforts to “demonize Whites” have grown, she concludes, “it’s all about power.” And although her remarks both during her rant and in the days following suggest that she’s in a dreadful state of denial about who actually has power in this society, her observation is relevant nonetheless.

Yes, Dr. Laura, it is all about power, and those who have power will always view those without power as being “hypersensitive”. More importantly, Frederick Douglass’ words from more than 150 years ago still ring true today: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

We who believe in justice must continue to demand a discussion on race that goes beyond the N-word and that fully explores the issue of structural racism. Otherwise, we will continue to see more Dr. Lauras…

…And perhaps more Omar Thorntons as well.

Why Obama's Speech Betrays an Important Legacy

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 05:56:00 +0000

I was actually asleep when a friend called me and told me to turn on President Obama’s acceptance speech the other day. She was troubled by his remarks, and after a few minutes, I understood why. To be sure, it was a well prepared, well delivered speech. Nevertheless, the substance of the speech was troubling to those of us who feel that a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech ought to be an occasion to talk about… what’s the word… peace.

President Obama’s speech, which has been almost universally recognized as a justification for war, has won praise from conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. I’ve even heard that former Vice President Cheney has declared a one-week verbal truce in honor of Obama’s ode to warfare.

To a large extent, the speech was simply a function of his job description. As he reminded us, he is the Commander in Chief of the United States, and at the end of the day, that position is going to shape his global perspective more than his global perspective is going to shape that position. It’s the same position that Lyndon B. Johnson held when Dr. Martin Luther King stated that America was “the greatest purveyor of violence anywhere in the world.” Nevertheless, was Oslo really the most appropriate venue for a “just war” treatise, and was it really necessary to dedicate two thirds of his speech to it?

Of course, President Obama’s speech was not only about justifying war. He managed to throw in just enough paragraphs to keep at least some progressives happy. For example, he had several lines talking about letting “our faith in human progress” guide us, and about how we should reach for “that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.” You can’t really argue with any of that.

However, a speech that began with justifying war and ended with humanity’s search for peace could have had a meaningful sweet spot in the middle. President Obama could have more adequately acknowledged that in between his concept of a just war and the concept of world peace, there’s a whole lot of space for some very real, very pragmatic alternatives to war. Yes, he briefly addressed alternatives to violence and the need for international development, but does he really feel that such a discussion is only worth two minutes?

By minimizing the very hard and real possibilities of negotiating peace, President Obama betrayed the legacies of two of his more relevant Nobel predecessors: Dr. Ralph Bunche and Dr. King. It was not romantic idealism that guided Ralph Bunche in 1948 as he worked to end the armed conflict in Palestine. After several months, Dr. Bunche was able to negotiate a series of armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors, and his efforts earned him the 1950 Nobel Prize. Like President Obama, Dr. Bunche understood that the world was a complicated place, but that did not stop him from believing that war could be avoided.

Years later, Dr. King would receive the Nobel Prize for a different form of negotiation. The Civil Rights Movement, which obviously was bigger than just Dr. King, and which relied on thousands of unsung heroes and sheroes, was not just about getting beat up and thrown in jail. Fundamentally, it was about using whatever power you have in order to force your enemy to negotiate, even when that power is limited to your faith, your morality and your bodies.

Contrary to the dichotomy that President Obama tried to impose during his speech, the question is not whether non-violent marches and sit-ins are enough to solve all of the conflicts in the world today. After all, President Obama has far more power and far more non-violent options at his disposal than the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights Movement had. Thus, the more appropriate question is whether leaders of the world in general, and President Obama in particular, are as committed to fully exploring non-violent options before embarking on war.

Coincidentally, although he has yet to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Rev. Jesse Jackson has also demonstrated the power of negotiation globally. Over the years, Jesse has managed to obtain the release of hostages from Syria, Cuba, Iraq and Yugoslavia, and he was able to do so with no weapon other than his legitimate voice as an emissary for peace.

Thus, African-Americans have a history of championing non-violence and negotiation on the world stage. True enough, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have damaged that legacy in recent years, but in Oslo, President Obama could have done much to help restore order to the universe.

Instead of just reminding us rhetorically that he is “someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work” and that he is a “living testimony to the moral force of non-violence,” Obama could have presented a new vision for incorporating that moral force into today’s complicated matters of international relations. In short, Obama could have elevated diplomacy from the depths of “appeasement” and bureaucratic irrelevance to the heights of being a force for change in today’s real world.

In doing so, not only would Obama have been true to Dr. King’s beliefs, but he would have been true to his own beliefs as well—beliefs that he expressed during the presidential election campaign. Certainly we all remember Candidate Obama’s statements about being willing to talk with world leaders with whom the United States has serious disagreements. And much of his criticism about the Iraq War centered around his belief that diplomacy was not given enough time to work its course.

As a presidential candidate, Obama could only float ideas about what he might do, but now, as President, Obama can actually implement his ideas. And Thursday, as a Nobel Prize winner, the President could have used the world stage he was provided in order to elaborate on those ideas. He could have used his thirty six minutes to outline a new paradigm of diplomacy. Being the student of history that he is, he could have outlined the most important examples of diplomacy that have worked, and then he could have challenged the world’s leaders, friends and foes, to renew their commitment to such efforts. In short, Obama could have raised the bar.

Instead, he used the world’s most respected peace forum as a platform from which to outline an Obama Doctrine that sounds a heck of a lot like the Bush Doctrine. In doing so, he failed to demonstrate much change, and whatever hope he provided has been relegated to idealism. Of course, he still has at least three years to demonstrate with his actions what he was unwilling to express with his words. Hopefully, during that time, the Nobel Prize sitting in his office will be a constant reminder to reject “the ‘isness’ of man’s current nature” and to seek out “the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

On that "note", i'm outta here!

---

Open Letter to Tiger Woods

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:39:00 +0000

On a FAR less serious note than my usual, a friend posted this on Facebook...

Dear Tiger:

Over the course of the next few weeks, several women will come forward and accuse you of cheating on your wife with them. While we cannot speak for your spouse, we are willing to forgive you provided that at least one of these women proves to be no less than 75% African-American. That small step is all that is required to gain our trust.

Sincerely:
The Black Community

On that "note", i'm outta here!

---

Will the Senate forget to discuss health care AND race?

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:30:00 +0000

Exciting news: just had my most recent article picked up by the Huffington Post (thanks to the crew at the Race-Talk blog)!

An excerpt of the article is below, but please visit the HuffPost for the full piece. And please leave a comment; it will help me and other Race-Talk writers to get extra exposure.

As the battle over health care reform hits the Senate floor for debate, I’m wondering how long it’s going to take for the issue of race to pop up.

Oh, it won’t show itself as blatantly as it has at town hall meetings and conservative rallies. I hardly expect one of the Senators to set up an easel with one of those pictures of President Obama dressed as a witch doctor. No, it will be far more subtle than that. Instead of shouted, race is likely to be whispered and alluded to in the form of comments about “those people” who take advantage of big government and who make it harder for the good, tax paying Americans. You know “those people”—they’re the same ones who hang out with the welfare queens, standing on the corner eating candy bars that they purchased with their fraudulently obtained food stamps.

Possibly, race may show up in a slightly more direct way, perhaps in relationship to health coverage for immigrants. Remember, that’s the same issue that propelled Rep. Joe Wilson into stardom after he called the president a liar.

Honestly, I’m not exactly sure how race will show up, but I promise you, it will. The only question is whether or not we’ll have the courage to actually talk about it. Judging from the reaction to Jimmy Carter’s comments—comments that correctly pointed out the role of race in the vitriolic opposition to health care reform—my guess is we’ll be neither willing nor able to discuss the issue.

Of course, I’ve been saying Carter was correct ever since he made the comments, but until recently I haven’t had any actual data to support that belief, other than the common sense that God gave me. But thanks to professors Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, that’s no longer the case...

Click here for full article.

--

Free Eric Johnson!

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:27:00 +0000

Eric Johnson recently graduated from Creekside High School as an honor student and member of the Beta Club. He has been working the past few months in order to help support his mother and had plans of attending Westwood College in January. Ever since his father died three years ago in a tragic house fire accident, Eric has faced adversity and has overcome numerous life obstacles to become a successful young man--at least until now. Eric Johnson has been arrested for a crime he had no part in or knowledge of.

The following are just a few facts related to the case. A more detailed statement of facts can be found in this article.

On Monday night, August 17, 2009, Eric Johnson was asked by Antoine Wimes to give him a ride in exchange for "gas money." Eric picked up Antoine Wimes and another young man that he met for the first time named "Dino." He drove them to a gas station, brought gas and then took them further down South Fulton Parkway and dropped them off. Later that evening, Antoine Wimes and Donavon McCoy are alleged to have shot "Nikki" Neely and seriously injured her 10-month-old baby in a vicious and senseless home invasion. On August 18, 2009, after seeing the news reports of this horrific attack, Eric A. Johnson called 911 and reported to police that he had "given a ride" to the suspects earlier in the evening.

1. Eric Johnson voluntarily contacted the police in order to provide information regarding the murder suspects (it would make absolutely no sense for him to do so if he were involved in the murder);

2. There is an independent witness, Virginia Bonylan, who has confirmed that Eric Johnson was not with the two suspects later in the evening after dropping them off;

3. There are alibi witnesses that Eric Johnson was home well before dark on August 17, 2009; and

4. The lead detective, Jamie Melton, has admitted that he has no evidence that Eric A. Johnson was present at the time of the shooting or that he knew that Antoine Wimes and Donovan McCoy intended on committing any crime.

The video below includes a police officer verifying the undisputed fact that Eric contacted the police in order to help solve the crime.

Nevertheless, Eric Johnson is charged with multiple felonies including: 2 counts of Aggravated Battery, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Cruelty to Children.

Now I'm not usually one to offer the police advice on how to do their job, but just this one time I'll offer my two cents: If you really want the community to help you stop crime, perhaps it's not such a good idea to arrest them after they help you.

I don't know... I'm just sayin'...

WHAT YOU CAN DO

The family is asking for support in their fight for Eric Johnson's release. Attorney Mawuli ‘Mel' Davis, one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the state of Georgia, believes in Eric's innocence so strongly that he has offered his service for free. Nevertheless, the family still needs $5,000.00 to post bond as well as to pay for transcripts that will be associated with the case. If just 200 people donate $25, they can reach their goal!

Donations are being accepted online at www.justice4ericjohnson.com.

If you're not able to a donation, then please, please visit change.org and sign the online petition. It will only take 2 minutes of your time.

On that "note", i'm outta here!

---

The Princess, the Frog, and the Pitfalls of Being Too Black

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:47:00 +0000

Some critics of my radio shows and articles often complain that i make everything into a racial issue. Well, i'm sure they'll love this one.

Alot of folks are aware by now that the new Disney movie, "The Princess and the Frog", features Disney's first Black princess, Tiana, and some have noted Disney's efforts to be culturally sensitive. But in all the excitement about the princess, knowbody really thought to ask, "Wassup with the prince?"

In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven't seen the movie, but based on a recent article in Newsweek, "Prince Naveen has a tannish complexion, but he clearly isn't African-American." The writer goes on to say that this is a good thing, because it sends a positive message about inter-racial dating and that Black women in particular need to consider such options.

Here's the deal. I have no problem, in theory, with Disney sending a message about inter-racial relationships, but i must say, i DO question the timing. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin all dealt with crossing boundaries of difference, whether beauty or, in the case of Aladdin, even class. But at the end of the day, Disney has always chosen to be ethnically consistent.

I would have loved to see audience reaction to Beauty and the Beast if, after waiting the entire movie for the Beast to be transformed, the Beast turned into an African prince. I imagine some folks in the theater would have wanted the prince to turn back into the Beast. But alas, Disney chose not to go that route.

Coincidentally, Disney's first Native American heroine, Pocahantas, was also involved in an inter-racial relationship, but at least then they were able to hide behind the historical basis of the story. And yet now, with a purely fictional Princes Tiana, we see the same pattern.

Let me make it more plain. Why it gotta be the sista princess to become the inter-racial poster child?

On one hand, i could limit this commentary to the specific issue of inter-racial relationships in the movies and television. There are some interesting sub-plots there, particularly as it relates to the trend of Black female/White male vs. Black male/White female. As early Captain Kirk and Uhura's kiss, through Whitney and "The Bodyguard" and as recent as "Something New", America has always been more comfortable with Black women dating White men. Of course, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is a highly notable exception, but you get the picture.

Nevertheless, the issue i'm trying to get at goes beyond the narrow issue of inter-racial dating. The deeper message is that it's just not okay to be too Black, and that a little bit of White is necessary for legitimacy. Of course, this is not a new critique. For years, it's been observed that Black actors must have White co-stars in order to be marketable. Even after becoming a star on Saturday Night Live, Eddie Murphy had to go through a series of White co-stars (Nick Nolte, Dan Akroyd, etc.) before becoming viable on his own. And just last year, in an interview with Barbara Walters, Will Smith discussed the same issue.

Just last week we were reminded that even a little bit of Black can be too Black. While marketing the film "Couples Retreat" in the United Kingdom, the studio removed the two Black co-stars from the film's poster.

While many people, Black, White and other, will say that i'm just being overly sensitive about some stuff that's just supposed to be entertainment, the issue really goes beyond just entertainment. It's intertwined into the structures of American society, a society in which, as Brother Malcolm used to say, too Black often translates into too strong.

We see the reality of "too Black, too strong" every day. We see it in business settings, and even government offices, where having one Black manager is viewed as safe, but having anything more than that is viewed as overkill.

We see it in election campaigns, particularly when Black candidates are running for statewide offices. One Black candidate seeking one such office is sometimes non-threatening enough to minimize race as an issue, but two Black candidates seeking two separate seats can elevate the issue and create a backlash, resulting in not just one loss, but two. It’s an interesting pattern which could be the topic of a whole separate article…

In fact, i think i will write a whole separate article, so you’ll just have to check back here for more info on that some other time.

In any event, more important than the ways “too Black, too strong” is used to limit individual appointments, are the ways it is used to limit efforts to correct racial disparities. Programs that use racial targeting in order to correct the ills of structural racism are not only wildly unpopular politically, but they’re also increasingly more difficult to maintain legally. It’s actually easier for a White plaintiff to win a discrimination case in U.S. courts than it is for a Black victim of discrimination. If you don’t believe me, go find a Black firefighter in New Haven.

With all that said, the power of the "too Black" concept can be defeated, but only if we have the courage to confront it in all its cultural, political and economic manifestations. Those of us who insist on such a structural analysis are often accused of making the problem worse by constantly playing the race card. Like a doctor who must explain a diagnosis of illness, it can be a heavy responsibility, but that is a burden we must accept. At the end of the day, the patient must hear the truth.

And the truth shall make you free.

On that "note", i'm outta here!

---

Pray for Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:52:00 +0000

I heard about this last night on Rachel Maddow's show. Evidently, there's a wave of bumper sticker, t-shirts, hats, etc. going around requesting that folks "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8". But before you go out and try to get one of these shirts, it's worth checking out what Psalm 109:8 says. The psalm reads, "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."

While some may say that this is just a humorous hope that Obama gets voted on of office in four years, the very next verse provides some insight into the true meaning of the prayer request. Psalm 109:9 reads, :Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

WTF!

This is not cute, and it is not funny. A recent book has already documented what most of us already know--that death threats agains President Obama are dramatically higher (about 5 times higher) than against Bush or any other President. The book says he receives 30 death threats per day.

Truth be told, these threats are obviously not just about President Obama. It's not just about his individual personality or his policies. It's a reminder of what the Supreme Court told us in the Dred Scott case more than 160 years ago: that a Black man has no rights that a White man is bound to respect. Evidently, this even applies to a Black President.

So in response to this prayer request, i'm going to come up with a few bible verses of my own to send to the 109:8 folks--like the promises to David that his enemies would be made to kneel before him.

Of course, i could also send them some New Testament verses talking about love and judgement, but right now i think i'm in an Old Testament kinda mood.

Or maybe i'll just send them a few African proverbs, like the Daily Lifeline sent on Facebook earlier today: The snake may let you pass the first time, but take care not to pass there again!

Either way, if you have a good verse that you think we need to send to these nuts, go on an leave a comment, or just send me an e-mail.

On that "note", i'm outta here!

---

Black Veterans: A Complicated Past and Unsung Present

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:36:00 +0000

I was listening to Tom Joyner this morning, and his Little Known Black History Fact was about a regiment of Black soldiers known as the Harlem Hellfighters. They were the 369th Infantry Regiment, and they became legendary during World War I (WWI).

I’m assuming that Tom chose that history fact in honor of Veterans’ Day, a holiday about which I’ve always been torn. And while I recognize that there have been soldiers of all races and ethnicities, I’m going to use my prerogative to focus on the Black experience for a moment.

Black soldiers have fought in every war this country has fought, even before there was a “United States”. On the one hand, I recognize the need to honor those Black soldiers who have fought for the ideals of America, even when America was not just falling painfully short of those ideals, but actually being blatantly hypocritical towards those ideals (i.e. saving democracy in the world while denying the vote within its own borders). In fact, to begin with, the reason the Harlem Hellfighters were in Europe during WWI was because of racism back in South Carolina, and the reason they ended up assigned to the French army was because the U.S. would not give them combat roles. With backdrops like this, Black soldiers such as the Harlem Hellfighters and many others for centuries have done much to demonstrate Black courage and dignity.

But on the other hand, Black soldiers have too often participated in wars of aggression, greed and imperialism--wars which were often aimed at other people of color. From the Buffalo Soldiers and their battles with the Native Americans to the Philippines, from Vietnam to Panama and Grenada, Black soldiers have had to fight against folks that look like them for reasons that they must have known were, at best, questionable. In some cases, the irony of their predicament have caused Black soldiers to show compassion for their foes, while in other cases it did not seem to make a difference.

So clearly the experience of enlisted Black soldiers is part of why I’m torn about Veterans Day. But I’m also torn because of the experiences of Black veterans who weren’t actually enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces. These are veterans of a different kind of war—the FBI’s war against Black America. In this war, the General was not Eisenhower or Macarthur; it was J. Edgar Hoover, and his primary targets were the Black Panthers. At the heart of this war was a Black Panther 10 Point Program which included a demand for universal health care.

Clearly such demands were a threat to democracy.

As a result of this war, many Panthers were locked away in jail for crimes they did not commit. Geronimo ji Jaga Pratt is one example who was able to eventually prove his innocence and get released from jail after 27 years—longer than the amount of time that Nelson Mandela was in prison. However, many were not quite as “fortunate” as Geronimo and are still languishing behind bars. This includes freedom fighters such as Sundiata Acoli, Mutulu Shakur and Jalil Muntaqim. By the way, Brother Jalil is going before the parole board in just a few days, so I encourage everyone reading this to learn about his history and send a support letter ASAP.

Other veterans of the FBI war were forced to flee the country and live in exile. Assata Shakur and Nehanda Abiodun are two of the better know exiles, but we should not get lulled into thinking that they are somehow safe from U.S. authorities that still have bounties on their heads.

Of course, not all the soldiers in the FBI’s war against Black America were able to survive. Many, like Fred Hampton in Chicago, were murdered. Jeffrey Haas was an attorney in Chicago at the time, and has authored a book called The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther. For those of you in Atlanta who would like to learn more about Fred Hampton, Haas will be giving a lecture at Georgia State University, tomorrow (Thursday, Novermber 11th) from 5:30 to 7:30pm in the General Classroom Building, room 400 (corner of Peachtree Center Ave. and Decatur St.). I strongly encourage folks to attend.

No, it is not a simple thing, this Veterans Day. I don’t have all the answers, but i do know that it takes deeper thought than the knee-jerk reaction of wrapping ourselves in the red, white and blue the way the government and mainstream media wants us to. If that makes me unpatriotic, so be it.

I’ll be in good company.

On that "note", i'm outta here.

Free Book Giveaway! Lifelines: The Black Book of Proverbs

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:56:00 +0000

If you're anything like me, you probably need a little bit of wisdom and inspiration to get you through each day. Well lately, i've been able to get my daily dose of both from Lifelines: The Black Book of Proverbs. A recent press release about the book had this to say:

Authors Askhari and Yvonne share a passion for proverbs. Short, snappy sayings surround their lives. During their upbringings, they both learned, “proverbs are the daughters of experience” (Sierra Leone). Thus, LIFELINES draws inspiration from the authors’ experience and proverb gathering during their wide travels and particularly in their home communities on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Readers experiencing new births, weddings, career changes, death, and other rites of passage will find truth in the saying, “When the occasion arises, there is a proverb to suit it” (Rwanda). Indeed, LIFELINES offers wisdom for every stage of our lives.

And Pearl Cleage, author of What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day, says

This little book contains the wisdom of the ages and is guaranteed to produce a smile of appreciation at the sheer good sense of the proverbs you will find inside. From advice you wish your mother had given you to things you probably suspected but had never put into words, Lifelines is a book to be read, to be absorbed, and to be treasured.

The book even features a Foreword by the Archbishop Desmond Tutu! I wonder if i can pull that off for my book...

Anyway, i may not be able to give away free cars to an entire studio audience like Oprah, but i can at least give away a free book! So here's the deal:

Leave a comment at the bottom of this post sharing the funniest or best proverb you have ever heard. Or, share a proverb that influences your life. If possible, identify the country of origin, but if all you know is you got it from grandma, then say that. If you're getting this by e-mail, then you can e-mail me your proverb.

Use a valid e-mail address so I can reach you if you’re the winner. I’ll pick a winner at random from the entries that follow my rules. The deadline to enter is Friday, November 20, 2009, and i'll announce the winner on this site on December 4, 2009. This will make a perfect holiday present!

By the way, if you're on facebook, you can become a fan of Daily Lifelines.

I'm Cliff, and on that "note", i'm outta here!

--

Black-Brown Coalitions: No Longer Optional

noreply@blogger.com (Cliff Albright) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:47:00 +0000

As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, I am constantly reminded of WEB DuBois’ prophetic declaration at the beginning of the 20th century: that the major issue of the century would be the problem of the color line. While some folks may debate whether or not that will be true for the current century, what is NOT debatable is that overcoming the problem of the color line is going to require coalitions among all of those affected by it, particularly between Black and Latino communities.

With this in mind, the Southern Regional Council (SRC), one of the country's oldest civil rights organizations, recently released a report that examnies Black and Latino coalitions. The report features case studies from four successful coalitions in the South, and it includes lessons learned that could be useful for other organizations seeking to build such coalitions. The video below summarizes some of the report's key findings.

The above video, other videos and much more information about the SRC can be found at their blog, www.southernchanges.blogspot.com. The SRC is seeking to disseminate the report widely. If you work with an organization that would like to receive hard copies of the report and/or pull together a group of organizations that would like to participate in a workshop, please contact the Southern Regional Council at info@southerncouncil.org or charles.johnson@hklaw.com.

i'm Cliff, and on that "note", i'm outta here!

--