Revisionist History

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3347632578277836563#editor/target=post;postID=42636803635150696

I ran across the article above on Facebook and had a severe case of de ja vu.

Every now and then when I feel adventurous, I watch a few minutes of Fox News (I can't stomach much more than a few minutes at a time) and I hear some version of this revisionist history repeated as though it's the Fox News talking head mantra. The argument goes something like this: "We're the party of Lincoln. We helped free you people. Why are you blindly supporting the party who opposed your emancipation?"

These sentiments are always directed at African American Democratic voters. The modern Republican mind cannot fathom the overwhelming support that Democrats receive from the African American community. After all, why would we vote for a party that opposed our emancipation? Why vote for a party that stood in the way of comprehensive Civil Rights reform?

While those are good questions, they miss the mark because they presuppose that both parties are the same now as they were then. The fact of the matter is that during the Civil Right's Movement (and even prior to that with Truman's efforts to desegregate the military in the late 40's) both parties underwent a bit of a makeover. The Democratic Party under the leadership of President Kennedy and culminating with President Johnson, began pushing for legal measures to address issues of racial inequality. In 1964 President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law and a year later the Voting Rights Act. Upon signing the CRA, Johnson declared: "We've lost the South for a generation." He was right, except that's it's been two generations and counting.

The push for equal rights caused an exodus of Southern Dixie-crats to the Republican Party which meant that those who were vehemently opposed to racial equality were no longer residing in the Democratic Party. They found a new home and relocated to fairer GOP lands, set up camp, and never left.

Now by no means am I suggesting that all Republicans are racist. However, the problem the party has now is the same problem it had during the Civil Rights Movement. They have allowed radical groups of ideologues to hijack the party. During the 60's it was the converted Dixiecrats. In the 2000's it was the TEA party. Moderate Republicans do not reflect the radical views of the TEA Party now, nor did they reflect the views of the racist party hoppers of the 60's but in both instances, the more moderate among them have been unable to control the messaging or the policies of the more radical factions.  And as a result, the party of Lincoln bears absolutely no resemblance to today's brand of Republican politics, nor does the modern incarnation of the Democratic Party resemble its anti-abolition, anti-equality forbears.

To be fair however, there are issues of race within both parties and the racist legacy of the Democratic Party is real. But an attempt to lay all the baggage of America's racist history at the feet of the Democratic Party while ignoring the glaring racism of the GOP; particularly in the Post Civil Rights Era, is disingenuous, manipulative and revisionist. It's not Democrats who launched the birther movement. It's not Democrats who are uncharacteristically opposing and obstructing the only Black President in our nation's history. It's not Democrats who are openly hoping that the President, and by default, the country will fail. The credit for these lovely sentiments belongs solely to the GOP. Funny, but I just don't see Lincoln endorsing any of this type of nonsense.

Two Deaths. Three Tragedies

On July 13 2013 two tragedies occurred almost simultaneously. The verdict in the George Zimmerman trial was announced and the death of Cory Monteith was reported. Regardless of what a jury of 6 white women decided and whether you believe Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd Degree murder or not, his acquittal was a tragedy and a miscarriage of justice. I believed that to be the case when the verdict was announced, I still believe it now with every fiber of my being and that belief has only been solidified as juror after juror has since admitted that George Zimmerman "went too far" in his conduct on the fateful night of February 26, 2012. Anybody with half a brain should be asking themselves how it's possible to come to the conclusion and then admit that an accused person "went too far" on one hand, but not be guilty on the other.

Most of the people I know didn't need confirmation from a juror to determine that Zimmerman went too far. We knew it as soon as the few initial details of the incident were revealed last year. We knew it because, like Trayvon Martin that night, many of us have been profiled, targeted, viewed as suspicious and subsequently confronted; by police, department/convenience store employees, white women in elevators or the average citizen on the street who clutches their purses a little more tightly, makes sure to lock their doors suddenly, or tries to shrink and disappear into the corner of the elevator as they pray to God to just "get them out of this situation (and by situation I mean merely being in the presence of a big, scary, suspicious black man) safely."

When the verdict was announced I was with my wife and two of our young people who were preparing to minister the next morning in church. We were on our way to have dinner at our hotel and saw the breaking news coverage on a television in the hotel lobby. As disappointing and heartbreaking as it was to see and hear, none of us was surprised. In fact we had anticipated Zimmerman's acquittal. But hearing my young people, who are 18 and 17 express their sadness and fear was gut wrenching. They asked questions like "why aren't our lives as valuable as other people's lives seem to be?" and they made statements like "that could easily have been me." And they were correct. It could have been them because like Trayvon Martin my young people wear hoodies. Like Trayvon Martin my young people often walk down the street either talking on a cell phone or with ear buds attached to an MP3 player. Like Trayvon Martin my young people are black and have been on the receiving end of racial profiling.

And on a fundamental level, for people of color, black men in particular, that's all this case really boils down to. At the end of the day, had a white male been walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood, had it been Cory Monteith, or someone who looked like him, Zimmerman would not have been compelled to call the police. Zimmerman wouldn't have been compelled to get out of his car and give chase. He wouldn't have been inclined to engage in any contact at all and there wouldn't have been any confrontation, much less a violent confrontation that ended in a young boy's death.

And speaking of Cory Monteith, I can't help but notice the public sympathy his death is receiving. "Gone too soon." "The tragic loss of the boy next door." These and similar expressions have dominated the headlines of almost every magazine and news paper in the last week. And his death, as any young man's death would be, is indeed tragic. But I also can't help but notice the striking differences in the perception and treatment of Cory and Trayvon. Trayvon has never been described as the "boy next door." In fact, just the opposite is true. Trayvon, who had traces of marijuana in his system has been criminalized, caricatured and demonized as everything from a smoked out thug to a ghetto hoodlum. His character has been assassinated not only in the courtroom but in the court of public opinion.

Cory on the other hand, who died from a lethal combination of alcohol and heroin, has not been caricatured. Cory has not been demonized. He has not been stereotyped. Cory's death has been lamented. Cory's life was cut down way too young at 31. But the tragic end of Trayvon's life at 17 was essentially justified by the acquittal of his killer on the same night that Cory's death snuffed out a "shining star".

The reality is that both young men's lives came to a needless end. Both deaths are tragic. But an even greater tragedy is that while the nation weeps and mourns for one of them and in fact has elevated him to almost martyr status, the other young man who died 17 months ago is still, even in his death, being portrayed as less than human, a problem that needed to be dealt with. And he was dealt with. Violently. And conclusively. And his killer is free. A grown man followed, confronted, and killed a BOY and got away with it. And that tragic reality should strike fear in the hearts of every parent, every aunt, uncle or surrogate who has a male, teenaged loved one; especially if that young male is black.

George Zimmerman's acquittal declared open season on young black males and sent a message that it's perfectly justifiable and excusable to kill a black boy as long as the perpetrator says it was done in self defense. If you think that's hyperbole or histrionics, look at the headlines of incidents that have happened since Trayvon was killed.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/54339/black-17-and-shot-dead-in-florida-why-isn-t-jordan-davis-getting-the-attention-travyon-martin-is

http://newsone.com/2028377/walter-henry-butler-port-st-joe-florida/

There have been no verdicts rendered in these two cases but regardless of what the juries declare, there is no denying that race, like it did in the Zimmerman/Martin case, played a role in these confrontations. And until we are ready to confront this reality instead of talking around it or attempting to sweep it under the rug, rumors of a post-racial America will continue to be greatly exaggerated.

Race & Racism: The Inconvenient Truth of the George Zimmerman Trial.

The George Zimmerman trial, as predicted, has brought to the surface a lot of racial tension. People on both sides of the spectrum have over reacted and have made some pretty stupid remarks. On one hand, people who think Zimmerman is guilty are threatening to riot or worse, kill him if he doesn't get the justice they think he deserves. Regardless of how you feel about the case and the motives behind Zimmerman's actions, threats of that nature are despicable. But the rhetoric on the other side is just as ridiculous.

I've heard pro Zimmerman pundits proudly and stupidly declare that Zimmerman is a hero and they're going to go out and celebrate over a round of beers when he's acquitted." I don't care whether you think he's guilty or innocent, celebrating when a 17 year old is dead and his family is forced to accept the reality of life without their son is beyond despicable and speaks more of the character of the person/people who made/share the sentiment than it does about Zimmerman, Martin, or this trial.

What I have not heard however, is a plausible explanation for why this conflict ever occurred in the first place. The trial has done nothing to clarify that and to a large degree, the prosecution is to blame for that. Regardless of the verdict, Zimmerman appears to be nothing more than a wanna be cop who trailed a black kid he deemed to be suspicious, who happened to be minding his own business, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Against the advice of an emergency dispatcher an armed Zimmerman stalked an unarmed minor looking for a confrontation, found exactly what he was looking for, wound up on the losing end of the confrontation he went looking for, (did I mention he went looking for a confrontation?), pulled out his gun and killed him.

A lot of people are saying that race had nothing to do with it. To prove their point, they have conveniently labeled Zimmerman as a "Hispanic." Which is to say that there's no possible way a non-white man, which Zimmerman clearly is, could have been racially motivated in his actions. But if that's true, then can somebody, anybody, please explain to me what it was that made Trayvon Martin a suspect in his own neighborhood? Why did Zimmerman see Trayvon and immediately think "suspicious"? Was it the skittles? The iced tea? When did candy or a canned beverage equate to suspicious behavior? Oh wait, I know, it was the hoodie right? Yup, I'm sure that's it. In fact as I type this, I realize that's exactly what it was because everybody knows that anyone wearing a hoodie is a suspect and up to no good right?  In fact, the next time I see Bill Belichick I'm going to run after him despite being told not to do so, and demand to know what he's doing in my neighborhood because clearly, dressed like that he's got no business on my block!



Sarcasm aside, we all know why Trayvon was suspicious in Zimmerman's mind. It wasn't what he was doing because despite the defense's attempts to paint Trayvon as a smoked out thug, he was not engaged in any thug like or suspicious behavior on February 26, 2012. It wasn't his height, or his weight or anything other than the color of his skin. Zimmerman saw a black male whom he hadn't seen before and immediately assumed that he didn't belong and that his mere presence was suspicious.

And that's the crux of the issue. In a nation that prides itself on the racial progress it's made, a young black male is still viewed by many as suspicious and out of place and there doesn't have to be any basis for the assumption. A young black man is dead and despite that reality, nobody has held Zimmerman's feet to the fire and demanded an explanation on that point. The trial has focused on the confrontation and its aftermath but without a racially motivated "suspicion" there wouldn't have been a confrontation in the first place. Zimmerman went after Trayvon Martin because he was black. He initiated a confrontation and then claimed self defense when he had to resort to using a gun while he was getting his behind kicked. Trayvon Martin didn't follow George Zimmerman, he did't provoke him, in fact, had Zimmerman followed orders and stayed in his car, Trayvon Martin may never have even noticed, let alone paid any attention to George Zimmerman.

The truth of the matter is that we live in a nation where a black man's identity automatically makes him  a suspect, particularly when he finds himself in places he's "got no business" being in. Up until the 70's or 80's being in the wrong place at the wrong time meant you'd pay with your life if you were caught by the wrong people. Actually, in 2012 it cost Trayvon his life as well which means that the nation hasn't come nearly as far as it thinks it has as it relates to issues of race and racism.

The only difference between 2013 and 1953 is that at least Zimmerman was arrested and put on trial. 60 years ago the victim's family wouldn't even have that to hang their hat on. Whether Zimmerman's convicted or acquitted is up to the jury. I hope people don't riot. I also hope there are no celebrations of any kind because regardless of the verdict, a young man is dead. A family is torn apart and the wounds of America's racist past have been reopened and no matter what happens there are no winners in this case. We all have lost something simply by being exposed to the ugliness this case has produced.

Is "I'm Sorry" Good Enough?

Watching Paula Dean's interview this morning and hearing all the chatter on social media from all the varying perspectives has made me aware again of how quickly we can lose focus of that which is critical to any discussion and so easily be distracted by the non essentials; the white noise so to speak. (no pun intended :-))

Whether or not you believe her claim that she has only used the word nigger once in her life, the fact is that it doesn't really matter how many times she's used it. Every person I know has said some things in private, when the cameras aren't rolling, that they would not want aired in public. Jokes, crude comments, racially charged language, sexist commentary, homophobic slurs, insults directed at the handicapped; everybody in the world has said something that would offend a huge portion of the population at some point or another. Should we all be fired? Should social media outrage campaigns be launched against us? Maybe. But they won't be unless we're foolish enough to say in public what we too easily allow ourselves to say in private. Which brings me to my first observation about this whole Paula Dean situation. Unlike Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Jimmy the Greek and a laundry list of other fools, Paula Dean did not say nigger on the air. She did truthfully admit to saying it 30 years ago at gun point. And maybe she's said it countless times prior and since but if that's grounds for being terminated from a job then God help us all if, like Dean, we have the integrity to admit the offensive stuff we've said if we're ever questioned about it. I'm reminded here of the profound wisdom and liberating redemption of Jesus' response to a blood thirsty, hypocritical group of men who wanted Him to affirm their blood lust but instead said: "let he is without sin cast the first stone."

Something else that strikes me is all of the outrage regarding Dean's use of the word nigger. I find it interesting that people are so easily outraged by words of racism but can't seem to muster any anger or even frustration with actions and policies that perpetuate racism. Here's an inconvenient truth. Paula Dean calling someone a nigger 30 years ago in no way, shape or form, has anything to do with racial inequality in 2013. She could have greeted every black person she met from then to now by saying "good morning nigger!" and it would not have contributed one iota to the very real, tangible problems of race we are experiencing in America right now.

Dean's, or anybody else's use of the word nigger has nothing to do with attempts to disenfranchise African American and Latino voters of the Supreme Court's failure to curb those efforts. It has nothing to do with educational disparities. Calling someone a nigger has no impact on the fact that the prison industrial complex has been built largely on the backs of Black and Brown young men. If we're going to have a real conversation about race in America, these are the issues that are central to that discussion. I don't care how many times Dean has used the word niggr. I care about African American children having access to quality healthcare and education. I care about the genocide that's occurring in inner cities like Chicago and Philadelphia and Detroit where violent, gun related deaths seem to disproportionately claim Black and Brown lives and I care about what people are doing about it.

As an African American male I've always appreciated the frankness of overt racial bias. It's not cool, but at least I know where I stand. And as jacked up as this whole situation is, at least Paula Dean was honest. She said it. She went there and then  had the guts and integrity to own it when questioned. What her business partners do with that information is on them but I'd much rather see them cut ties with people and/or organizations that actually perpetuate racism. I won't hold my breath on that though.