Extra, Extra! It's Not So Bad When White People Do It

Here what you need to know:

Upper classes are marrying late, while poorer women are deciding that they’re better off single.

You can read the article analyzing a recent Census report yourself.  But the basic gist is this: due to a changing economy, middle- and upper-class individuals are marrying later than before while working- and lower-class singles may not marry at all.

It's good that people are marrying later, and indeed, the divorce rate has gone down. These are people who're taking the time to establish themselves financially before marriage and children.

The changes of the last quarter century indicate that marriage is increasingly becoming a marker of class — the delayed marriages of the middle class produce steadily lower divorce rates, very few non-marital births, and substantial resources to invest in a falling number of children. For the rest of the country, the statistics may simply confirm a greater move away from marriage altogether.

What about everybody else? The working- and lower-classes?

Working class women, however, have become more likely to have children without marrying. If the father is chronically unemployed, uncommitted to the relationship, immature or simply unreliable, young mothers may decide that they are better off on their own.

Isn't This Just Fantastic?!

Newark's First Murder-Free Month Since '66
by Matt Kelley


It's a good day in Newark.

Tea Part-(i)ers

Way below is a recent comment I left on Prometheus6 in response to New Yorker article, The Rise of the Tea Party Movement. First though, I should give some explanation.

I've come to realize as of late a couple of things:

1. I do spend maybe too much energy commenting on other blogs.

My health being what it is, I can't afford not being discriminate in how I spend my energy. The thing is, righting something of scholarship takes just an inordinate amount of energy. Starting with deciding what I'm going to right about and keeping everything straight in my head. I mean, sometimes, by the time I've finished thinking out my thoughts on one issue, I've actually gone through 2 or 3 issues. Now granted, I can usually manage to remember what thought prompted another, and I can follow my logic from one argument to the next. But it can be like trying to stretch out a slinky; and as soon as I try to blog, the slinky recoils and I get slapped in the face. Because I'm trying to choose between a number of topics that're all intertwined and can all be gotten at from different angles.

Is the Dream a Reality, or Are We Waking to Reality

If you don't know my health situation, just ask. Or search, cause I really don't like talking about it.

I would love to do more regular posting of my own original thoughts. Love to!! But that's a little out of my reach right now. Still stretching towards the mark, though. Don't doubt that. And I may do something original later this week.

But until then, one thing I can do is find an article that captures my thoughts. What will follow is one. Economic and racial justice are inseparably entwined. Dr. King came to realize this towards in his last years. A lot of the poverty we see in black America today reaches back to post-WWII racism in handling the GI Bill and in FHA redlining. (Which gets to my case that reparations are due; and if white Americans can't stomach going back to 1865, going back to just 1945 is another option.) In his time, King didn't realize this until he came to notice that having the right to sit at the lunch counter didn't mean much if you couldn't afford to eat there. Moreover, the negative stereotypes used against all blacks, light-skinned and Negro-dialect included, that result in unemployment rates among blacks being nearly twice as high as that among whites are based on the social ills that exist among the black poor. As such, a good bit of these issues could be address just by alleviating financial pressures.

Wait. I don't think I'm being clear. I'm trying to point out the circular pattern of poverty and racism. Things that happen among the black poor are used to restrict opportunities for all blacks. Even though once socioeconomics is accounted for, gaps in crime disappear. Then, these restricted opportunities result in more disproportionate poverty.

So, anyway, I lost my train of thought and commented on another blog and couldn't recover my train of thought. But I really want to share this op-ed by Bob Herbert with you.

Lastly, please MA Dems, get out and vote!! Coakley ain't perfect, but she ain't a 'Publican, either!

Remembering the Mover and The Movement

First, I'll just share a some of my own thoughts, then I'll share some good stuff I found online this morning.

Always, my in initial thought is amazement. Even though we're two days away from the first full year of a sitting black president, I still surprised we have a holiday for a black person. Don't get me wrong, after Christmas and New Year's Eve, I'm winding down the holiday juices. And MLK Day usually sneaks up on me. So I can be a little shook that there's another holiday so soon. But that it's a holiday in remembrance of a black man is usually what keeps me shook until the day after. Just can't get over it.

And while I'm thinking about it, let's not forget today is a national day of service. But starting a tradition of having an MLK fish-fry or cook-out couldn't hurt, could it? (Now, for those who may not know, a cook-out is the same as a BBQ, as in "neighborhood BBQ" not pulled-pork. I don't know another word for fish-fry, but it's pretty much what it sounds like.) I mean, we eat on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the 4th of July. Why not MLK Day? True, I haven't had breakfast. I'm hungry!

Another thought is something I got in an argument about with my mom, but my history professor agreed with me: too much emphasis is put on Dr. King, Jr in terms of the Civil Rights Movement. He didn't start it. He didn't lead it. He was an incredible voice for it and gave his life for it.

But he wasn't the only participant. Not the only leader or speaker, or person to give his life. He made some great moves and used some great strategy; he made some bad moves and used some bad strategy. That's not to disrespect the youngest person of color to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as he was certainly a major voice for peace. The truth is, he was human. Just like the rest of us. As he said, all it takes to be great is to serve and anybody can be great cause anybody can serve. And he was a champion servant! Don't get me wrong, he did some prodigous serving. I just wish we paid more attention to other champion servants.

A very recent thought is irony of the Civil Rights Movement/Black Freedom Movement by comparison to the Tea Party Movement. The point of the CRM was to pull everybody into citizenship on equal status. What is it that the tea party hopes to accomplish that will lift up all of America? The CRM looked to the past and said, "It's damn time for black folks in particular finally to get the rights gauranteed to us nearly a hundred years ago!" What's the tea party hailing to history for? They reach to a time when only white men who owned a certain amount of property had say, in the little European settlers had say in, in colonial government, then completely misunderstand and revise the history of American Independence. Their heroes are racist and sexist nominally Christian men who dressed like Iroquois to sneak on a boat and overturn crates of tea in part to protect settler-owned "big" business. These men weren't fighting for freedom and liberty for anybody. Just money.

What's most disturbing in terms of history are the threats of violence coming from the tea party. Gotta water the tree of freedom with the blood of tyrants sometime. They come unarmed this time. As though true revolution involves blood.

And, well, maybe they have a point. The goals of The Movement haven't been accomplished yet. The eldest surviving child of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King prefers to observe the national holiday in honor of his father as opposed to celebrating it. Martin Luther King III said there is simply too much work to be done around what his father called the "triple evils." As MLK, III puts it,

"We can't celebrate when the triple evils of poverty, racism and militarism are still very much existing in our society. The holiday always gives us an opportunity to begin anew."

Read the entire article, a great article, here.

The last thing I want to address is the santaclausification of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. So much of what he said and did is forgotten in collective/white memory. The true MLK doesn't serve the purposes of white supremacy. Few whites, and no political conservative or libertarian of any race, would hold up MLK as an exceptional black all other blacks should aspire to. He supported affirmative action and reparations. Let's not forget that.

All right. The video that follows is a clip Dr. King giving a speech few people quote today. Yep, Dr. was "black and proud," not American and ambivalent.

But before that, if you can, help Martha Coakley (D-MA) beat her tea-party endorsed opponent Scott Brown. The dude coming strong with the stupid in the video in my previous post.

A'ight, Ladies and Gents. Hope to hear from ya soon. Holla.

You Just Too Damn Fat!!

Lincoln University, an HBCU in rural Pennsylvania, is getting international attention and coverage, and lots of heat for requiring students with BMI over 30 to take a specific PE in order to graduate.

Okay. Let's deal with some particulars. Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to both adult men and women. BMI Categories:

• Underweight = 18.5
• Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
• Overweight = 25-29.9
• Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

Personally, I'm just on the edge of normal weight. Whew. You can calculate your BMI at the link. Remember, though, the muscle weighs more than fat, so you could have a high BMI and still be considered normal weight.

People with a BMI over 30 are obese and at risk for lots of health problems including diabetes and heart disease. Now, perhaps with the exception of white women, there is nothing definitive that weight has a negative impact on income. But, a higher BMI, with its associated health risks, in the end costs more.

As for the university, they don't have the resources to offer this course to everyone, which is what they'd like to do. So they make a requirement for people with BMIs over 30 not to be discriminatory, but to target the class to those who need it most. And there's no doubt they could've done a better job communicating the specifics to students and others.

That said, I completely agree with the universities decision to make this a requirement. The health risks to our community of obesity are too large and have too much of an impact to big ignored. Now sure, some of the problem in the Black community is related to poverty and urban planning, ie lack of access to healthy food. And of course, the older you get, the less likely you are to lose weight, and policies like these would have a greater impact on school children. But college students aren't exactly adults, sorry. Though, this is more about whether or not you're set in your ways than it's about being qualified to vote. And regardless of the neighborhood, we need to empower ourselves to make healthier decisions. If you can't run outside because it's not safe, I'm not suggesting you by a bullet-proof vest and go jogging; but maybe you can do some jumping jacks or push-ups in your house?

And, I don't know. I just think the black community stands to gain a lot by improving our overall health. First off is the lives that'll be saved not to mention money spent on on health care! It's important to send the message that healthiness is important. And who knows? Once we're healthier, maybe we'll have the energy and time to invest in anti-racist activities. We don't know the impact this can have, yet.

Even if they change the particulars, Lincoln definitely needs to keep the idea. Definitely. Go Lions!

The Audacity of Whiteness: Framing Barack Obama

Hat tip Macon D, Stuff White People Do

After you read this article via The Huffington Post, please read my post Oh, Wow! Please Read and Discuss.

The Audacity of Whiteness: Framing Barack Obama
by Jill Nelson

"This country cannot be the country we want it to be if its story is told by only one group of citizens. Our goal is to give all Americans front-door access to the truth." -- Robert C. Maynard (Maynard was one of the founders of the 30-year-old Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, which works to increase diversity in staffing, content and business operations of American media.)

I know its bad form to mention race and upset the new post-racial apple cart, the one that doesn't even have a black chauffer like the genial Hoke to drive Miss Daisy around. Nope, in this post-racial world Hoke's been laid off or taken the buy-out. (At least 300 black journalists left the print media in 2007, and there's every indication that 2008 was worse. Richard Prince's Journal-isms column at www.mije.org is an ongoing record of attrition.) In this brave new world the playing field's level, Dr. King's dream's been realized, and it's all about the meritocracy. Yet a look at the unbearably white American media reminds us that even with a black president little has changed in terms of who frames the issues. With the exception of CNN, which probably employs more black people than BET and definitely has more news coverage, for the most part media looks like a meeting of the White Citizens Council, circa 1956. As determined to retain control of the dialogue as those racists were to maintain the Southern way of life.

Why is it okay for George Will to have President Obama to dinner with conservative journalists with not a black face in the room? How many journalists attended parties in Washington during the inauguration where there were no journalists of color present? Isn't it disturbing to the journalistic establishment that the vast majority of journalists, commentators, talking heads, pundits, and experts discussing the new president and his administration are white? In 2009 can anyone seriously argue that aren't more than a handful of black, Latino, Asian, or Native Americans who fit these categories? Is this time for change we can believe in, or is it still time for black to get back?

For two years I'd managed, along with most black people, to go along with one of the unspoken shibboleths to the election of Barack Obama and kept my mouth closed about racial issues, fearing that such a discussion would be harmful to Obama. This in spite of Bill Clinton showing his ass in South Carolina; Hillary's absurd suggestion that Obama wouldn't know what to do when the phone rang at 3 AM; and John McCain's barely veiled white supremacist campaign. Yet the failure of much of the media to recognize the words of the Negro National Anthem as the first words of Reverend Joseph Lowery's benediction at the inauguration was truly pitiful. That, followed by the general incomprehension of the rhyme at the end of Lowery's remarks -- "When black will not be asked to get in back/When brown can stick around..." -- and then its erroneous attribution by a CNN employee to a civil rights song, rather than rooted in African American folk and oral tradition and the dozens -- a game of verbal insult and one-upmanship -- made it impossible to maintain silence.

It's profoundly dishonest and morally wrong that media coverage of Barack Obama and his presidency is framed by an almost exclusively white press corp. Not just the White House press corps, whose unbearable whiteness Sam Fulwood III wrote eloquently about on theRoot.com in December, 2008. Turn on the television. Most of the reporters -- the ones with shows of their own, steady jobs and influence - are white. Is there no other journalist of color in America besides Gwen Ifill of PBS' Washington Week (fabulous as she is) who could host a news show? (Sorry, CNN, the comedian D.L. Hughley doesn't count.) Apparently not, since when Ifill takes the occasional Friday off her show often becomes segregated.

The absence of African Americans is appalling in light of the plethora of white people from someplace else, especially England, getting paid to frame, spin and explain Barack Obama to Americans. I doubt that I could get a job parsing Gordon Brown to the Brits. At the "serious" magazines, the situation is dismal. Years ago, an editor at The New Yorker told me the reason there weren't more black writers at the magazine was that they didn't understand the publication's "zeitgeist."

What's really changed if the American media continues to view this new administration, and a world that is overwhelmingly populated by black, brown, and yellow people, through white eyes? In this same old world but with a new name, a Black man is president of the United States, but it takes a white man to play him on Saturday Night Live. Arrogance and privilege by another name?

Call me a retro, angry black woman -- or Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress, as Juan Williams, one of the few journalists of color white journalists deign to recognize, called Michelle Obama last weekend -- but why is it that whenever the impact of race is analyzed the role that white privilege plays is absent? In journalism, the result is always the same: white people who are granted the role of analyzing everything and everyone, including African Americans, who are as likely as not to be dismissed, overlooked, or spoken for by white expert opinion.

In reality, this post-modern, post-racial apple cart is for whites only, a dishonest and opportunistic effort to pretend race no longer matters now that Americans have elected Barack Obama president. Post racial is nothing but segregation under a kinder, gentler name, yet another effort to further enshrine white privilege and white supremacy.

What a waste, in this time of profound crisis and the possibilities Barack Obama's presidency presents, to have those possibilities identified and interpreted by whites only. Filtered through the tired lens of whiteness in a twenty-first century in which the attacks of 9/11, American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the implosion of the markets and the collapse of capitalism are signposts along the road of the dying white culture.

In this auspicious moment, media organizations should be seeking out journalists of color and youth. Instead it's the same old white guys, many of whom seem to verge on apoplexy as they struggle to "explain" Obama. It's as if he, like Klaatu from The Day the Earth Stood Still, fell from the sky, ahistorical, exceptionalist, and, I fear, soon to be, like Oprah or Michael Jordan, conveniently de-raced. This inability to fathom Barack Obama doesn't come as a surprise. For the most part these media heads have managed to live lives absent any serious engagement with black people or black culture. If they had, they would be familiar with the existence of the black middle class, a long-established group of overachievers whose mantra is that you have to work harder, smarter, and be better than your white counterparts to achieve the same results.

Barack Obama is neither an anomaly nor an aberration. He is simply the most successful member of this class of overachievers. His election lays to rest the myth of the meritocracy. Perhaps more amazing than the election of Barack Obama is that someone of his intellect and limitless possibility even wanted the job. Be clear: Barack Obama is part of a continuum. Now that he's broken the glass ceiling it's time for whites to step up their game. Stay tuned.

As candidate and President Obama has made clear, change we need requires sacrifice from all of us. It's not just about black kids pulling up their pants, or working harder in school, or more parental involvement. Nor is it just the overt racists and skinheads who need to get it together. The less obvious and likely more difficult change must come from the chattering class, many of them entrenched liberals and progressives to whom it has never occurred that they are the beneficiaries of white skin privilege.

There are countless black journalists and other journalists of color who can add skill, knowledge, cultural context and depth to covering America's first black president, as part of the White House press corps and in every area of journalism. They should be hired. Post-racial, bah humbug! Meritocracy, ha! I know the road to white privilege when I see it, Miss Daisy, whatever you want to call it.

Girlfriend, You Must Be Crazy!

All right. So I promised this post a while ago. But then, I felt the pressure of knowing someone was waiting for this post. Good to know I'm being read; I just felt a little pressure. Also, I found out at least two of Lauren's children had reached their limit. Poor babies. Then, I tried to find this song I love that's in my head. Not only can I not find it, it may not even be an actual song. Cause I do have a habit of merging two songs into one in my head.

But anyway, as promised, my open letter of sorts to the white LGBT community, re "You Got Privilege, Too."

I need to kinda set the stage. First of all, this isn't a letter to gays and lesbians of color. If you wanna complain about what happens in your communities, have at it. Uh, yeah, I'm making the distinction.

Secondly, I empathize with a lot of the issues. Now, understand, I do regard homosexuality as a sin. But I don't think me or anyone who so happens to be straight is better than anyone who's not. I feel gays and lesbians deserve all the "inalienable" rights everyone else enjoys. That includes marriage - but it is this whole argue over marriage that instigates my disregard for white gays and lesbians.

Thirdly, since time began, marriage has been understood as a relationship between a man and a woman. Even the Greek philosophers who were known to carry on amongst each other didn't classify their relationship as marriage. But, be that as it may - you wanna get married, hey, why not? The way I see it, the tax credits and shared insurance is something that falls under "inalienable" rights.

Now, my rant.

So you lost proposition 8? Oh, I hear you pain, but you can quit with the "gay is the new black" whining. From what I understand, part of the reason so many in the black community voted against gay marriage is that you didn't do any outreach. Couldn't find your way into the black community, huh? Thought that just because we vote Democrat and weren't considered part of the Evangelical movement that we don't have religious sentiments? Or, maybe you just made the assumption that black people would side with you automatically because of our own harsh history? But, whatever you were thinking, it seems like you weren't.

Cause, let me make it clear to you, with all the discrimination you face, I don't imagine that when you look for a new house, you get tracked to the "less discriminate" neighborhoods. I mean, from what I've heard, wherever you move becomes the place to be! And I know you face job discrimination. How about earning less just because you're gay? Or being pulled over for driving in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time of night? Or being stopped because you fit the description of a suspect who two feet taller and ten shades gay-er? Or being stopped just because the cops need to pad their records, and they think that just because you're gay, you probably do drugs. How they would know is beyond me.

Now, do you face senseless discrimination? Yeah. But my guess is that it's not coming from the black community. My guess is that your boss, your realtor, the waitress at your neighborhood Applebee's are all white. I bet you've been beaten up once people discovered you're gay. I also bet your attackers where white.

Which is why I'll allow gays and lesbians of color to complain about communities of color. They're the ones who deal with homophobia within those communities; not you. In fact, when it comes to communities of color, exactly what do you have to deal with. And not as an individual. I'm sure there're some white gays who live and/or work in communities of color. I mean as a group. Besides voting mostly for the same party, what dealings do you have with communities of color?

In fact, come on. You can't really expect a lot of support from the black community when you haven't done the work in the black community that you've done in the white community. It's kinda funny, you're ignorance of the black community. Rush Limbaugh complained about your protests in front of white mega-churches and wondered why you weren't protesting in front of black mega-churches. And I imagine that's because you don't know there are black mega-churches, wouldn't know where to find one, and wouldn't know whether or not the members of that church supported gay rights.

So really, I think you're just pissed because you can't believe that there're black people who think they're better than you. Huh? And some of the truth that I've come to learn is that most black people don't see themselves as better than others, unless you're talking about the relationship between the genders. But mostly, we don't. We see people as people. And don't get me wrong. There is genuine homophobia within the black community to the extent that a lot of folks don't want gay kids. But when it comes to matters of the law, the vote against gay marriage is purely religious. And what needs to be done is to separate legal components of marriage from whatever religious components people might see. Or, you could take John Meachem's tack and make it clear that you want to be in a stable, loving, supportive relationship, too.

Most churched black people regard homosexuality as a sin. Sorry, it's plainly there in the Bible. Now, there're lots of things that people attribute to the Bible that aren't actually there, but the description of homosexuality as sin is there. And yes. Slavery is, too. But American slavery would've been against the Mosaic Law as well as the teachings of Paul. And if you don't believe the Bible or all of it, tough. The people you need to convince do, and there's actually a lot there you can use. Cause at the end of the day, most black folks are able to recognize the humanity in everybody. I don't imagine it would've comparatively been that difficult to get black support had you tried - instead of doing things like protesting a concert that included Donnie McCurklin thinking it was somehow anti-gay politically when it wasn't.

But. You just never prepared for the idea that "those" people would vote against you. After all you've done for us . . . which reminds me, what have you done for us? I've heard that argument before, but never really gotten an answer. I know Rustin Baynard was gay, and I'm sure there were countless more in the movement, but I know you ain't placing your claim to black support on the actions of probably mostly all black gays and lesbians, are you? In fact, there was apparently so little support from the white gay community for civil rights that I can't even google it!

So, the way I see it, you're just really confounded that it appears to you that black people think they're better than you. And you're just all to willing to looking down on us from your self-righteous perch instead of doing the hard work of education in the black community that you've done in the white community. Because you're just all to accustomed to the privilege your whiteness affords you whatever hardships your sexuality causes you.

And when it comes to the debate concerning civil unions vs marriage, please stop the whole argument that separate is inherently unequal. That's what the lily white Supreme Court said. Not what the black community intended. It's not like our students just have to be around white students to learn. It's that states and local communities were spending thousands of dollars on white students for every few dollars that spent on black students. What we wanted was actual equality, whether or not that meant sitting next to you. It just so happens that when you actually give every student the same education, integration is cheaper than segregation. So, it's not that separate is inherently unequal; it's that the separation blacks faced was unequal. And most voters, white and black, are more willing to support civil unions than they are gay marriage.

So, when you get to the bottom of it, all your righteous indignation at the audacity (That's not a reference to President Obama. The word "audacity" is part of the black lexicon.) of black folks not to support your cause comes down to an argument over semantics. And you think all you moaning and condemnation is going to change black people's minds when we know very well your indignation comes from your privilege? Ha! You must be crazy. Girlfriend.

Which reminds me of something else. Since it's so obvious you think you're better or at the very least are used to white privilege, quit using our words!

Bringing Smart-Sexy Back!

The Silver Rights Movement - big props to my homie Segun Olagunju. Uh . . . now, that's not him in the video. That's John Hope Bryant, whom CNN says you need to know.



I agree with everything he says. The kids in the inner-city need better role models than athletes and entertainers - I could launch into the racism that plays into that, but we'll save that for another day.

Today is about becoming a member of the Silver Rights Movement. It's about promoting financial education, which everyone could use, but the inner-city desperately needs. - I mean think about, most of those people don't wanna be there and would do anything to get out. You wanna tell me who benefits from their economic vulnerability? Do you realize that as a nation, we spend more on prisons than on education? And that lots of these prisons are private and amount to a form of neo-slavery?

But, back to the video, this is the kind of thing I love to see happening. Now, if you ask me, the US and corporate America owes its black citizens trillions of dollars. But, as we all know, white America isn't ready to accept the truth of what this country has done to us, much less to make any amends for it. And the way I see it, we black folks, like always, are gonna have to do it for ourselves.

But, back to the video, watch it a few times if you need to. At least, more than once.

Here are the websites he mentions at the end:
Operation Hope
And I think this is an idea of what he says is to come:
5 Million Kids

This Is Why Black Folks Don't Vote for Republicans

courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarydavis0831.artaug31,0,3487488.story

Courant.com
No Room At The Table For Black Republicans
By YVONNE R. DAVIS

August 31, 2008

With stiff upper lips and phony grins, black Republicans are going to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota to be dissed by the party. Many will make believe they are down for Sen. John McCain — too afraid to come out the closet for Obama.

Since the 2000 and 2004 Republican conventions, a lot has changed for African American Republicans. I was a vice chairwoman for Bush in Connecticut, a national co-chairwoman for African Americans for Bush, a surrogate spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee and worked on Latino outreach efforts nationwide. With a number of blacks, I served on various committees to plan events at the Philadelphia and Big Apple conventions. There were rainbow coalitions of interns and delegates. Featured speakers such as Colin Powell, J.C. Watts Jr., Condolezza Rice, black actors and ministers and gospel singers played a role on prime-time television.

Black Republicans had a voice, working in key positions participating in everything from building the Republican Party platform to prayer breakfasts, hosting events and most important, being heard on issues vital to us. George W. Bush was a "new kind of Republican." He desired to show we were a part of the party of Lincoln. But oh, how times have changed.

I've gone from having VIP seats sitting in the Bush family box to having a premier seat on my living room couch in Windsor from which to watch the Republican convention. I will miss the hurrahs, shout-outs, fist pumps and holding up the signs. I will miss talking to the president, his family and so many people who were interested in what was important to African Americans. Real or perceived, there was an effort to engage us.

The 2008 convention has only one African American speaking — a man I personally know and admire, former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. He is also the chief black for McCain. However, will he be seen by all on prime-time television?

Black Republican pundits at the convention have tremendous pressure to make negative remarks about Obama — there are well-scripted key message points to keep them in line. One group called the National Black Republican Association purchased 50 billboard ads in Denver to taunt that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican and that Obama is no MLK. In a three-minute video, MLK's niece Alveda King, a Republican, supports this claim. I'm not sure what time she is living in, but in the video she refers to us as Negroes.

To use the King legacy to divide and conquer is a useless tactic to prove one is not "monolithic." It's typical "crabs in a barrel" against Obama. It may be believed that acceptance brownie points will be garnered from white Republicans.

Black Republicans faking to feel included should ask why African American Republican Dr. Deborah Honeycutt, a highly educated, beautiful and successful physician running for the U.S. House in Georgia's 13th Congressional District, can't get support from the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee or the Georgia State Republican Party. Since 2007, according to the Federal Elections Commission, she has raised over $5 millionto try to defeat her white Democratic opponent, incumbent Rep. David Albert Scott. To date, he raised nearly $700,000.

I asked Honeycutt's campaign manager, Michael Murphy,if John McCain has reached out to her or whether anyone of significance from Washington or Georgia is offering help.

He hesitated and gave an embarrassing "No." I then asked him why and he said, "Well ... I don't know. Perhaps when she goes to the convention they will change their minds once they see her."

While I strongly support Barack Obama, there are still so many values in the Republican Party I hold dear. John McCain's website now has a listing for African Americans along with a number of other minority groups, but the truth is that the outreach is only implied.

The 2008 Republican convention and the presidential election should be a wake-up call for black Republicans. In the end, if we choose to support Obama, we should not do it in the dark.

If we choose to support McCain, then we must get the courage to challenge a party that we have allowed to act as if we don't exist.

Yvonne R. Davis of Windsor is a former appointee of President George W. Bush.

Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant

God I Know, Paul I know, but Who Are You? II

In his book, Dusk of Dawn: And Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept, WEB Du Bois lists of "white American code of ethics" that follows something like this:

Christian: peace, good will, Golden Rule, liberty, poverty
Gentleman: justice, manners, exclusiveness, police, wealth
American: defense, caste, propaganda, patriotism, power
White Men: war, hate, suspicion, exploitation, empire

This list was published in 1940. Does that ring true to you even today?

Du Bois also attempts to recount innumerable conversations he's had with white American men into a single imaginary dialogue. They were discussing the contradictions between what it means to a Christian and what it means to be an American. A white friend explained, "We've go to be American even if we give up being Christians and Gentlemen."

And I think that's the problem with what's known as American Christianity today. It's not that white Christians, and I say white as opposed to black Christians, are picking and choosing which commandments to follow or which verses are literal and which are figurative. It's that they're choose between being Christian, being gentle(wo)men, being American, and being white. The problem is they choose which most benefits their sense of morality and self-acceptance.

For example. We all recall what Rev. Jeremiah Wright said about the US of "KKK-A." Was anything he said a lie? No. Was anything he said racist? No. So what was the hoopla about? The fact that he criticized the US. Even Michael Pfleger said nothing sexist or racist; he only pointed out the sense of entitlement white Americans seem to have. This entitlement never displays itself more than when white Americans are called out for it, as it displayed itself in the immediate and extreme punishment Pfleger received from his archbishop.

Let me share more of the Du Bois's conversation:

"Suppose we continue to neglect discipline for the mod and stop teaching thick and thin patriotism? I admit it isn't exactly honest business; America isn't so wonderful as nations go, but must we not make Americans believe it wonderful?"

So what's my point? First of all, it's to show that white Christianity is not Christianity at its purest. I've been in many an online argument about the "fiasco and deception" of Christianity. What bothers me most about these discussions is not the intellectual dismissal of Christianity. What bothers me is the intellectual dishonesty when discussing Christianity and history.

Let me just first say as a knowing descendant of slaves and a historian, the God the slaves worshipped and the God white people worshipped wasn't always the same God. For far too many white Americans at the time, god was just a heavenly body to whom you sacrifice your Sunday and did pretty whatever you wanted during the week. Now, this wasn't the God of abolitionists and temperance women and some suffragist; but, this was, and for some still is, the god of the majority of white American Christians. The troubling thing is that the Bible makes plain that God does not accept sacrifices and prayers from people who turn right around and disobey him.

On the other hand, the God of the slaves was personal. S/He was close by and a comforter, a strengthener, and encourager. That's why white Christians emphasis God's love, and black Christians emphasis liberty and deliverance. Even today, hardly a sermon goes by in a black church without the preacher encouraging the congregation that even if you're "going through," God is by your side and you can lean on Him/Her.

Historically, the problem is not and has never Christianity or most religions for that matter. The problem is that historically, European Christians have chosen war and exploitation, hate and empire over peace and justice, love and humility. I challenge anyone to name one horrific tragedy done in the name of "Christianity" that had nothing at all to do with the teachings of Christ. And if you can't see the difference, you're just as intellectually dishonest, bigoted, and close-minded as those you castigate. Just be honest with yourself. It's not that you don't believe in a Higher Being, you just don't wanna except a being Higher than yourself.

And I'm a black Christian. I don't recognize the god so many "Christian" conservatives talk about. How God would prize the "sanctity of life" over the ending of poverty, which is what leads so many woman to chose abortion, is beyond me. How their god seems to think the racial problems today originate from black grievances instead of white racism is beyond me. But, I suppose if the god you serve has blue eyes and long blond hair and pale skin, he may very well think that way. But I don't know that god.

But so anyway, here's the thing. Far too many American Christians, especially white ones, prioritize other codes of ethics over Christianity. And if you're a secularists who's tired of "Christian" conservatives making a mess of the Constitution, stop fighting them and work with those of us who follow Christ, not the most recent POTUS we like. Cause there're millions of us out there who are politically progressive, and we're willing not to evangelize you or expressing our ideas in religious terms. But you've got to stop trivializing our beliefs. Cause we won't stand for that either.

If you wanna confront those conservatives who call themselves Christians, denying the existence of God ain't gonna do. Telling them they're nut cases ain't gonna do it. But, maybe if you learned the 10 Commandments, you could challenge them for the support of a regressive tax system and an economy that distributes wealth upwards and leave the poor behind. And especially when it comes to same-sex marriage. Don't let them beat you up about the "sanctity" of marriage being between one man and one woman. Challenge the divorce rate that's 50% in and outside the church, challenge the fact that the rates spousal abuse are the same in and outside the church. And you should really hit them up with the fact that their seems to be more compassion, understanding, and equal sharing of domestic duties.

Slavery Wasn't Abolished in Actuality Until 1951

I have a lot on my mind. Bill Clinton's, "I never made a racist comment." Geraldine Ferraro's lame notion that if Barack Obama chooses any woman besides Hillary Clinton, it will be an insult to both Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I wrote about that a couple of days ago.

I'm also thinking about Obama's lead in a recent poll with the white working-class. I also wonder how long Pat Buchanan will be treated like a respectable voice on politics, race, and the politics of race. Video on all that below. Perhaps I'll post about that later. And I did see the phallic symbols. And white people don't always "see" racism.

What I know I'll address is this complaint from Republicans that they can't criticize Obama and engage in regular political discussion because any criticism of Obama leads to charges of racism. That complaint is unfounded, and I will certainly take it apart later. But for now, I have another issue on my mind.

What's on my mind is the fact that slavery wasn't really abolished until 1951, when Congress finally made clear that "any form of slavery in the United States was indisputable a crime" (Douglas A Blackmon. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Doubleday, 2008.) The forms of slavery engaged in at the time, and by slavery I mean illegally enforced involuntary servitude, included peonage and the chain gangs. It included the illegal use of the justice system whereby a black man would be charged with some crime he either didn't commit or committed simply by virtue of being black and out in public; then he'd be charged with all kinds of fines he couldn't pay; a white man would pay the fines and have the black man as essentially a slave to work off his "debt." Then the so-called prisoners would be beaten and whipped and forced to live in condemnable conditions all the while chained. If a prisoner died, no one was charged with murder. Even if it were clearly murder.

Then there's the rape and sexual abuse of black women. White men felt access to black women's bodies was a birthright and used it frequently. With their lives being economically dependent on white men and no legal or extralegal recourse, neither the black women nor their families were in a place to fight back much. A preacher was even killed because he encouraged black women to say, "No" (ibid. 243).

Yes, the North had its issues. There were lynchings and redlining. But, there was no slavery. That's why so many African Americans left the South like children leaving school at the end of the year. The "Jim Crow" era would be better called "the age of Neoslavery." That's Blackmon's idea, but I like it.

That may not be of great concern to you. But it's something that always got to me. Before, questions about the Great Migration and the difference between the North and South would essentially end with the notion that Northern whites were equally racist as Southern whites, but on the whole, Northern racism was easier to deal with. But now, I know that Northern racism was easier to deal with because it wouldn't lead to forced labor. Of course, there remained the sexual abuse of domestic workers. But, there was no slavery.

I'll have more about Blackmon's book in the coming days. I don't know if I'll be writing a book review so much as I'll be going about my usual rants with more evidence.

Obama Heckled

Update: Here's another opinion/thought on the issue I think I agree with.

I debated whether or not to blog about this. I feel the hecklers were well intentioned but embarrassingly misinformed.

Now. I have my problems with Barack Obama and his "personal responsibility" rhetoric towards the black community. I wish they had heckled him on that issue. But, as I've said before, other places if not here, Obama is far better in policy for Black America than his rhetoric lets on. That was one of the reasons I chose to support him over Hillary Clinton before the Clintons went all redneck on us.

Of course, the heckling should help Obama with white folks scared of the "Revolution."

And I say all that to lead to this - check out Jack and Jill. They address the issue quiet well.

I Need a Laugh. How About You?

First, we have to address serious issues. Half Of U.S. Cases Of AIDS Are Among Black Americans. That's devastating. We're definitely gonna have to be more aggressive as a community addressing the issue with more compassion as well as being realistic about sexual activity and the responsibility to be safe and tested.

But go to Jack and Jill for that. I just want what one might call a break. So, here's some clips from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report.