Revisiting the March on Washington and the “I have a Dream” speech

August 25, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Posted in African American, Bigotry in America, blacks, Congress, desegregation, discrimination, Emancipation Proclamation, employment, Equal Opportunity, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, happiness, I have a dream, justice, March on Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., Media and Race, minority, President, President Obama, voting rights act, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America this week recognized and celebrated the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington and the speech of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Much attention has been paid to the March and the speech. Unfortunately, most people do not know what either the March or the speech was about. They believe they know, but their responses to two questions will reveal the extent of their knowledge. The first question is how much progress has been made over these past 50 years? The second question is how would Dr. King react to the present day reality? The answers to these questions are not set in stone, but will vary depending on a variety of conditions relative to the responders—things like ethnicity, age, social status, education, politics etc.
In response to the first question regarding the progress made during the last 50 years, we must first set the perimeters relative to the March. The organizers proclaimed the objective of the March was to focus Washington of the problem of jobs and freedom for poor and working-class Americans in general, and African Americans specifically, since they were the ones most directly affected. The March was seen by many European Americans as a gathering of minority protesters, especially African Americans to try and get Washington to listen to their complaints; some thought of the March as a nuisance and waste of time.
Many of the African Americans saw the March as an opportunity for all people, especially minorities to show Washington that they were united in the desire for better jobs, wages and freedoms in general. They believed that power and strength would be reflected in the large number of March participants to the degree that Washington could not ignore them. So, after years of planning by the civil rights activists and other American citizens, the March envisioned by A. Phillip Randolph, and orchestrated by Bayard Rustin, took place.
Today, when society looks back 50 years to measure the progress made relative to jobs and freedom, the response must be not very much progress has been made. Poor and working-class Americans are still experiencing the same problems that Dr. King and other leaders outlined in the speeches. The average wage is actually lower than the medium wages 50 years ago when inflation is figured in the assessment. Many citizens are unemployed and must depend on the government for help. Many citizens must work two and three jobs just to try to meet some of their financial obligations. The cost of education and housing has put many Americans in precarious positions that threaten their ability to move forward. But the most important occurrence affecting the poor, the working class, and the ethnic population is the changes in the voting laws of a number of states. The changes made by states like Texas and North Carolina would result in disenfranchising many of the Americans by denying them the vote. So, the answer to the progress question reflects a lack of progress having been made since 1963 relative to jobs and minority freedoms.
The answer to the second question regarding how Dr. King would react to the present-day reality would be anger. He would be angry and disappointed for a number of reasons. Too many African Americans saw the March as a moment and not the beginning of a movement, so much time has been wasted in addressing the needs of the people and not creating solutions for those problems. Much more should have been accomplished regarding all aspects of American life. The people who knew Dr. King knew him to be a non-violent militant; he believed in direct non-violent confrontation. That is why the March on Washington was deliberately a peaceful march.
One major mistake made by the media, the African Americans and the European Americans who knew what the March and speech were all about, did not set the record straight regarding both. Many European Americans then as now think of the “I have a dream” speech as a statement of celebration, an expression of all the progress the African Americans had made to that point. So, the March was seen as a celebration of all the good things that had happened to that point. The problem with that thinking is that it was wrong. The March on Washington as well as Dr. King’s speech was elements of protest, not praise. The fact that African Americans and European Americans who had worked so hard to bring these phenomena together did not increase their efforts to have the problems of jobs and freedom resolved represent the disappointment.
Many Americans today still see the March and the speeches as evidence of progress because they continue to embrace the theme of “I have a dream.” They do not realize that the only reason Dr. King spoke of the dream was because he could not experience the reality, a reality that had been promised by America in its democratic creed of “Life, liberty, and freedom for all.” When we revisit the objectives of the March and speeches we realize that very little have changed regarding the expressions of liberty and freedoms for all because the concept and attitude of many American regarding America are still grounded in the idea of a “white America.” Too many Americans still see America as a “white” society and as long as they can wield the power to keep it that way, they will.
America has been changing since it began, but the changes have been so gradual that some people did not realize that changes were taking place. The eye-opening experience for many of these people was the election of Barack Obama as President. The anger, hatred, bias, frustration and violence directed towards President Obama are not, for all intent and purposes, for Obama personally. All these things are expressions of fear and losing that President Obama represents to their view of America. Many European Americans fear losing the power to create the perception of America and the privileges that has historically been associated with a “white” identity. Unfortunately, that perspective does not fit with the democratic philosophy that was set in motion at this country’s beginning. Unless and until America changes its founding creed, society will continue to move in a democratic direction regardless of the set-backs and slowness.

North Carolina’s new biased voting rights laws made to discourage voting

August 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Posted in African American, Bigotry in America, blacks, Democrats, discrimination, Equal Opportunity, equality, European American, fairness, GOP, justice, March on Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., minority, President Obama, Republican Party, Rev. AlSharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, The Oklahoman, U.S. Supreme Court | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The North Carolina legislators signed new laws addressing voter ID. These new laws affect directly the poor, the young, and minorities, especially African Americans and Hispanics. Voting a party-line vote, the GOP-dominated state House now requires voters to present government-issued photo IDs at the polls; they also shortened early voting by a week, from 17 days to 10. In addition, the new laws also ends same-day registration, requires voters to register, update their address or make any other needed changes almost a month ahead of the election. In a move directed at the youth, the laws eliminated a popular high school civics program that registers tens of thousands of students to vote each year in advance of their 18th birthdays. No longer will straight-ticket voting be permitted. Why all these changes?
In a commentary by Jonathan S. Tobin entitled “Weak case against voter ID,” (The Oklahoman 8/17/13) he complains that Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are exploiting the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington trying to convince the American people by relating it to the present civil rights struggle and the attacks on the voting rights laws. He states that “…like the fake outrage expressed by Democrats and liberals over the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the Voting Rights Act while mandating that the Justice Department acknowledge that it is 2013 rather than 1965, Americans should not be fooled by this scam.”So, people should disregard any complaints associated with the anniversary.
Regarding the action of the North Carolina legislators he writes “But whatever one may think of those measures, the idea that any of this has anything to do with racial discrimination or efforts to reimpose the racism that once characterized America’s political system is absurd.”A few questions regarding this remark will debunk his assumption. Who will be affected negatively by these new laws? The answer becomes obvious when we look at some of the particulars of the ID laws. How, where, and when can the voters acquire the new government-issued photo IDs? Why must the ID’s be government-issued rather than student or driver’s license IDs?
Tobin continued “No one is attempting to repeal the right to vote or to restrict the franchise.” We must ask, why would one try to repeal the right to vote when laws can be created and instituted which will give the same results? His next statement clears the air of his mind-set which is still somewhere in the 19th century: “Those who are making this argument in an era when African Americans are voting in numbers similar to those of whites and when we have just re-elected the first African American president of the United States are making a mockery of the legacy of the civil rights struggle.”
Clearly Tobin has not been living on the planet recently or if he has been here, he has not been paying attention to what has been happening regarding civil rights and voting rights. The primary reason for Republicans changing the voting rights laws is because the old ones worked. For proof, he mentions the number of African Americans voting in comparison with European Americans and note that they are similar. Shock! They are not supposed to be similar; African Americans are not supposed to vote in large numbers, but they did. So, in an effort to not experience a repeat performance, the Republicans decided to change the laws.
Tobin, evidently, does not realize that the information he offers as proof of social progress actually underscores the need to retain the old laws, because they worked; people voted. Why would anyone want to change the laws since they do what they were created to do? If we were to follow his philosophy we might think that a person with a dairy digestive problem who was given some lactase medicine to remedy his problem, switched to aspirin the next time the problem occured. Common sense would dictate that he stays with the medicine that works, not one that has no relations to his malady.
Rather than Jackson and Sharpton trying to run a scam on the American people, logic shows that it is the Republicans and thinkers like Tobin that want to mislead the American people. Tobin’s reference to President Obama being elected twice is offered as proof of African Americans and America’s progress relative to ethnic relations. However, he offers that information in an effort to convince his readers that society has reached it goal as far as justice and equality relative to African Americans are concerned and now things ought to be changed so as not to give then an advantage over the European Americans.
If Tobin would take the time to re-visit history just back to 1965, he might get a better understanding of why the voting act was created in the first place. Had not those laws been in place during the last two presidential elections, chances are Obama would not have been elected. The groups that played an influential role in electing Obama president both times are the very people North Caroline’s laws are seeking to negatively affect. Tobin is the one attempting to make a mockery of the legacy of the civil rights struggle by suggesting that ethnic and social bigotry did not play a role in the creation of North Carolina’s new voting laws.
The only absurdities we can recognize are Tobin’s comments supporting the passage of these new voting laws. They, in effect, are his efforts to try and “pull the wool” over the readers’ eyes, trying to make them believe that because of these new laws, voting will become easier for all. Some people who do not take the time to absorb what he wrote might agree with him, but those readers who are conversant with history and current events will certainly question his motives for defending the laws. The very claim used for creating the new laws is bogus—to prevent voter fraud. How does one prevent something that does not exist?

Oprah Winfrey experiences discrimination in Switzerland boutique

August 11, 2013 at 1:12 pm | Posted in African American, blacks, discrimination, Disrespect, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, Media and Race, Prejudice, tourism, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oprah Winfrey recently reported that she experienced discrimination while shopping for a purse in Switzerland. The event occurred according to Winfrey when “a clerk at Trois Pommes, a pricey Zurich boutique, refused to show her a $38,000 handbag, telling one of the world’s richest women that she wouldn’t be able to afford it.” Apparently, the clerk did not recognize Winfrey or she would not have refused to show her the purse. The more important question relative to this experience is why was Winfrey’s request to see the purse rejected. Winfrey called the incident an act of racism, but there is more to this incident than meets the eye.
In the aftermath of the incident, we are told that “Swiss tourism officials and the boutique owner were quick to offer apologies Friday. ‘We are very sorry for what happened to her, of course, because we think all of our guest and clients should be treated respectfully, in a professional way,’” The boutique owner, Trudie Goetz, tried to make excuses for the clerk by claiming that because the clerk is mainly an Italian speaker she lacked the proper communication skills and “I believe she [the clerk] rather said something like ‘we have some less expensive—we also have some less expensive bags’ and not ‘it’s too expensive for you.’”
Of course, Goetz’s offering in defense of her clerk makes little sense because how would the clerk know what is and what is not in a customer’s price range? Also, why would she assume that Winfrey could not afford the purse simply by looking at her? The fact is that she could not know whether Winfrey could afford the purse, but assumed simply by looking at her that she could not afford it. Why? Stereotypes. African Americans as well as other people of color are generally the recipients of negative stereotypes. Why? The negative stereotypes are the product of American and Western propaganda that presents and portrays African Americans as not worthy of significant social value or respect.
For many years the images of the African American sent out of America showed him to be poor, ignorant, literate, simple, lazy, dishonest, a lier, a thief, a clown, and generally lacking morals or decency along with a host of other negative stereotypes. Few if any of the pictures of African Americans were complimentary. So, naturally people of color from other countries did not want to be viewed in that negative light; therefore, in spite of all the positive contributions African Americans have made to America and the world, being an American of color was not viewed positively. Today, when people of color come to America, they deliberately retain their cultural and geographical identity for fear of being mistaken as an African American because of the stereotypes. If Winfrey had gotten someone to announce her arrival at the boutique, she would have received VIP treatment because wealthy African Americans who travel outside the U.S.A. are generally well-received if their presence is made known. The average African American, however, falls into the category composed of negative stereotypes.
To be sure, the image of the European American is equally composed of stereotypes, but they are generally the opposite from those of the African Americans. The images in question come from movies, news stories, magazines and books. For years, many people in foreign countries thought that European Americans did not work, but simply went shopping, golfing, or to the beach every day, always having fun and enjoying life. When images of African Americans were presented, the context was usually in a 2nd-class role or some other negative stereotype, usually involving protest or violence crimes. Rarely was an African American pictured as wealthy, educated, and non-threatening.
So, once we understand the history of the African American experience relative to the negative stereotyped images of them outside of America, we can begin to understand that the discrimination Winfrey experienced was not necessarily based on her personally, but on the image held by the clerk relative to people of color or African Americans in general. We know for certain that Winfrey experienced discrimination, but we cannot say that it was based on ethnicity or race. People can be discriminated against for a plethora of reasons, so race does not have to be the primary or only reason. Many people in America are profiled and discriminated against every day, not simply because of their skin color, but also because they are assumed to be in a particular socio-economic class.
Whether in America or some other country, stereotypes of people exists and those stereotypes serve as the bases for discrimination. Winfrey’s experience should serve as a lesson for business owners that serve the public—never judge a book by its cover, or a customer on how he or she looks. What was the worst thing that could have happened had the clerk showed Winfrey the purse? No sale. The best thing would have been a large commission for a sale. No individual is guilty of racism because racism is a group identity; bigotry is the choice of the individual. To say the clerk was guilty of racism would indict a so-called race of people of which he or she is only a representative; however, to refer to him or her as a bigot places the responsibility for discrimination squarely on his or her shoulders. That being said does not excuse or forgive what Winfrey experienced.
For certain Switzerland’s tourism officials and the boutique owner offered apologies for Winfrey’s treatment, but Winfrey, on the other hand, might be correct is her assessment of her experience as racist, because the first paragraph of the Associate Press story (8-10-13)provides this food for thought: “Switzerland is a glamorous playground of the rich and famous, filled with glitterati from princes to movie stars. It’s a land with a sometimes uneasy relationship with foreigners—especially when they aren’t white.” For people of color knowing that piece of information before making the trip could be helpful. After all, for one to be fore-warned also means to be fore-armed.

Riley Cooper’s fine for using an ethnic slur avoids the real problem

August 4, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Posted in African American, American Racism, Bigotry in America, blacks, Disrespect, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, Media and Race, minority, Race in America, skin color, Slavery | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Many Americans like to play a game called “Let’s Pretend,” where they know something to be real, but pretend that it does not exist or they have no knowledge of it. Such is the case with comments surrounding Philadelphia Eagles’ wide receiver Riley Cooper. The team fined Cooper for saying that “he would fight every ‘n—–‘ at a Kenny Chesney concert in Philadelphia.” The pretending comes into play when many people react to the news like they did not know that many Americans still use the N word. We know that this ethnic slur is used on a regular basis by many Americans, so what is the problem?
The problem with Cooper using the N word is that he used it in a place he thought was safe to use it, but he got caught. He evidently forgot that being a high-profile person in a large city meant someone had a camera on him at all times. The owner of the Eagles, Jeffrey Lurie, remarked that “We are shocked and appalled by Riley Cooper’s words,” and continued by stating that “This sort of behavior or attitude from anyone has no role in a civil society. He has accepted responsibility for his words and his actions. He has been fined for this incident.” (Upi.com/Sports) For Cooper, the fine is a reminder to make sure the area is safe before any word is used that could result in another fine. As far as behavior and attitude regarding non-European ethnic American players are concerned, Lurie should address his concerns with the entire organization.
With respect to Cooper and his use of the N word, chances are he grew up in an environment where the word was used by people as part of their everyday speech. We Americans like to pretend that all bigotry and prejudice has been eliminated from society because we are now all civil. The reality is that many Americans did not get the memo about ethnic slurs being unacceptable in a civil society or if they did get the memo just ignored it. Many European Americans grew up in communities where the use of the N word was a regular part of everyday conversations. For anyone growing up in such a community considering the N word as something unacceptable was unthinkable. No one comes into this word creating his or her own values and standards, but simply learn and accept without question what is already in place. In many instances, some people do not learn until latter in life that certain words are considered ethnic slurs. My statements are not meant to dismiss the use and power of ethnic slurs regardless of how they were acquired. My concern is that when a problem such as Cooper’s occurs, simply fining him is not the answer to the problem. The problem is not that he used the N word, but why.
Society has done a disservice to many Americans by not clearing the air concerning the myth of race. America is a diverse society, but also one that embraced bigotry and prejudice. When American slavery created the two races—black and white, it also created the element of color to be used to keep these races separate. When one so-called race is made to think it superior to other so-called races, then bigotry and prejudice comes into play. America has yet to debunk the myth so many people still hold on to the belief that multiple races of human beings exist and are inferior to the so-called white race. We are led to believe that all is well in society because all people possess the same rights and privileges. While we know that bigotry and prejudice still exist, we pretend that they all in the past.
The fine accessed against Cooper does nothing to inform him relative to why the fine was given. The message that action sent to the other players was not to get caught using ethnic slurs. That is the wrong message to send because it does nothing to inform Cooper and others why the use of ethnic slurs are not socially acceptable. What Lurie should do is institute a program where his entire organization can learn about American diversity and how we are all human being with the same social value regardless of our skin color. An explanation of why using ethnic slurs would be more beneficial than just a fine. To some people who see nothing wrong with using ethnic slurs as long as one is not detected, they lack the knowledge and understanding of their perception of themselves and others.
America gets its strength through is diversity, so when Americans are educated about diversity it should not focus on the things that make ethnic groups different from one another, but what makes them alike. The differences among ethnic groups are derived through human efforts—economical, educational, geographical, and cultural; these differences have nothing to do with biology. So, the idea of ethnic superiority has nothing to do with color. If programs spend time teaching the differences among ethnic groups, then these programs are counter-productive. The concern in teaching about diversity is to show just how much alike human being really are, not what makes them different.
Cooper understands that what he did was not socially acceptable, he said “I shouldn’t have. I ‘m disgusted. And I’m sorry. That’s not the type of person I am. I wasn’t raised that way.” We, unfortunately, do not know what he meant by “that way.” He continued by stating that “I have a great mom and dad at home. And they’re extremely, extremely disappointed in me. They are disgusted with my actions.” What we see in Cooper’s comments is a lack of understanding of why he made the comment; he knows that he should not have made it, we just see how embarrassed he was about the negative press he received and how it affected his parents. In order to try and prevent a repeat performance, Cooper should be made aware of why he made the comment in the first place. He needs to know that he is not alone in this situation, that many of his colleagues are as ignorant as is he regarding the myth of race, diversity, and ethnicity; they just do a better job hiding their ignorance.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.