Paul R. Lehman, Report’s data on states racial integration progress is suspect

February 1, 2019 at 5:25 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American Dream, American history, American Indian, black inferiority, blacks, democracy, desegregation, discrimination, DNA, employment, entitlements, Equal Opportunity, equality, ethnic stereotypes, Ethnicity in America, European American, European Americans, fairness, Hispanic whites, Human Genome, integregation, justice, language, law, minorities, Non-Hispanic white, Prejudice, public education, race, Race in America, racism, segregation, skin color, social conditioning, social justice system, socioeconomics, The Oklahoman, tribalism, U. S. Census, White of a Different Color, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


The intent is not to rain on the parade, but too much confusion exists in the article “Report shows state has made progress on race,” to let pass ( The Oklahoman 01/2018). The reference to race in the article’s title is confusing as to its meaning. Once we got beyond the title, the confusion continued. Relying on “A new report from finance site Wallet-Hub” the report ”ranked states based on’ the current level of integration of whites and blacks by subtracting the values attributed to whites and blacks for a given metric.’” The ranking of each state’s progress relative to integration was based on four areas: Employment & Wealth, Education, Social & Civic Engagement, and Health. Oklahoma, according to the report, ranked 13th in racial integration out of the fifty states according to the four areas examined.

Without going into the meat of the report, we determined the data to be questionable in that no definition of terms used was given. Therefore, the reliability of the data is suspect from the beginning. For example, the term race is used in the article’s title, but no following information is offered to explain what is meant by race. If the reader has to rely on assumptions regarding the meaning or intended meaning of race, then what good is the data? Another problem is produced if the reader assumed the reference to race was intended to refer to the human race. The problems continued once we look at the objective of the Wallet-Hub report.

We read that the Wallet-Hub report focused on the “level of integration of whites and blacks”….Again, we are not informed as to the meaning of the terms white and black, but each term was treated as a monolith. We know historically that America at is formation socially constructed two races, one white and the other black, with the white being thought and treated as being superior to the black. But, this report was viewed as being current, and our knowledge of the false concept of two or more races is no longer acceptable. Without a clear definition of the term white any data offered would again be suspect.

The report also used the term black, but provided no definition or clarification as to its meaning or usage. One of the problems that the absence of a clear meaning or definition produced was the question of what black people provided the data for the report in that no specific culture, ethnicity, religion, language or geographic location was presented? So, who are the blacks? The same question exists for those people labeled as white.

When we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau for information the confusion increased because the bureau confused ethnicity, race, and origin. The bureau still operates under the assumption that multiple biological races exists. The bureau list the race categories as” White,” “Black or African American,” “American Indian or Alaska Native,” “Asian,” Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” and finally, “Some Other Race.” So, all the scientific date relative to the human race and DNA is seemingly of no concern to the bureau.

We do not know how or why the Wallet-Hub report decided to use the two terms, black and white, but from the 2010 Census information relative to race the question of what is race still remained. The Census Bureau stated in its 2010 data what it meant by race. Noting that their data is based on self-identification, the language reads as follows: “The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country, and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically or genetically.” More specifically, it continued: “People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian and “White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.”

If this information is not confusing enough read what the Bureau provided for blacks: “Black or African American” refers to a person having origin in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or “Negro” or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” The information (biased and irrational) did not mention what selections were available to black individuals of mixed ethnicities—Puerto Ricans, Cubans etc…

Maybe the point of the report’s validity can be seen more objectively after reading the information from the Census Bureau. If race cannot be defined, and a person can select any race, how can the report provide accurate data about blacks and whites? Unnecessary confusion exists relative to terms like, race, ethnicity, origin, and nationality. One rule of thought exists regarding these terms, only one, the term race, has to do with biology, and that is only with respect to the human race. The other terms are all products of various cultures.

One other term used in the Wallet-Hub report was integration, but it, like race, black, and white was not defined or explained. The word integration became popular during and after the 1954, Brown v Topeka Board of Education case. Many people confuse the words desegregation with integration, but they are clearly not the same or interchangeable. When public schools were desegregated, that meant African American children had a seat in the room. Integration occurs when African American children sit in same the room as the European American children but also learn about their history as well. We still have some distance to travel before we reach integration and share the benefits of our diverse American cultural experiences.

As mentioned at the start of this piece, the intent was not to spoil the seemingly good news of the report concerning Oklahoma’s “progress on race,” but to bring some clarity and facts into the mix. One wonders why a group of “experts” would not be more attentive to the problems with the terms used in conducting this study. Good news is always welcomed relative to the plethora of societal problems involving America’s ethnic populations. When good news comes, we just want it to be accurate.

Paul R. Lehman, Changing the criminal justice system and mass incarceration starts at the local level

July 10, 2018 at 4:13 am | Posted in African American, criminal justice, justice, justice system, law, lower class, Michelle Alexander, minority, non-violent crimes, Oklahoma, poverty, race, Race in America, social conditioning, social justice system, The Oklahoman | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Often times, when something happens involving the criminal justice system that has a negative effect on a segment of society, that part of society that is not seemingly directly impacted will pay little or no attention to the problem Usually, they remain uninvolved and uninformed relative to the criminal justice until it affects them directly. What they do not realize is that they have always been directly affected by the system whether they know it or not. One way they, the public, is affected is through the high rate of incarceration and prison overcrowding that the citizens are financially responsible for paying. However, since they do not receive the bill directly, they give little attention to it. The groups that are forced to pay the bills are the poor and people of color. So, for many years mass incarceration has been about controlling people of color and the poor right in plain sight while nothing was done to correct the injustices that were committed against them.

Studies have been conducted relative to mass incarceration ascertaining that the phenomena are not simply an act of maintaining law and order, but a system of economic profit-making. A number of scholars have referred to the criminal justice system as the prison industrial complex because of the vastness of the system and the many people involved at many different levels. Although this system is a nationwide organization, what keeps it going happens at the local levels of society. So, if an effort is made to replace the unjust system, the initial action must take place at the local level. The first order of business is to re-educate the public and present a transparent picture of what happens to a citizen that is incarcerated at the local level and how he or she becomes part of the bodies working for the system.

Many citizens are led to believe that because a person is arrested, charged, and sent to prison that they deserve to be there because they broke the law. Generally speaking, that would be an accurate assessment. However, what created the present situation of mass incarceration had nothing to do with citizens breaking the law, but with the laws being changed to expand the number of people being incarcerated. When President Reagan instituted his war on drugs and crime, he caused a modification of the charges and length of sentencing. The system has since added the fees, fines, and numerous charges to the sentence of the incarcerated person, making freedom almost impossibility if one happens to be poor or a person of color. So, the more people introduced into the system, the more efficiently it runs. For an in-depth look at the subject of mass incarceration please read Michelle Alexander’s book THE NEW JIM CROW.

The state of Oklahoma is one of the national leaders regarding mass incarceration in general, but number one as far as incarcerating women is concerned. This problem was brought to the attention of the Oklahoma citizens in the form of two state questions that addressed the rate of incarceration of people with drug problems and non-violent crimes. The state actually passed the two questions 780 and 781 that sought to reclassify drug possession and some other lower-level crimes as misdemeanors. The objective of the questions was to use the money saved from not incarcerating people of these types of crimes and use that money for alternative programs. These types of programs are necessary for addressing the problems and redirecting the money.

Kris Steele, a former Speaker of the House, is the chairman of Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and leader in attempting to stop the mass march to prison of many citizens. Based on his studies and experiences relative to criminology he understands that prison is not the answer to problems involving drug use and low-level offenses. He expressed some of his concerns in an article, “Justice reform must have buy-in,” (7/9/2018) that underscored the injustice of the sentencing today. He also noted the importance of the people involved in the working of the criminal justice system understanding the problems and helping to overcome many of these problems, not trying to maintain the status quo. Steele noted the need for elected officials and others to accept the programs. He stated that “Unfortunately, some elected officials still haven’t accepted this approach. In the six months after the state questions were enacted, 882 people were sent to prison with drug possession as their most serious offense—directly rebutting the will of voters.”

One of the problems in this matter is the lack of concern of many of the citizens; they either do not care or do not know the seriousness of mass incarceration. Steele noted that citizens pay the price and it is significant: “If each of these 882 people sentenced to prison for drug possession spent one year in prison, it would cost the taxpayer $15 million, and if they were imprisoned for the statewide average for drug possession—25 months—it would cost $32 million.

We know that mass incarceration is a feature of the criminal justice that keeps the system going; we also know that the system is unjust and unfair to people of color and the poor. We realize that we can start to resolve the problem if we work together. Steele noted that “Once this cultural change is embraced by those responsible for implementing reform, Oklahoma can safely reduce its incarceration rate, boost public safety and strengthen families.”  Oklahomans must keep the pressure for corrective action open and out front for change to occur.

Along with addressing the problem of mass incarceration is the need for prison reform from a national perspective. Michael Gerson in an article “An idea that should succeed in Washington,” (7/9/2018) citing the need for prison and sentencing reform referenced two scholars, Steven Teles and David Dagan who identified reform as “an example of ‘trans-partisanship,” and “a agreement on policy goals driven by divergent, deeply held ideological beliefs.” Everything depends on how people view crimes and criminals. They stated that “Liberals look at mass incarceration as see structural racism. Libertarians see the denial of civil liberties, Fiscal conservatives see wasted resources. Religious activists see inhumane conditions and damaged lives.”

Gerson summed up the solution for mass incarceration, prison, and sentencing reform by making one simple statement—“ All these convictions converge at one point: We should treat offenders as humans, with different stories and different needs, instead of casting them all into the same pit of despair.” Easy to say, harder to accomplish.

Paul R. Lehman, The criminal justice system must be replaced for justice to become a reality for all

September 25, 2016 at 1:34 pm | Posted in African American, American Bigotry, American history, Bigotry in America, black inferiority, blacks, Constitutional rights, criminal activity, democracy, Department of Justice, Disrespect, education, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, fairness, justice, justice system, Killings in Tulsa, law enforcement agencies, Media and Race, Norm Stamper, Oklahoma, police force, Prejudice, protest, Race in America, skin color, skin complexion, social justice system, white supremacy, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

By now most of America should realize that the continued shooting of African Americans and people of color by police officers is not just a random act of an inexperienced, untrained, misguided rookie cop. The plethora of excuses for the killings does little to avoid the conclusion that the problem is systemic—part of the culture of law enforcement nationwide. The idea of a few rogue cops committing these killings does not stand the test of validity for dismissing their actions as random while protecting the force. The fact of the matter that law enforcement culture views African Americans and people of color as the enemy or less valuable than European Americans is more than evident by the mere number of incidents that have occurred recently as well as historically.

Holding town hall meetings, public panel discussions, firing a few officers, hiring a few officers of color, making speeches and the like will do nothing in addressing the problem. The problem is the culture that views the African Americans and people of color as having less human and social value as the European American citizen. According to some former police officers, European Americans are conditioned to view African Americans with fear and trepidation. Norm Stamper has said that as an officer he experienced the fear that European American officers had for African American men. This cultural view is held by European Americans as part of their view of reality and normalcy in America, i.e. European Americans have been conditioned to not see their bigotry as a problem, but as the normal way to see society. Until they are able to see and understand that their view of reality is bigoted, the problem will persist.

The recent deaths of Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, N.C. should serve as proof sufficient to underscore the charges African Americans and other people of color have made against the various police forces for many years. European Americans have been conditioned to view police and other law enforcers as public servants whose characters project honesty, truth, justice, loyalty, dedication and integrity, and certainly, many officers do project those qualities. What the African American community has been saying for years is that they are not viewed or treated by law enforcement the same as European Americans and therefore their relationships are not the same. Now that America and the world can witness via video just what happens in many of these cases, the call to replace the system and culture of criminal justice in America should be readily acceptable to all.

What we witness in Crutcher and Scott cases goes totally against the picture of law enforcement presented to the general public. The fact that the police not only lie about their actions but also create false reasons for their actions; these faults constitute deceit. The tacit of trying to find something considered socially unacceptable in the African American victim’s background to make him or her appear in a negative light is below contempt. The result is that the element of trust in law enforcement is no longer possible. We are not indicting all individuals who have taken the oath to serve and defend, but when time and again the result of any actions involving the killing of an African American with little or no repercussions for the officers, we have to ask, where is the justice?

The protests that we witness around the country are not against police officers, but the system and culture in which they work that discriminates against African Americans. These protests must continue and include more citizens of all ethnic identities, especially, European Americans. The media present most protest involving African Americans as an African American protest when in fact it is a protest by American citizens because the problems being underscored by the protestors are American made. All Americans should be affected by the videos of unarmed citizens being shot by police officers and the subsequent lack of appropriate justice for their acts.

The American criminal justice system must be replaced, not adjusted, expanded or tweaked because the core of the system would not be affected. The core in place presently views African Americans in a negative and uncomplimentary perspective, and because of that view, they are treated with a lack of respect. That view must be replaced with one that views all people as valuable human beings worthy of respect and deserving the protection and service given by law enforcement. To fully address the problem of injustice, European Americans must be educated to observe, speak, and behave in a way that includes them and all human beings in the family of mankind. In order to begin the process of replacement, all citizens must be educated to the fact that the concept and belief in a system of biological races is a myth, false, made-up. No one’s skin complexion gives him or her preferences of any nature over another human being, except by man-made laws. The protests today are focused on getting rid of those unjust laws.

The social conditioning received by European Americans relative to skin complexion has been so overwhelming that separating the fact from fiction is a monumental challenge. However, society is rapidly changing its demographic profile to the point that the social value of white versus black skins will have little to no value. Some Americans turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the protests now happening in society thinking that since only African Americans are involved that they are not affected by whatever the problems might be. They will learn that they are directly implicated in the problems and must become a part of the change or remain a part of the problem.

If Americans who view the videos showing the treatment of African American citizens by law enforcement  want to become involved in making positive change, they should not only voice their concerns to local authorizes but also seek out organizations and/or civic group where they can become active participants. If no such groups are readily available, they can start one to focus on the problems that need changing. Words without actions is just hot air

Paul R. Lehman, People of color want just and fair treatment from the law

July 20, 2014 at 10:45 pm | Posted in African American, blacks, equality, European American, fairness, justice, Oklahoma, Prejudice, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eric Garner of Staten Island, New York, an African American man, was put in a chokehold, a procedure against NYPD policy, for allegedly selling single cigarettes. He was physically subdued and taken into police custody (July 2014).
Luis Rodriguez of Moore, Oklahoma, a Hispanic American, was physically detained for questioning by the police outside a local theatre relative to a domestic matter involving only his wife and daughter. He was physically subdued and taken into police custody (Feb.2014).
Often times when African Americans or Hispanic Americans complain about the unjust treatment of the police in relations to them, some Americans think that those claims are far-fetched. Usually, those not thinking the claims are unjust and false are European Americans whose relationship with the police is different—non violent and generally positive. The recent incident of New York Police’s actions involving an unharmed, African American man, Eric Garner, created a variety of questions about the police, their training relative to people of color, and society.
Because of past experiences involving the police (not just in New York) and people of color, we know the importance of eye-witness and video accounts of these incidents. One fact is certain involving the police actions is that without creditable eye-witness and video accounts of an incident, the police’s word is accepted above and beyond what any citizen has to say. Even with eye-witness and video accounts, most cases where police extreme force is alleged and death or injury to a citizen occurs, the police actions is usually found to be justified. Evidently, the only actions evaluated during these types of incidents are those of the policemen; the citizens are usually presumed to be at fault. Why is it the case that police use more force in encountering people of color?
The recent case of extreme force in New York involving an African American man shares a number of similar things with a recent case in the Oklahoma City area involving Luis Rodriguez, a Hispanic man. In both cases, numerous policemen were involved in the physical altercation. The first thing these two cases have in common involves the apparent haste by the police to physically subdue them. What seems out of reasonable thought is the lack of patience by the police to converse with the citizen when little or not threat of harm is imminent. Common decency would suggest that the police would want to get information relative the situation before initiating any physical action. That was not the case in the two incidents in question. Rather than trying to become informed about the situation, the police, as the videos show, simply order the men to submit to being arrested and placed in handcuffs without any stated cause for their actions.
In both cases, when the men try to speak to the police in an effort to understand the police orders to be handcuffed, the police apparently interpreted their actions as refusing to obey a command and begin immediately to physically subdue them. Why? Are the police taught during their training that physical restraints are necessary for all subjects regardless of what their offense might be? Why do the police not take more time to discern the situation before resorting to physical action against a subject? Is there a time limit involved in making an arrest? The actions of the police appear to be a rush-to-judgment rather than the use of rational judgment as in these two cases.
In addition, the lack of patience and communications demonstrated by the police in these two cases, the use of physical force as seen on the videos is appalling. We must keep in mind that the two victims did not have weapons nor were they attacking the police—they were trying to get information as to why they were being arrested. However, as soon as the order was given by the police, if the victim did not act immediately in compliance with that order, he was physically restrained. What seemed appalling during the physical restraint by the police was the lack of resistance from the victim. One notices that not two or three policemen are involved in the restraining but usually four or more. The actions of the police involved in the restraining resembled something like a scene from a National Geographic video where some lionesses have just made a kill, and the rest of the pride comes in to take part in the feast.
What was generally missing from the total incident was the rationale for treating the victim like a wild animal, rather than a human being. Once the victims are on the ground and under control why press their heads into the concrete; they have been subdued, and not fighting, why keep applying unnecessary pressure and pain? What seemed out of place to most objective viewers of these incidents were the inhuman and unjust actions of the police. Where does the mantra of to “Serve and Protect” enter the minds of the police? All the police seem to be in agreement when subduing a subject and applying unnecessary force, because not a single one finds the action not in keeping with proper conduct or try to prevent or discourage the others from their action. The actions of these officers are more a disservice to the police force than a service in that the impression one takes away from viewing these videos is one of callous disregards for the feelings of a human being.
In each incident, the victims told the police that they could not breathe. In each case, the words, and pleas of the victims were disregarded. Once they stopped breathing, no immediate medical assistance was offered. Both victims died. The irony of their deaths is that neither of these men had committed a crime that warranted arrest; at worse, had they been treated with respect and dignity as a human being, they probably would have been given a citation. In effect, the only crime, if we can call it a crime, these men are guilty of is not responding immediately to the policeman’s order to submit to being arrested.
The cases of Garner and Rodriguez, two men of color follow a long list of other victims of unjust and unfair treatment by some members of police forces across the country. Why is it that a herd mentality seems to take over when some police confront people of color? We suggest that in addition to honoring the mantra “To Serve and Protect” that police receive training in recognizing the challenges involved with treating human beings with respect and dignity regardless of how they look. The officers should be trained to think of themselves as being in the subject’s place. The phrases “We are Family,” and “Patience is a virtue, “if considered by police, would go a long way in helping police do a better job in closing the gap in their relationship with people of color.

Paul R. Lehman,Opinion misguided on Affirmative Action and State Question 759

October 28, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Posted in Affirmative Action, African American, Bigotry in America, blacks, college admission, desegregation, equality, Ethnicity in America, European American, integregation, justice, Oklahoma, Oklahoma education, public education, segregation, state Government, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The “Opinion” writer for The Oklahoman has again brought up the topic of State Question 759 which to ban Affirmative Action in state government. This time, however, his comments are misguided and illogical. The title of the article is “Merit must trump race in state government,” shows just how confusing his thoughts are on Affirmative Action. Until Affirmative Action was put in place, race was always used to keep African Americans and women out of state government. Before Affirmative Action, merit was not even a consideration for office in state government. However, since opponents of the state question have voiced their opposition to it, those for its banning are offering their views.

One of the primary problems involved with banning Affirmative Action is the lack of understanding about what it concerns. Many of the opponents of Affirmative Action focus simply of college and/or university admission programs that supposedly favor African Americans applicants over European American applicants. Therefore, since these programs single out race as the criteria for acceptance, the programs must be discarded. What is missing from this action is the reason for Affirmative Action in the first place. Nowhere in this legislation are mentioned the words African Americans, blacks, Negroes, Colored or any other noun describing or identifying an ethnic group. But, because of the efforts of African Americans and other Americans citizens, the measure sought to make unconstitutional discrimination of people for reasons of race, color, sex, creed, or national origin.

If we were to stop and look at the record of American society in the areas of school admissions for women and other ethnic Americans prior to Affirmative Action, we would see a marked change for the betterment of those applicants. Also, if we checked the record for women and ethnic Americans in fields and professions like, firefighters, law enforcement, postal workers, medicine, law, and construction, we would hopefully understand just what Affirmative Action has done and continues to do for society.

However, since the “Opinion” writer focused on African Americans specifically, let us look at what President Lyndon B. Johnson said about this measure he signed: “Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our won destiny than the revolution of the Negro American…[we were called Negroes then]. In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation: deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope…But freedom is not enough.” He explains what he means by that last statement: “You do not wipe away the cards of centuries by saying; Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please. You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair….”

The article states that “Affirmative action’s harsh reality is to harm those it is supposed to benefit. In their book, ‘Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students Its Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit it,’ authors Stuart Taylor and Richard Sander outline affirmative actions destructive consequences.” Indeed, the authors document cases where institutions admitted students who were not academically prepared for the rigors they faced. Although the focus was on African Americans, this situation applies to students of all ethnic groups. The problems in Affirmative Action are the results of institutions attempting to put it in force. Contrary to the “Opinion” writer’s support of banning the program, the authors made recommendations to make the program more effective.

Unlike President Johnson’s comment about unfairly expecting people having been deprived of freedoms to go right into competition with others who have had more experiences and opportunities, some Americans expect African American students to do just that—compete in an unfair arena. They think to do otherwise is to discriminate against the European Americans. To be sure, the problems created by institutions attempting to impliment Affirmative Action are real and serious, but not unsolvable. What seems strange regarding Affirmative Action is the fact that it was created to address the years of discrimination and unfair, unjust, and unequal treatment of African Americans in general, but women and other ethnic Americans as well, but when the program is implemented, arguments by European Americans charging discrimination are brought to the fore. Evidently, some people believe the problems of the past can be addressed by not disrupting a thing in the present. Go figure.

Regardless of the many problems associated with institutions implementing Affirmative Action programs, the fact that doors of opportunity have been opened to African Americans, women, and other ethnic Americans is a positive change for society. The idea that merit alone should be the key to admission leaves much to be addressed. Since we know that many African Americans represent the lowest level on the economic and unemployment ladder, we also know that the level of education received by African Americans living at that level will also be influenced. So, why would the expectations for students coming from underserved institutions be placed at the same level with those coming from middle-class and affluent communities? Who decides what merit is? How is merit acquired? Where is merit acquired? Who decides who get merit? What good is merit if having it does not address the primary problem of diversity? As the title of the “Opinion” suggests, “that merit must trump race,” what’s to prevent the status quo from remaining the status quo if only the same people qualify for merit?

Yes, we agree that implementing Affirmative Action has and will continue to create challenges for society, but we also know that going forward allowing more Americans to participate in and contribute to society is better than going backwards. Banning Affirmative Action as State Question 759 wants to do is a step backwards. We need to stop looking at this program thinking it applies to educational institutions, but consider its over-all contribution to society.

Paul R. Lehman,A few reasons why some African Americans join the Republican Party

October 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, blacks, Democrats, Ethnicity in America, European American, justice, minority, Oklahoma, Prejudice, presidential election, Respect for President, whites | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Some confusion exists in the minds of some people who try to explain the reasons why some African Americans are Republicans. One Opinion writer for The Oklahoman believes they are attacked because they do not reflect “racial unity.” In the article, “Color Bind: Racial unity pledge coming up short,” he states that President Obama “implied that his election would usher in a post-racial era. This hasn’t been the case.” Whether President Obama implied it or not, he has no control of the mind-set of the entire country.  The article noted “Consider how black citizens who support Republican Mitt Romney are treated. After actress Stacey Dash tweeted her endorsement of Romney, she was inundated with racist attacks.” The article further noted that “In a CNN interview Dash said she chose Romney ‘not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.’” According to the article, Dash is joined in her support of Romney by other African Americans, former U. S. Rep. Artur Davis, Ward Connerly, J.C. Watts, and T.W. Shannon. The point missed by the “Opinion writer” is that the color of the candidate has nothing to do with the complaints made against these people –it is their choice of party—republican.

For an African American to join and support the Republican Party today, he or she must have little or limited knowledge of the party’s history since the early 1950’s. Knowledge of the Republican Party beginning with the 1950’s will reveal a story that shows just how unaccommodating the party has been to African Americans. Once known as the party of Lincoln, the Republicans changed their views towards African Americans during and following Reconstruction. The belief among European Americans in general, but especially in the South, was that the government would never make any ethnic group equal to them. When the public schools were desegregated many Southern democrats started to change their political party to republican. Many European Americans in the Republican Party believed that the African American was to be always a second-class citizen. So, armed with that information, one wonders why an African American knowing the history of the party would join it.

For an African American to join and support the Republican Party, he or she must not have any knowledge of the civil rights struggle waged by the African Americans to gain basic rights. They need to know that the Republican did not support any form of civil rights legislation that included the court decisions from Brown v Topeka to the fair housing act or even the Lily Ledbetter Act. At every juncture where African Americans have tried to gain first-class citizenship, the Republican Party has been against it. So, again, one wonders why an African American would want to support a party with such a record. This party has never been afraid to show its biases. All one has to do is look at the many instances where some of its representatives have tried to denigrate President Obama, not because of his party affiliations, but because of his ethnicity.

What should be apparent to many Americans today is the battle being waged in society and politics has to do with human rights, everything from Affirmative Action to voting rights, and workers’ rights. When we check to see who is behind the efforts to deny American rights, we learn that much of it come from representatives of the Republican Party. They believe that when ethnic Americans gain rights, they lose something, so they fight anyway the can for the status quo.

Again, why would an African American want to be associated with a party that wants to deny him or her basic rights? The article made the following suggestion: “The caucus [African American] tacitly acknowledges that black officials enjoy greater opportunity in the Republican Party. This has been the case in Oklahoma, where J. C. Watts won a statewide office (corporation commissioner) and a U.S. House seat.” The article also noted that “State Rep. T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton, is expected to become the first black speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives next month. Both have won the support of voters who don’t share Shannon racial background but do share his conservative values.”

Yes, and that, of course, is part of the reason for African Americans being in the Republican Party—the recognition and opportunity to progress as individuals. Notice that the emphasis on African American republicans is on the individual, not the people. In effect, some African Americans join the Republican Party knowing they will be exploited, but also knowing they too can exploit the party. Many of the visual African American republicans can be conceived of as “watch pocket” republicans because they only come out when the need is there. For a while, J.C. Watts was the hottest ticket in Washington, D.C.; the fourth highest ranking republican. But what degree of power and/or influence did he have? When the word came out that Tom Delay, the third highest ranking republican in the House was thinking about a move up, Watts thought he would simply move up also. Unfortunately, and presumably when Delay heard of Watts’s possible plan, he changed his mind about moving up, and remained in his position. . Being very visual but having no power evidently did not sit well with Watts; he did not run for re-election.

Republicans enjoy having “watch pocket” African Americans in the party because any time there is a charge of bigotry or ethnic bias, they can go to their pocket and pull one out to show that any accusations of bigotry or biases is completely false. They can pull one out to show and tell “they have one!” Many Americans, African Americans included pause to take note of African Americans who join and support the Republican Party because they know that anyone with common knowledge about the history of today’s Republican Party, and its relationship to the civil rights movement would reflect better judgment in their choice. That is, unless there is a payoff for them.

The “Opinion writer” thinks that African American republicans are being criticized for not supporting Obama and “Racial unity,” because of their obvious ethnicity. However, the real reason is because their sense of logic and rational thinking is being questioned. Why would a drowning man ask for a glass of water? To many people, that is exactly what African American republicans resemble.

Paul R. Lehman, The use of race-based phrases like “race card,” “race baiting,” “race hustling,” “race profiling,” is absurd

April 22, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, American Racism, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, justice, Prejudice, whites | 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As early as 1942 scientists from around the world agreed that the social use of the word race created too much confusion to continue it use. One scientist, an American named Ashley Montague, recommended that the words ethnic group or ethnicity be used instead of race for social purposes; the group agreed.  Obviously, many people simply ignored the recommendation and continued to use the word race to today in reference to social concerns. And, just as was the case in the 1940s, the use of race relative to social concerns along with its absurdity shows, ignorance, stupidity, and bias.

Let us take, for example, the phrase “race baiting.” Since the word race has not been defined outside of science, how does one interpret the phrase? The word baiting is simple enough to suggest a lure or something used to entrap, tempt, attract and other such words. The point of the baiting is to place someone in a position that must be defended from some claims that tend to cast aspersions on him or her. So, when the phrase “race baiting” is used, it is generally by someone directed at someone for the purpose of challenging that person’s character or reputation. The suggestion accompanying the use of that phrase is that something is wrong, unfair, unjust or illegal about race. In other words, when someone is accused of “race baiting” the suggestion is that the use of race will give that person an unfair advantage over some other person or idea. What is missing from the use of the term is the symbolic history associated with the word race. So, depending on who is using the phrase and the context in which it is being used, no one knows who benefits from it. So using the phrase shows ignorance.

Another phrase that creates confusion is “race hustling.” Again, the word race does not carry a standard definition, so one must assume that the idea in the user’s mind has to do with human beings. The word hustling, however, introduces an element of something illegal, criminal, or shady. One former U.S. Representative, an African American from Oklahoma, J. C. Watts, once referred to some noted civil rights activists as “race-hustling poverty pimps.” The suggestion was that people involved in “race hustling” were using the history and current record of social injustice against some ethnic Americans as a con game in order to reap some unmerited reward. The irony and stupidity in the use of this phrase is that the accuser is more at fault than the accused because the accuser creates shady expectation for something that might be legitimate and honorable. Since Watts is an African American and his comments were directed at African Americans, the term racist does not fit. The words absurd, biased and stupid do apply here but reflect on the user because that is where the image is created.

One of the more popular phrases is the “race card.” The metaphor of a card game is the key to understanding this phrase. The “race card” is thought to serve as a game changer for either the user or the person accused of using it. For example, if someone is arguing a point based on merit and his opponent accuses him of playing the “race card” in order to win the point, the entire argument is thrown into a quandary. As in the case of the other phrases, the benefit can go either way.  The purpose for someone using the “race card” is to gain sympathy for his or her side in that the idea of using race gives the other person and unfair advantage. Generally, if the “race card” is used, history and facts can be used to substantiate claims of injustice and bigotry. So, the phrase is generally used by people who want to use race as an emotional weapon to combat history and facts.

The word race when used as a social term does two things simultaneously, it unites and divides. The idea of multiple biological races underscores the use of the term, so those races that are similar unite and those races that are seen as different, divide. Of course, we know that only one race of human beings exists, so the idea is just that, an idea. The fact that we are all members of the human family makes racism impossible, but not bigotry, prejudice, and biases. So, when the phrase “racial profile” is used the concepts of ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry comes with it. The word racial is an adjective taken from the word race. Used in the context of the phrase “racial profile,” it suggests that multiple biological races exist and that each one is different to the degree that one can be distinguished from the other. Not true. Another suggestion from the use of the phrase is that distinct features relative to each race are so unique that a profile can be created identifying each race. How does that work with Asian Americans or Mexicans and America Indians? This concept is simply ridiculous and illogical.

The fact of the matter is that society wants to view race in America as two-fold, black and white. Unfortunately, America is a diverse society with ethnic groups inter-marrying and procreating blurring the so-called “racial” lines. The fact that diversity will increase in the future makes the need to discontinue the use of race as a social term that much more necessary.  We have come to the point where not only is the word race no longer accurate or useful but also the words black and white used as identity. If we listen carefully the next time we hear any of the so-called “racial” phrases used we will also hear someone who is ignorant, stupid, biased or absurd or any combination thereof. Bank on it.

Paul R. Lehman, No lesson in tolerance, a missed opportunity

December 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, fairness, justice, Prejudice, Race in America, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In an article published in The Oklahoma Observer last month (11/25/11) entitled “Lesson In Tolerance, Only In America,” by George Earl Johnson Jr.  he related two experiences that he viewed as unique to an African American living in America. He also called the experiences lessons in tolerance. On closed examination, we discover that he might have misjudged these experiences.

Johnson writes about two experiences where stereotypical concepts of well-dressed African American men were used with him as the victim. One experience he apparently viewed as negative, the other as positive. The first experience occurred when he was standing the in the lobby of a classy hotel in Washington, D.C. and he is mistaken for a bellman by a European American man. The man approached him with “’Hey boy, get my bags.’ In doing so he stuck out toward me a fist full of hotel baggage claim tickets. Going along with the man, I smiled and said in reply, ‘Yes sir.’”This experience Johnson referred to as a lesson in tolerance because he did not take the opportunity to correct the perception of the man regarding him as a bellman.

The second experience encountered by Jackson involved several young European American Interns in an elevator who mistook Johnson and a colleague as congressmen.  This experience was viewed by Johnson as positive, but again, he made no effort to correct the misconception. To allow the Interns to think of him and his associate as congressmen was not a lesson in tolerance; in fact, it was a failed opportunity to correct a false image.

In the first incident where Johnson is approached in the hotel lobby by a European American man and given a claim ticket, Johnson missed an opportunity to correct a stereotypical image of African Americans men. The European American man apparently thought the only reason for a well-dressed African American man to be standing in the lobby of a Four-star hotel was to be employed as a bellman. Therefore, he does not hesitate to go to him and give him the claim ticket and refer to Johnson as a boy: “Hey boy, get my bags.” Johnson could have taken the opportunity to challenge that stereotype and refused to accept the claim ticket while informing the European American that he too was a customer and to look elsewhere for a bellman. Johnson’s by accepting the claim ticket, in effect, supported, encouraged, and promoted the negative stereotypical concept held by the European American that all well-dressed African American men standing in a hotel lobby are bell hops, not customers. This experience was not a lesson in tolerance.

In the second incident, Johnson allows some young European Americans Interns working in the capitol to think of him and his colleague as congressmen. Since Johnson took an elevator generally reserved for congressmen where he met these young interns, the general impression taken for him and his friend was that they are congressmen. Johnson does nothing to dispel this incorrect image. He instead, led these young people to think that if African American men are well-dressed and riding an elevator reserved for congressmen, then they must be congressmen and not ordinary people.

Again, Johnson missed an opportunity to challenge a stereotype by not telling the young European Americans the truth or at least that he was not a congressman. Instead, he contributed to the false concept of well-dressed African American men being congressmen held by the Interns.  This experience was not a lesson in tolerance. Johnson seems to think that if the African American was not seen in a negative light that all was well. Unfortunately, whether the concept was positive or negative, if it was incorrect and supports a stereotype, it should be challenged.

For Johnson to call his experiences lessons in tolerance is a mistake, because these experiences did not contain any sense of tolerance. What was tolerated? The stereotypical concepts of African Americans held by the European American were not challenged or changed and consequently, will occur over and over again, thanks to Johnson’s lack of constructive action. What Johnson seemingly calls tolerance can easily be seen as passive acceptance. Had Johnson in the first incident refused the claims from the man who took him to be a bell hop, he would have challenged that man’s stereotypical concept of well-dressed African American men standing in the lobby of a four-star hotel being bell hops. That action could be seen as a lesson in tolerance—allowing the European American to break through his pre-conceived concept to a new and informed one of the African American male.

What was troubling about Johnson’s experiences and his reactions to them was the fact that he never realized that he contributed to the stereotypes held by the various European Americans he encountered during these incidents. He believed that his lack of action should be interpreted as lessons in tolerance when they should be seen for what they were—failed opportunities to correct misconception about well-dressed African American men. A long as African Americans take the path of Johnson by ignoring the opportunity to address a false conception by European Americans, these false conceptions will continued unchecked. Letting the opportunities go unchallenged is not tolerance, it is a form of indifference.

While Johnson’s experiences might appear to be inconsequential on the surface, they in effect, represent a troubling situation in America. For Johnson’s experiences to be considered as lessons in tolerance the European Americans should have walked away from the experience with a different, more  accurate and acceptable view of African Americans outside of the stereotype. Tolerance suggests open-mindedness, something Johnson did not display. He actually supported the status quo by choosing non-action over corrective action. By Johnson not taking the opportunity to correct a misconceptions, nobody benefits from the experiences—not Johnson, not the European Americans. Whether in America or on Mars, not correcting a false impression or false concept of one’s self image is a missed opportunity—not a lesson in tolerance.

Paul R. Lehman, Proposed ban on affirmative action alive in Oklahoma

November 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, Bigotry in America, blacks, equality, Ethnicity in America, fairness, justice, Media and Race, minority, Prejudice, whites | 2 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Some Oklahomans might be surprised to learn that the battle
to ban affirmative action in Oklahoma is alive and well. As a matter of fact,
the effort to ban it comes in the form of State Question 759, and is expected
to be on the 2012 ballot. The reasons for introducing SQ 759 vary with
different individuals and their interpretations of affirmative action.

The Oklahoman (11/6/11)
reported that Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Tulsa, believes the state question is
to be used “as a ‘push-button issue’ so Republicans can get their base to the
polls.” In essence, she sees it as a tactic to increase voter participation for
Republicans who believe that affirmative action works against them in some way.
If the state question strikes an emotional nerve, then people will come out in
large numbers to express their concerns. McIntyre adds that these Republican
voters will get “nothing out of the deal as it relates to health care,
education and job opportunities. There are people that need it. All you have to
do is look at the social indicators. We are dead last. This will in no way
create help for the poor or working people.”

The sponsor of SQ 759 is Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma, who
believes that “the measure will remove any kind of racial or gender component
to preferences given to people whether they are black or American Indian.”
Shortey says that Oklahoma is generally perceived as a state with racial
biases, “and we don’t need that.” He, evidently, thinks that affirmative action
is unfair because  “Contracts and jobs
should be based on qualifications, not race or gender.” Finally, Shortey says
of SQ 759 that “It is a statement to the rest of the world we [Oklahomans] are
becoming more color blind in this state.”

What seems obvious to many Oklahomans is the fact that the
issue of affirmation action can always be reintroduced by some politicians to
try and create an emotional response from other people who have no idea of what
affirmation action is or why it is part of our law in the first place. The only
parts of affirmative action that the opponents seem interested in deal with
what they think is unfair to them, not what is seen as an opportunity for
people who have been deprived of opportunities for hundreds of years. Some
politicians want people to believe that providing opportunities for jobs,
education and health care for minority ethnic Americans and women, who had been
locked out of these systems for several hundred years, is actually depriving the
people who have been enjoying these privileges all along of something.

The people who oppose affirmative action have no sense of
reality, history, or democracy; they have a restricted view of American society
that includes them only receiving liberties, privileges and freedom, and all
this because of their complexion or identity—white and male. Sen. McIntyre is
correct in directing attention to the social indicators for proof that
affirmative action is still an essential element of fairness in our state and
society. The idea that three hundred years of prejudice, segregation and discrimination
that included special treatment for European Americans, can be overcome in less
than fifty years is plainly not dealing with reality. To foster that belief in
view of all the data to the contrary indicates not only a bias, but also an
unwillingness to accept the principles of our democratic society.

The excuse used by Sen. Shortey that getting rid of
affirmative action will make us a “more color blind” state is bogus. What is
presently helping to make us a color blind state? We know for certain that
affirmative action has helped the state provide more opportunities for ethnic
minorities and woman, but what is the state doing independently to promote
color blindness? Shortey is spitting in the wind if he thinks we will accept
his statement without facts to support it. As this writer stated in previous
blogs, being color blind is a medical condition that involves the eyes. For
someone to used color blindness in a social context suggests observing skin
complexions and by extension, ethnicity.
In essence, being color blind in a social context suggests that a person
is not valued based on his or her complexion. That is not and cannot be the
case in Oklahoma or society in general because one has to see color in order to
make the determination of color blindness. One has to see color in order to
make a value assessment.

So, Sen. Shortey’s argument on affirmative action being
banned making the state more color blind is pure hogwash. He is catering to
people who are innocent, ignorant or biased in order to create an emotional
issue, an issue they believe takes something away from them unfairly. What
Shorty does understand is that by banning affirmative action the state would be
free to ignore the opportunities of some of it citizens by simply instituting “qualifications.”

If Sen. Shortey is really serious about making Oklahoma a “more
color blind” state, he can begin by introducing a state question eliminating
color as a form of ethnic identity. If he were to introduce such a state
question, it would insure that the colors black and white could never be use
for special privileges or preferences. By the way, affirmative action never
makes reference to color or ethnicity; its intent is to be inclusive, not

Paul R. Lehman, Disparaging ethnic comment causes concern in Ada,OK

July 17, 2011 at 12:52 pm | Posted in American Bigotry, Ethnicity in America, Race in America | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The lovely little town of Ada, Oklahoma has been enjoying an
atmosphere of ethnic harmony for the past few years. Relations among the
various ethnic populations had progressed to the point that group collaboration
in the interest of beautifying the town resulted in the creation of an Ada
Beautification Committee. All was going well until the chairman of the
committee, Dexter Pruitt, made comments that burst the bubble of cooperation,
good will and unity. What made matters worse was the fact that the group in his
immediate vicinity offered comments of agreement along with laughter that
indicated support for the comments.

The news story on KWTV-9 reported that Pruitt’s comments
included the statement that “…but if we don’t get on top of our town we’ve got
too many n…..s and Mexicans moving in.” The “n” reference was apparently meant
to suggest African Americans; the reference to Mexicans is self-explanitory.
This comment and the subsequent support of the people surrounding Pruitt do
several things simultaneously to help destroy the good-will that had been
created in the committee. The information derived from this experience places a
burden on the town of Ada and its residents.

The language and tone of the comment and the subsequent group
reaction indicated a mindset that dates pre 1954 when segregation,
discrimination, and bigotry were facts of everyday life in many Oklahoma towns,
including Ada. What that mindset indicated was the belief by some European
Americans that America is their country exclusively, and they only permit some
non-European Americans to live near them in towns like Ada. The fact that the
‘N’ word was used showed a lack of education or respect for African Americans and/or
bias and ignorance. Either way, the cover of friendliness, unity and acceptance
regarding ethnic identity was ripped away and in its place a not so beautiful
image appeared,

The idea of ethnic superiority, privilege and power by
European Americans also came to the surface in Pruitt’s comment. The ease and
sense of security that seemed to pervade the atmosphere where the comment was
made suggest a feeling of comfort with ethnic prejudice as long as public
scrutiny is avoided. So, one might ask, is the human relations progress that
all thought they were experiencing simply a delusion? One thing is for certain,
the citizens of Ada are the losers in this incident. The most important thing
Ada has lost relative to this incident is trust. The words and actions of some
people can no longer be received as reliable regarding ethnic relations.

Another result of the Pruitt incident indicated that
ignorance of history and ethnic relations have been ignored in favor of
retaining the privilege of normalcy among the European Americans in the group.
Evidently, no one in the group thought to challenge the use of the ‘n’ words or
the biased reference to Mexicans and “our town.” Should a quota be created to
keep the number of African Americans and Mexicans from “moving in?” The comment
seemingly indicated a level of fear that some thing bad or negative would occur
if something was not done to restrict the growth of the ethnic population.

One of the obvious reactions to Pruitt and party being caught
in the act of this kind of incident is to offer an apology quickly to try and
prevent further fall-out and damage. The apology is usually offered for the
wrong reason. The apology should not be offered for uttering the denigrating
words, or for getting caught uttering those words, but for the biased mind and
thought process that said it was okay to denigrate and disrespect a fellow
citizen purely on the basis of their ethnicity. Although Pruitt uttered the
comment, the reaction of the people surrounding him showed agreement with his
thoughts. They should also offer an apology for being supportive of ignorant
and biased thoughts.

For the town of Ada, some good can come from this incident
if handled correctly. The majority of the citizens of Ada are good,
law-abiding, friendly people who would never endorse the behavior of Pruitt and
party. What is also evident in Ada is a lack of knowledge and understanding by
some citizens regarding human relations. The citizens of Ada must realize that
some of its citizens still hold on to the false belief in a so-called white
race. Although no such thing exists in actuality, through the years that belief
has been cultivated in the minds of many Americans. To lose that sense of
specialness and privilege would be devastating to some people because their
identity is all they belief they have of value and that is why they fight so
vigorously to hold on to it. If real progress in human relations, especially
among non-European Americans, is to be made, then a new understanding and
perspective must be acquired by the citizens of Ada. Arriving at a new
understanding and perspective must come from an informed and receptive
mind—through education.

Most of the information about ethnic Americans both European
Americans and non-European Americans acquired through education tends to keep
progress at a standstill. The status quo still views people of various ethnic
identities as members of different races. The concept of many races was
debunked worldwide as early as the 1940s. Yet, many Americans want to hold on
to that false belief because it forms the basis for discrimination –viewing
one so-called race superior over another. This information is no longer valid
and accurate, so promoting it would be a disservice to not only the citizens,
but also the youth. Excuses for a slip of the tongue relative to bigotry and
prejudice can no longer be tolerated because a slip simple means that only a
small measure of the real bias was exposed; the majority of the bigotry is
still inside. The real challenge then is to root out the bigotry inside.
Education is the tool made specifically for such a job, for while it might not
eliminate the bigotry, it will remove the excuse of ignorance.

Next Page »

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.