The History of Watch Care Church Service
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director and CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 26-January 2, 2010
For all Christians, the Christmas holidays are the most sacred spiritual time of the calendar years.
For African American Christians, the week after December 25 holds immense significance as well.
On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln, following a decisive Union military victory over confederate forces at Antietam, Maryland, penned and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. The Proclamation would free enslaved African Americans in confederate states that seceded from the United States of America such as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.
The Emancipation Proclamation was to be effective January 1, 1863. As such, Christmas of 1862 and the week following was the most important week of enslaved African Americans who had fought, bled, prayed, strategized, and died for their legal emancipation. Yet, their spirits were reminded of freedom through song.
The “Negro Spirituals”, developed as sacred songs of African Americans who were forcibly converted to Christianity by un-Godly Whites who disrespected the religions and cosmology of Africans legally designated as “slaves.” Regardless of earthly bondage and inhuman degradation enslaved African Americans established Spirituals to uplift their souls, in the words of James Weldon Johnson, “…felt in the day when hope, unborn, had died…”
During enslavement many states outlawed gatherings of the enslaved. Nonetheless, African Americans gathered in “camp meetings” after sunset (and 14-hour work days) in secluded and wooded areas to feed their souls through song. For example, singers long for freedom in “There Will be a Great Camp Meeting in the Promised Land”. Likewise, “In dat Great Getting’ Up Morning” the writer prophesizes freedom from bondage and wishes that the freed “fare ye well.” Similarly, the Spiritual “My Soul Be at Res” featured the lyric: “One of deese mornin’s my soul be at res.”
Leading up to January 1, 1863 our enslaved ancestors sang and prayed, and sang and prayed. On December 31, religious leaders asked the faithful to have “camp meetings” or church services to “watch” for freedom in the morning. The idea was to spiritually ensure that President Lincoln’s promise of emancipation would fulfilled.
And thus “Watch Care” service was established.
Emancipation Day featured feasts of the diet of the day in 1863—collard greens, black-eyed peas, pig’s feet, and yams.
Today, many African American communities celebrate Emancipation Day
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Double Standard for Black Politicians
Double Standard for Black Politicians
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 21-28, 2010
The United States of America boasts to the world community that it is a nation of equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of color or conviction. Yet, for African American elected officials such has hardly been the case.
In 1865, following the end of the American Civil War the Freedmen’s Bureau was established by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress the protect the rights of newly freed African Americans. By 1870, Congressional Amendments stretched to U.S. Constitution to guarantee—on paper, that is—the right to be free (13th), citizenship (14th), and to be free from racial discrimination at the polling place (15th) for Black people. Moreover, citizenship afforded African Americans the right to hold elective office. Within our family, my paternal great grandfather, Lawrence Clayton, was elected Constable in Surry County, Virginia in 1882.
In total, 22 African Americans were elected to Congress following 1870. However, the forty years that followed saw the number of Black Congressmen dwindle to zero by 1910. In the words of the late Dr. Ronald Walters, White Nationalism accounted for the lost of Colored Congressmen in the white marble halls of the U.S. Capital.
By White Nationalism, I mean the use of double standards in the targeting of Black elected official for removal of office. Following the 1870 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in voting the demise of Black Congressional Representatives dropped sharply after the presidential election of 1876. Known as the Hayes/Tilden Compromise, the loser, won; and the winner, lost. Under the agreement, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops in the south which were dispatched to protect newly freed African Americans.
From 1870 until 1901, voter disenfranchisement schemes eliminated Black Congressman from office. Schemes such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter roll purging of convicted felons were common. In some cases, an “eight box law” was used to confuse voters by forcing voters to place an individual ballot in separate boxes.
As Black voters were disenfranchised the number of Black Congressmen declined. History repeats itself. While literacy tests and poll taxes are uncommon the purging of felons and relocating polling places are used today.
Currently, Congressman Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters…Sub-Committee Chair on Financial Services Committee are facing rulings from the House Ethics Committee. In the case of Congressman Rangel…
In the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections voters in Congressman Rangel’s district overwhelmingly re-elected the 21-term Congressman, providing a ringing affirmation of Rangel’s approval rating on the ground.
What smells funny in the Rangel case is that no corruption was found and none of the 13 charges were criminal in nature. So far, the ethics committee concluded that Congressman Rangel was essentially sloppy.
Congresswoman Waters is charged with three counts breaking House Rules by setting a meeting with African American banks, one of which her husband was on its Board of Directors. Despite lacking strong evidence of wrong doing, the Ethics Panel investigating the case announced on Friday that Congresswoman Waters’ hearing has been continued until the end of November.
Unlike most Members of Congress facing investigations, earlier in the process, Congresswoman Waters invited the media for a six-hour press conference to answer all questions. The press conference was regarded as a success.
If the Committee fails to conclude either the Rangel or Waters case both cases would be taken up in the 112th Session of Congress under Republican control.
The double standard, which screams today is that Black Members of Congress in overwhelmingly African American districts (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and others) have been investigated with flimsy evidence. On the contrary, White Congressional Representatives facing criminal charges have been treated more fairly.
If America politics is to be great, the double standard for Black Congressional Representatives must end.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 21-28, 2010
The United States of America boasts to the world community that it is a nation of equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of color or conviction. Yet, for African American elected officials such has hardly been the case.
In 1865, following the end of the American Civil War the Freedmen’s Bureau was established by President Abraham Lincoln and Congress the protect the rights of newly freed African Americans. By 1870, Congressional Amendments stretched to U.S. Constitution to guarantee—on paper, that is—the right to be free (13th), citizenship (14th), and to be free from racial discrimination at the polling place (15th) for Black people. Moreover, citizenship afforded African Americans the right to hold elective office. Within our family, my paternal great grandfather, Lawrence Clayton, was elected Constable in Surry County, Virginia in 1882.
In total, 22 African Americans were elected to Congress following 1870. However, the forty years that followed saw the number of Black Congressmen dwindle to zero by 1910. In the words of the late Dr. Ronald Walters, White Nationalism accounted for the lost of Colored Congressmen in the white marble halls of the U.S. Capital.
By White Nationalism, I mean the use of double standards in the targeting of Black elected official for removal of office. Following the 1870 15th Amendment prohibiting racial discrimination in voting the demise of Black Congressional Representatives dropped sharply after the presidential election of 1876. Known as the Hayes/Tilden Compromise, the loser, won; and the winner, lost. Under the agreement, Rutherford Hayes agreed to remove federal troops in the south which were dispatched to protect newly freed African Americans.
From 1870 until 1901, voter disenfranchisement schemes eliminated Black Congressman from office. Schemes such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and voter roll purging of convicted felons were common. In some cases, an “eight box law” was used to confuse voters by forcing voters to place an individual ballot in separate boxes.
As Black voters were disenfranchised the number of Black Congressmen declined. History repeats itself. While literacy tests and poll taxes are uncommon the purging of felons and relocating polling places are used today.
Currently, Congressman Charles Rangel, former Chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, and Congresswoman Maxine Waters…Sub-Committee Chair on Financial Services Committee are facing rulings from the House Ethics Committee. In the case of Congressman Rangel…
In the 2010 Congressional mid-term elections voters in Congressman Rangel’s district overwhelmingly re-elected the 21-term Congressman, providing a ringing affirmation of Rangel’s approval rating on the ground.
What smells funny in the Rangel case is that no corruption was found and none of the 13 charges were criminal in nature. So far, the ethics committee concluded that Congressman Rangel was essentially sloppy.
Congresswoman Waters is charged with three counts breaking House Rules by setting a meeting with African American banks, one of which her husband was on its Board of Directors. Despite lacking strong evidence of wrong doing, the Ethics Panel investigating the case announced on Friday that Congresswoman Waters’ hearing has been continued until the end of November.
Unlike most Members of Congress facing investigations, earlier in the process, Congresswoman Waters invited the media for a six-hour press conference to answer all questions. The press conference was regarded as a success.
If the Committee fails to conclude either the Rangel or Waters case both cases would be taken up in the 112th Session of Congress under Republican control.
The double standard, which screams today is that Black Members of Congress in overwhelmingly African American districts (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and others) have been investigated with flimsy evidence. On the contrary, White Congressional Representatives facing criminal charges have been treated more fairly.
If America politics is to be great, the double standard for Black Congressional Representatives must end.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Preaching the Politics of Privilege
Preaching the Politics of Privilege
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 24-31, 2010
“…the detection of national White-majority interests can be achieved by understanding the sources of White racial alienation that led to the development of an intellectual rationale of polices of ‘failure.’…this rationale was used as a pretext for attacks upon policies oriented toward Black group interests and on the federal government which supported them…the federal government must be weakened…Whites who control that system have always utilized their power to create a subclass of Blacks who are especially attentive to their political needs.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
White Nationalism, Black Interests
Politics is widely defined as who gets what, when, and how much.
The mid-term elections for United States Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governorships scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 2010—whichever American political party prevails—will determine the who gets what, when, and how much.
My interpretation of the connection between politics and religion is simple: Religion determines politics rather than politics determining religion.
Such an interpretation was tested last Sunday for me while visiting my parents and sister in Richmond, Virginia. While sitting with my family I surfed television channels and found the Sunday Broadcast of Grove Avenue Baptist Church. What caught my eye was the introduction of Bishop Earl Jackson as the morning speaker. Bishop Earl Jackson, who is African American trained lawyer who took classes in Divinity School, and founder of Exodus Faith Ministries, presented quite an interesting case for religion as a predicate for politics to which I distinctly disagreed. Having been raised in a Christian household I found his inferences un-Godly.
Bishop Jackson asserted that the “Founding Fathers” (Smith, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.) were “ordained” by God to establish a Democratic Republic in America. If so, their God ordained ethnic annihilation, economic exploitation, rape, and the false notion of White supremacy. Captain John Smith was sent to America by the Virginia Company of London to make a profit on the land, albeit the presence of Native Americans. Nearly all of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention legally enslaved Africans. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the racial inferiority of dark-skinned people. Moreover, the religion of racial superiority led the founders to use violence to achieve their greedy ends. I do not believe anyone’s interpretation of God condones rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of religion.
To further support his point, Bishop Jackson cited the Biblical Book of Ephesians, which calls for believers to put on the “full armor of God.” The last time I checked giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans; voting against extending unemployment benefits; and repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in accordance with Christian belief of “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God”, found in the Book of Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.
Bishop Jackson finally revealed his political hand more directly by encouraging Christians to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for “Godly” candidates and implied that Tea Party candidates were worthy of elective office because of their religious beliefs. Yet, such Tea Party candidates have admitted experimenting with witchcraft, donned German Third Reich uniforms, and supported taking up arms to enforce their political views. Wow, what a God they serve!
I agreed with Bishop Jackson’s point that Americans, by way of the upcoming elections, are fighting a pitch battle for the soul of our nation. One side believes in suppression and one team believes in liberation. On the paradox of the “Founding Father’s” support of slavery, Bishop Jackson said, “If slavery is what it took to get me here, I am glad to be here.” Seriously?
The “Founding Fathers” and their Tea Party descendants have let their belief of politics of privilege, exploitation, and race superiority determine their religion. Both their politics and religion bend toward the false notion of White supremacy, from their portrayal of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus to their “Anglo-first” political views on immigration and other issues.
Tea Party and their White nationalists cohorts often exclaim, “God bless America.” I believe America must bless God by electing righteous candidates who believe in the policy of people over profits; inclusion over exclusion; and helping the “least of these” within our nation. Who gets what, when, and how much should not be predicated on privilege, but on the Godly principles of justice and equity.
Vote conscientiously. God is watching.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 24-31, 2010
“…the detection of national White-majority interests can be achieved by understanding the sources of White racial alienation that led to the development of an intellectual rationale of polices of ‘failure.’…this rationale was used as a pretext for attacks upon policies oriented toward Black group interests and on the federal government which supported them…the federal government must be weakened…Whites who control that system have always utilized their power to create a subclass of Blacks who are especially attentive to their political needs.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
White Nationalism, Black Interests
Politics is widely defined as who gets what, when, and how much.
The mid-term elections for United States Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governorships scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 2010—whichever American political party prevails—will determine the who gets what, when, and how much.
My interpretation of the connection between politics and religion is simple: Religion determines politics rather than politics determining religion.
Such an interpretation was tested last Sunday for me while visiting my parents and sister in Richmond, Virginia. While sitting with my family I surfed television channels and found the Sunday Broadcast of Grove Avenue Baptist Church. What caught my eye was the introduction of Bishop Earl Jackson as the morning speaker. Bishop Earl Jackson, who is African American trained lawyer who took classes in Divinity School, and founder of Exodus Faith Ministries, presented quite an interesting case for religion as a predicate for politics to which I distinctly disagreed. Having been raised in a Christian household I found his inferences un-Godly.
Bishop Jackson asserted that the “Founding Fathers” (Smith, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin et al.) were “ordained” by God to establish a Democratic Republic in America. If so, their God ordained ethnic annihilation, economic exploitation, rape, and the false notion of White supremacy. Captain John Smith was sent to America by the Virginia Company of London to make a profit on the land, albeit the presence of Native Americans. Nearly all of the delegates to the first Constitutional Convention legally enslaved Africans. Thomas Jefferson himself wrote of the racial inferiority of dark-skinned people. Moreover, the religion of racial superiority led the founders to use violence to achieve their greedy ends. I do not believe anyone’s interpretation of God condones rape, pillage, and plunder in the name of religion.
To further support his point, Bishop Jackson cited the Biblical Book of Ephesians, which calls for believers to put on the “full armor of God.” The last time I checked giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans; voting against extending unemployment benefits; and repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not in accordance with Christian belief of “…do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before God”, found in the Book of Micah, Chapter 6, verse 8.
Bishop Jackson finally revealed his political hand more directly by encouraging Christians to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for “Godly” candidates and implied that Tea Party candidates were worthy of elective office because of their religious beliefs. Yet, such Tea Party candidates have admitted experimenting with witchcraft, donned German Third Reich uniforms, and supported taking up arms to enforce their political views. Wow, what a God they serve!
I agreed with Bishop Jackson’s point that Americans, by way of the upcoming elections, are fighting a pitch battle for the soul of our nation. One side believes in suppression and one team believes in liberation. On the paradox of the “Founding Father’s” support of slavery, Bishop Jackson said, “If slavery is what it took to get me here, I am glad to be here.” Seriously?
The “Founding Fathers” and their Tea Party descendants have let their belief of politics of privilege, exploitation, and race superiority determine their religion. Both their politics and religion bend toward the false notion of White supremacy, from their portrayal of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus to their “Anglo-first” political views on immigration and other issues.
Tea Party and their White nationalists cohorts often exclaim, “God bless America.” I believe America must bless God by electing righteous candidates who believe in the policy of people over profits; inclusion over exclusion; and helping the “least of these” within our nation. Who gets what, when, and how much should not be predicated on privilege, but on the Godly principles of justice and equity.
Vote conscientiously. God is watching.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc
Monday, October 18, 2010
Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage
Minimum Wage Must Be Livable Wage
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 17-24, 2010
“How would you like to be making $200,000 a year today after 25 years on the job? Well, if you started with the pay of an average worker 25 years ago that is what you would be making today—if you got the same kind of raises that the CEO’s of American companies got for the post 25 years.”
Jack Rasmus
The American ethos holds that working people should have the same basic options for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those of wealthy people. Regrettably, those who make minimum wage and those who make maximum wage are worlds apart.
In 1965, CEO’s in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. In 1978, the ratio of CEO to worker compensation increased to 35 times more for the CEOs. By 1989, CEOs made 71 times more than their average employee. If you are already upset, it gets worse. In 2000, the ratio in favor of CEOs went to 300 to 1. In 2005, CEOs “only” made 262 times the average worker.
The concept of a minimum wage began in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890’s. By 1912, the State of Massachusetts enacted a minimum wage for women and children. The first federal minimum wage in the United States of America was the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, with a .25 cent per hour wage and a maximum 44-hour worker week for laborers.
Since then, the issue of minimum wage (and now livable wage) has been hotly debated. The idea that anyone would argue against the minimum wage baffles me. Rather, the issue for most American workers is whether the wage they earn can pay the bills. Unfortunately for most, the answer is no.
Consequently, the “living wage movement” was launched in 1994 by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). While the national minimum wage was $4.25 per hour the City of Baltimore increased pay for city workers to $6.10 per hour. Following the example of Baltimore, many cities across the nation saw the development of living wage coalitions. In fact, over 140 American cities have adopted living wage laws.
Simply put, if the prevailing minimum wage does not afford a worker to pay minimum wages than wages should be increased to pay living costs in each city. It does not take an economist to figure out a fix to the issue.
Violations to minimum wage rates are most common in the apparel and textile manufacturing industries. Violation rates were substantially lower in residential construction, social assistance and education, and home health care.
Critics of the living wage say that the idea sounds better than its practical effect by displacing jobs, discouraging hiring, and not positively affecting the quality of life for workers. Really?
Reality retorts that when workers make a living wage the entire economy benefits.
If for no other reason, America should pay workers a livable wage pursuant to our American creed of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
October 17-24, 2010
“How would you like to be making $200,000 a year today after 25 years on the job? Well, if you started with the pay of an average worker 25 years ago that is what you would be making today—if you got the same kind of raises that the CEO’s of American companies got for the post 25 years.”
Jack Rasmus
The American ethos holds that working people should have the same basic options for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as those of wealthy people. Regrettably, those who make minimum wage and those who make maximum wage are worlds apart.
In 1965, CEO’s in major companies earned 24 times more than an average worker. In 1978, the ratio of CEO to worker compensation increased to 35 times more for the CEOs. By 1989, CEOs made 71 times more than their average employee. If you are already upset, it gets worse. In 2000, the ratio in favor of CEOs went to 300 to 1. In 2005, CEOs “only” made 262 times the average worker.
The concept of a minimum wage began in Australia and New Zealand in the 1890’s. By 1912, the State of Massachusetts enacted a minimum wage for women and children. The first federal minimum wage in the United States of America was the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1938, with a .25 cent per hour wage and a maximum 44-hour worker week for laborers.
Since then, the issue of minimum wage (and now livable wage) has been hotly debated. The idea that anyone would argue against the minimum wage baffles me. Rather, the issue for most American workers is whether the wage they earn can pay the bills. Unfortunately for most, the answer is no.
Consequently, the “living wage movement” was launched in 1994 by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). While the national minimum wage was $4.25 per hour the City of Baltimore increased pay for city workers to $6.10 per hour. Following the example of Baltimore, many cities across the nation saw the development of living wage coalitions. In fact, over 140 American cities have adopted living wage laws.
Simply put, if the prevailing minimum wage does not afford a worker to pay minimum wages than wages should be increased to pay living costs in each city. It does not take an economist to figure out a fix to the issue.
Violations to minimum wage rates are most common in the apparel and textile manufacturing industries. Violation rates were substantially lower in residential construction, social assistance and education, and home health care.
Critics of the living wage say that the idea sounds better than its practical effect by displacing jobs, discouraging hiring, and not positively affecting the quality of life for workers. Really?
Reality retorts that when workers make a living wage the entire economy benefits.
If for no other reason, America should pay workers a livable wage pursuant to our American creed of providing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Public Education Should Not Be Privatized
Public Education Should Not Be Privatized
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 26-October 2, 2010
Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and seating of a Constitutional Convention, the issue of public education in our nation has always been a divisive issue. In nearly every colony restrictive codes existed which prohibited public education for all people of color and virtually all poor White people. The rationale in against public education 18th Century America rested on the notion that an un-educated enslaved Black or indentured White made for a better worker who had few options other than hard labor.
As colonies were formally federalized into the United States of America the question of whom among the nation’s citizens should be educated and at what quality of instruction divided public policy makers. Initially, only White males were considered American citizens, and thereby entitled to be educated through colonial educational policy. While a Constitutional Amendment (14th) was enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to newly freed African Americans another Amendment (10th) granted states control over public education. Legislators—federal and state—across the nation were sharply split over public education. One school of thought (slave owners, Confederates) was that public education should be reserved for Whites only. The other school of thought (abolitionists and educational liberators) held than all children—regardless of race, religion or resources—are entitled to public education.
Against such a polarized philosophical background the public school system in the United States was established in 1852. However, unlike other industrialized countries around the world that completely funded public education the American system was established with limited federal funding, resulting in control of educational policy primarily posited in state, county, and municipal government. Yet, confederates and capitalist never die.
Following the American Civil War and the erosion of federal authority in favor of states’ rights public education was declared “separate, but equal” in the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896. State control and racially segregated schools persisted until the landmark High Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Following Brown, many White Americans, rather than allow their children to attend pubic schools with students of color (particularly in former slave states in the south), removed them and formed all-White private academies. However, upon realizing that their public tax dollars were helping to fund racially mixed public schools the “voucher” plan was conceptualized to allow “some” public students to attend special public schools funded by private financiers.
Today, the issue of private funders of public schools can is being debated in cities such as Washington, DC and Newark, NJ. In Washington, DC the outgoing mayor, after dismantling School Board, lost his reelection bid in large part due to his education “reform” plan for public schools that included private funding. In fact, when private corporate funders realized that the outgoing mayor would probably lose his party’s primary CEO’s essentially threatened to pull potential funding if the presumed incoming mayor would not retain the Public School Chancellor who supported private funding for public schools.
Two weeks later, ironically, Mark Zuckerberg, Executive Founder of Facebook appeared on the world-renowned Oprah Show to announce that he would donate $100 million dollars to the public school system of Newark, NJ. His reason: the “leadership” in Newark. Ironically, the mega money will help to restore control of school system to the current mayor of Newark. Hmm? Fancy that: The public votes out a mayor in the nation’s capital largely for supporting private funding for that school system, and in a matter of days, a privateer grants big money to same type of public school system in Newark rejected by the people in Washington, DC.
Ultimately, the public should fund the American public school system to do so; the federal government should increase federal outlay for public schools (currently set at only 9%). Such an increase in funding could go a long way to incentivising potential teachers in college, and improving public school facilities and faculty. If the federal government would support legislation to fiscally value public schools, privateers would not have an inroad to unofficially influence educational policy. Not to do so would render the public school system in the United States of America “open to the highest offer.”
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 26-October 2, 2010
Prior to the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and seating of a Constitutional Convention, the issue of public education in our nation has always been a divisive issue. In nearly every colony restrictive codes existed which prohibited public education for all people of color and virtually all poor White people. The rationale in against public education 18th Century America rested on the notion that an un-educated enslaved Black or indentured White made for a better worker who had few options other than hard labor.
As colonies were formally federalized into the United States of America the question of whom among the nation’s citizens should be educated and at what quality of instruction divided public policy makers. Initially, only White males were considered American citizens, and thereby entitled to be educated through colonial educational policy. While a Constitutional Amendment (14th) was enacted in 1868 to grant citizenship to newly freed African Americans another Amendment (10th) granted states control over public education. Legislators—federal and state—across the nation were sharply split over public education. One school of thought (slave owners, Confederates) was that public education should be reserved for Whites only. The other school of thought (abolitionists and educational liberators) held than all children—regardless of race, religion or resources—are entitled to public education.
Against such a polarized philosophical background the public school system in the United States was established in 1852. However, unlike other industrialized countries around the world that completely funded public education the American system was established with limited federal funding, resulting in control of educational policy primarily posited in state, county, and municipal government. Yet, confederates and capitalist never die.
Following the American Civil War and the erosion of federal authority in favor of states’ rights public education was declared “separate, but equal” in the infamous Supreme Court ruling in Plessey v. Ferguson in 1896. State control and racially segregated schools persisted until the landmark High Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Following Brown, many White Americans, rather than allow their children to attend pubic schools with students of color (particularly in former slave states in the south), removed them and formed all-White private academies. However, upon realizing that their public tax dollars were helping to fund racially mixed public schools the “voucher” plan was conceptualized to allow “some” public students to attend special public schools funded by private financiers.
Today, the issue of private funders of public schools can is being debated in cities such as Washington, DC and Newark, NJ. In Washington, DC the outgoing mayor, after dismantling School Board, lost his reelection bid in large part due to his education “reform” plan for public schools that included private funding. In fact, when private corporate funders realized that the outgoing mayor would probably lose his party’s primary CEO’s essentially threatened to pull potential funding if the presumed incoming mayor would not retain the Public School Chancellor who supported private funding for public schools.
Two weeks later, ironically, Mark Zuckerberg, Executive Founder of Facebook appeared on the world-renowned Oprah Show to announce that he would donate $100 million dollars to the public school system of Newark, NJ. His reason: the “leadership” in Newark. Ironically, the mega money will help to restore control of school system to the current mayor of Newark. Hmm? Fancy that: The public votes out a mayor in the nation’s capital largely for supporting private funding for that school system, and in a matter of days, a privateer grants big money to same type of public school system in Newark rejected by the people in Washington, DC.
Ultimately, the public should fund the American public school system to do so; the federal government should increase federal outlay for public schools (currently set at only 9%). Such an increase in funding could go a long way to incentivising potential teachers in college, and improving public school facilities and faculty. If the federal government would support legislation to fiscally value public schools, privateers would not have an inroad to unofficially influence educational policy. Not to do so would render the public school system in the United States of America “open to the highest offer.”
Monday, September 13, 2010
Congressional Black Caucus at Forty
Congressional Black Caucus at Forty
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 12-19, 2010
“I recently wrote about the attempt of the Congressional Black Caucus to get legislation out of the House of Representatives that targets job creation to local areas through direct funding. This legislation is being held up in the House and Senate by politicians who care more about posturing in and election over how frugal they have been with money by supporting deficit reduction over the pain people are suffering.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
June 24, 2010
“Political players who are on the field get their uniform dirty. The loudest voices from players tend to be by those on the sidelines with clean uniforms.”
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.
In 1971, members of Congress visualized a caucus within the United States House of Representatives to legislatively advocate for the political and policy interests of African Americans. At that time—recently after Chairman Adam Clayton Powell was pushed out of Congress, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, followed by destructive riots—there were only 13 Black members of the House and zero members of the U.S. Senate. Predictably, meaningfully influencing federal legislation by individual Representatives was arduous, to say the least, for the most skilled legislators.
Consequently, Representatives Shirley Chisholm (NY), John Conyers (MI), Charles Rangel (NY), William Clay (MO), George Collins (IL), Ronald Dellums (CA), Charles Diggs (MI), Augustus Hawkins (CA), Ralph Metcalfe (IL), Parren Mitchell (MD), Robert Nix (PA), Louis Stokes (OH), and Walter Fauntroy (DC) founded the first ethnically based body in Congress and named it the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And for forty-years the CBC has served as the “conscience of the Congress.”
Separate from the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) this week (Wednesday, September 15-18, 2010) will host the Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) will assemble the best and brightest political minds in the world to advance the interests of Black Americans.
Now some decry that the CBC’Fs Annual Legislative Week is frivolously filled with epicurean events that only focus attendee’s attention to “eat, drink, and be merry.” Those who believe such have either never attended the ALC or are inclined to seek parties and playtime wherever they go. After all, most people find what they seek. That said, for those who seek a better understanding of public policy priorities in the Black community and political strategies for people of color spending time with the Congressional Black Caucus is immensely enriching.
For example, the 2010 ALC will feature 90 “Brain trusts” on the most salient issues impacting the Black community at the federal, states, county, and municipal level. Proceeds from the weeklong Conference help fund CBCF Internships for students interested in public service.
Regrettably, perhaps our brightest political light for the past forty years has been extinguished in the death of Dr. Ronald Walters. Dr. Walters was the engine of a plethora of political campaigns, most notably the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. If Reverend Jackson was the “conscience of the nation” Dr. Walters kept the “political pulse of the nation.”
Whether 1971 or 2010, if the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ronald Walters and the example of the Congressional Black Caucus direct America, particularly Black America, they do so to increase civic participation and political awareness. In other words, either join those of us on the battlefield of justice or surrender your right to criticize. Please join us!
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
September 12-19, 2010
“I recently wrote about the attempt of the Congressional Black Caucus to get legislation out of the House of Representatives that targets job creation to local areas through direct funding. This legislation is being held up in the House and Senate by politicians who care more about posturing in and election over how frugal they have been with money by supporting deficit reduction over the pain people are suffering.”
Dr. Ronald Walters
June 24, 2010
“Political players who are on the field get their uniform dirty. The loudest voices from players tend to be by those on the sidelines with clean uniforms.”
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.
In 1971, members of Congress visualized a caucus within the United States House of Representatives to legislatively advocate for the political and policy interests of African Americans. At that time—recently after Chairman Adam Clayton Powell was pushed out of Congress, Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, followed by destructive riots—there were only 13 Black members of the House and zero members of the U.S. Senate. Predictably, meaningfully influencing federal legislation by individual Representatives was arduous, to say the least, for the most skilled legislators.
Consequently, Representatives Shirley Chisholm (NY), John Conyers (MI), Charles Rangel (NY), William Clay (MO), George Collins (IL), Ronald Dellums (CA), Charles Diggs (MI), Augustus Hawkins (CA), Ralph Metcalfe (IL), Parren Mitchell (MD), Robert Nix (PA), Louis Stokes (OH), and Walter Fauntroy (DC) founded the first ethnically based body in Congress and named it the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). And for forty-years the CBC has served as the “conscience of the Congress.”
Separate from the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (CBCF) this week (Wednesday, September 15-18, 2010) will host the Annual Legislative Conference (ALC) will assemble the best and brightest political minds in the world to advance the interests of Black Americans.
Now some decry that the CBC’Fs Annual Legislative Week is frivolously filled with epicurean events that only focus attendee’s attention to “eat, drink, and be merry.” Those who believe such have either never attended the ALC or are inclined to seek parties and playtime wherever they go. After all, most people find what they seek. That said, for those who seek a better understanding of public policy priorities in the Black community and political strategies for people of color spending time with the Congressional Black Caucus is immensely enriching.
For example, the 2010 ALC will feature 90 “Brain trusts” on the most salient issues impacting the Black community at the federal, states, county, and municipal level. Proceeds from the weeklong Conference help fund CBCF Internships for students interested in public service.
Regrettably, perhaps our brightest political light for the past forty years has been extinguished in the death of Dr. Ronald Walters. Dr. Walters was the engine of a plethora of political campaigns, most notably the 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. If Reverend Jackson was the “conscience of the nation” Dr. Walters kept the “political pulse of the nation.”
Whether 1971 or 2010, if the words of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Dr. Ronald Walters and the example of the Congressional Black Caucus direct America, particularly Black America, they do so to increase civic participation and political awareness. In other words, either join those of us on the battlefield of justice or surrender your right to criticize. Please join us!
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Katrina Reveled Race and Poverty
Katrina Revealed Race and Poverty
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 22-29, 2010
Much as the Emmit Till murder did 55 years ago Hurricane Katrina pulled back the cultural curtains and revealed the intersecting roads of race and poverty in the United States of America. In both cases, America’s egalitarian myth of civility to all her citizens was shattered by the photo of Till’s open casket in Chicago (Jet Magazine) and news images (CNN) of African Americans treated as animals and “refugees” in New Orleans.
Before and after Hurricane Katrina the City of New Orleans has been a case study in the oppressive confluence of race and poverty on African Americans. Prior to Katrina New Orleans had the highest percentage of public housing residents in the nation, many of who were allowed to live poorly policed, sub-standard living conditions.
Three days before the Category 5 hurricane named Katrina came ashore from the Gulf of Mexico those who could to evacuate New Orleans made plans to do so. However, the most vulnerable citizens—nearly all Black and/or elderly—were left to negotiate the storm and its aftermath on their own. Despite the presence of a fleet of public buses no provision was made to direct poor people of pigment to higher ground. With no credible evidence city officials would later contend that the Black poor ignored directions to evacuate because the storm arrived at the end of they month and two days before government (public assistance, social security) checks arrived. Fact is, there were no buses deployed and the fleet became submerged under water.
With no plans for the poor, the days immediately following Katrina and the levees were compromised Black students at Xavier and Dillard University were stranded in dormitories. In fact, while vice president to Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rainbow PUSH Coalition I remember assisting in rescuing African American students with the help of privately funded buses.
As people found their way to the New Orleans Superdome and Morial Convention Center no guidance or direction was provided by city and state officials. Predictably, conditions worsened and over 1,300 people died (by official numbers), some African American men shot by police for attempting to flee to the higher ground of Jefferson Parrish. There was no government for the people. People were treated as animals.
In the ensuing weeks, state officials refused to utilize vacant military bases within Louisiana and forcibly removed the Black poor to 44 states around the nation.
Predictably, according to a report by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, five years after Katrina New Orleans is a smaller and richer city per capita. Duh: most of the poor were removed.
In fact, today:
• The nearly all-Black Lower Ninth Ward seems conspicuously passed over for reconstruction
• Louisiana residents remain located in 55,000 cities across the nation (59% of who are female headed families
• 75% reduction in the number of public housing apartments available (formerly 98% African American)
• 5,000 people remain on waiting list for public housing
• 28,000 people remain on waiting list for public housing vouchers
• 58% of New Orleans renters pay more than 35% of their pre-tax household income for housing
• The number of public school students (90% African American) have decreased by half
For those who contend that race did not play a major factor I say: seriously?
Truth be told, if the students, residents, and poor in need were White, the federal, state, and local government would have treated them better. Moreover, if private real estate developers had not influenced government policy decisions, more people of color would have returned to their homes in New Orleans (see Washington Post 08-22-10).
Therefore, the Black Leadership Forum, led by the Hip Hop Caucus will return to New Orleans on Sunday, August 29, 2010—the fifth-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina—to raise righteous voices of indignation for the right of return and the rebuilding of housing for the poor.
For more information visit www.HipHopCaucus.org or email Darryl Perkins at Darry@HipHopCaucus.org. Join us.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 22-29, 2010
Much as the Emmit Till murder did 55 years ago Hurricane Katrina pulled back the cultural curtains and revealed the intersecting roads of race and poverty in the United States of America. In both cases, America’s egalitarian myth of civility to all her citizens was shattered by the photo of Till’s open casket in Chicago (Jet Magazine) and news images (CNN) of African Americans treated as animals and “refugees” in New Orleans.
Before and after Hurricane Katrina the City of New Orleans has been a case study in the oppressive confluence of race and poverty on African Americans. Prior to Katrina New Orleans had the highest percentage of public housing residents in the nation, many of who were allowed to live poorly policed, sub-standard living conditions.
Three days before the Category 5 hurricane named Katrina came ashore from the Gulf of Mexico those who could to evacuate New Orleans made plans to do so. However, the most vulnerable citizens—nearly all Black and/or elderly—were left to negotiate the storm and its aftermath on their own. Despite the presence of a fleet of public buses no provision was made to direct poor people of pigment to higher ground. With no credible evidence city officials would later contend that the Black poor ignored directions to evacuate because the storm arrived at the end of they month and two days before government (public assistance, social security) checks arrived. Fact is, there were no buses deployed and the fleet became submerged under water.
With no plans for the poor, the days immediately following Katrina and the levees were compromised Black students at Xavier and Dillard University were stranded in dormitories. In fact, while vice president to Reverend Jesse Jackson and Rainbow PUSH Coalition I remember assisting in rescuing African American students with the help of privately funded buses.
As people found their way to the New Orleans Superdome and Morial Convention Center no guidance or direction was provided by city and state officials. Predictably, conditions worsened and over 1,300 people died (by official numbers), some African American men shot by police for attempting to flee to the higher ground of Jefferson Parrish. There was no government for the people. People were treated as animals.
In the ensuing weeks, state officials refused to utilize vacant military bases within Louisiana and forcibly removed the Black poor to 44 states around the nation.
Predictably, according to a report by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, five years after Katrina New Orleans is a smaller and richer city per capita. Duh: most of the poor were removed.
In fact, today:
• The nearly all-Black Lower Ninth Ward seems conspicuously passed over for reconstruction
• Louisiana residents remain located in 55,000 cities across the nation (59% of who are female headed families
• 75% reduction in the number of public housing apartments available (formerly 98% African American)
• 5,000 people remain on waiting list for public housing
• 28,000 people remain on waiting list for public housing vouchers
• 58% of New Orleans renters pay more than 35% of their pre-tax household income for housing
• The number of public school students (90% African American) have decreased by half
For those who contend that race did not play a major factor I say: seriously?
Truth be told, if the students, residents, and poor in need were White, the federal, state, and local government would have treated them better. Moreover, if private real estate developers had not influenced government policy decisions, more people of color would have returned to their homes in New Orleans (see Washington Post 08-22-10).
Therefore, the Black Leadership Forum, led by the Hip Hop Caucus will return to New Orleans on Sunday, August 29, 2010—the fifth-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina—to raise righteous voices of indignation for the right of return and the rebuilding of housing for the poor.
For more information visit www.HipHopCaucus.org or email Darryl Perkins at Darry@HipHopCaucus.org. Join us.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Put On Your Marching Shoes!
Put On Your Marching Shoes
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 8-15, 2010
While many bankers, corporate executives, and Congressional members are preparing for summer vacation Americans left behind are losing homes, hope for employment, and help for failing farms. When all else fails people of conscience must take a public stand and petition for legislative relief.
There would be few broad-sweeping laws if not for the focused few who dared to make their pains public. For example, laws protecting workers came about because workers publicly protested unfair working conditions and wages. The 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the Children’s Marches of 1963 in Birmingham, AL. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was inspired by a 45-mile march from Selma to Montgomery, AL earlier that year. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 followed the fair housing marches of 1968 in Chicago, IL. In sum, marching matters.
Yet, public demonstrations either represent the progress or regress.
Glen Beck, for example is planning a public rally with Tea Party members on August 28, 2010 at—of all places—the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, the site of the 1963 March on Washington in which Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Historically speaking, Glen Beck’s philosophy seems diametrically opposed to those of the 1963 march organizers. For starters, he believes that increasing federal regulations to hold corporations accountable to the public and health care reform are somehow misguided. Regardless, of what Glen Beck and his cohorts think or do on August 28 the Coalition of Conscience have the moral high ground on legislation for the locked out and left behind.
Several Member Organizations of the Black Leadership Forum will hold public actions the week of August 28 to commemorate the 47th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington:
• The National Action Network will hold a prayer and rally at Dunbar High School in Washington, DC to address national issues impacting African Americans. For more information, visit www.nationalactionnetwork.net or call 212.690.3070
• The Rainbow PUSH Coalition will hold a Jobs and Justice rally at the UAW-Ford National Program Center in Detroit, MI to rebuild America by enacting policy that will unleash skills and talents of the American workforce. The March… contact gkorn@rainbowpush.org or call 313.926.5361
• On August 29, The Hip Hop Caucus will hold a march and rally in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans, LA to refocus attention on the profound impact Hurricane Katrina and promote the ecological sustainability of New Orleans post-Katrina. For more information, visit www.hiphopcaucus.org
Those who complain about the isms (racism, sexism, militarism) must rise in righteous indignation match marching with mouthing.
Join us on the battlefield!
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
August 8-15, 2010
While many bankers, corporate executives, and Congressional members are preparing for summer vacation Americans left behind are losing homes, hope for employment, and help for failing farms. When all else fails people of conscience must take a public stand and petition for legislative relief.
There would be few broad-sweeping laws if not for the focused few who dared to make their pains public. For example, laws protecting workers came about because workers publicly protested unfair working conditions and wages. The 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 was preceded by the Children’s Marches of 1963 in Birmingham, AL. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was inspired by a 45-mile march from Selma to Montgomery, AL earlier that year. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 followed the fair housing marches of 1968 in Chicago, IL. In sum, marching matters.
Yet, public demonstrations either represent the progress or regress.
Glen Beck, for example is planning a public rally with Tea Party members on August 28, 2010 at—of all places—the Lincoln Memorial. Yes, the site of the 1963 March on Washington in which Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.
Historically speaking, Glen Beck’s philosophy seems diametrically opposed to those of the 1963 march organizers. For starters, he believes that increasing federal regulations to hold corporations accountable to the public and health care reform are somehow misguided. Regardless, of what Glen Beck and his cohorts think or do on August 28 the Coalition of Conscience have the moral high ground on legislation for the locked out and left behind.
Several Member Organizations of the Black Leadership Forum will hold public actions the week of August 28 to commemorate the 47th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington:
• The National Action Network will hold a prayer and rally at Dunbar High School in Washington, DC to address national issues impacting African Americans. For more information, visit www.nationalactionnetwork.net or call 212.690.3070
• The Rainbow PUSH Coalition will hold a Jobs and Justice rally at the UAW-Ford National Program Center in Detroit, MI to rebuild America by enacting policy that will unleash skills and talents of the American workforce. The March… contact gkorn@rainbowpush.org or call 313.926.5361
• On August 29, The Hip Hop Caucus will hold a march and rally in the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans, LA to refocus attention on the profound impact Hurricane Katrina and promote the ecological sustainability of New Orleans post-Katrina. For more information, visit www.hiphopcaucus.org
Those who complain about the isms (racism, sexism, militarism) must rise in righteous indignation match marching with mouthing.
Join us on the battlefield!
Monday, July 26, 2010
FULL EMPLOYMENT IS NEEDED FAST
Full Employment is Needed Fast
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
July 25-August 1, 2010
This week, while most of the media nation was transfixed by a diversionary-racist smear campaign against United States Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod on the issue of perceived racial animus—an issue deserving full attention on another day—President signed legislation to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed.
By the president’s signature, the jobless were given a little relief to their lack of financial resources in a critically depressing economic period many refer to as the Great Recession. The legislation extended unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. Prior to the extension unemployed Americans who receive federal benefits had been waiting for 7 weeks without money while Republican members of Congress held up legislation because “extending benefits would hurt the national debt unless cuts could be made in other areas of the federal budget (mostly programs helping the poor and the elderly).
Congressional filibusters (deliberate blockage of legislation) were used by national Republicans for the flimsiest of reasons in opposing benefit extension. Among them, unemployment benefits: Do not help economic recovery; only the private sector can solve economic issues affecting the poor; benefits reduce people’s desire to look for work; and the fixing the national debt is more important than feeding the poor.
However, the issue of how to address unemployment benefits belies the thirty-year war on the poor. In 1980, President Ronald Reagan, the actor-turned politician, played the role of a reverse Robin Hood by stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Reagan’s rationale was the economic recovery “trickles down” to the less fortunate.
Most recently, President George W. Bush in his 8-year term of office cut taxes for the top 2% of Americans (who did not need or ask for tax break) while cutting programs for the poor such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), not to mention allowing American companies tax breaks while exporting jobs to cheaper labor markets. The result of the war on the poor is that most Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Officially, according to a recent Duke University study, national poverty has increased 5% in the past four years.
Therefore, putting America back to work is the nation’s highest need. Yes, president Obama and Congress have passed modest legislation around health care reform, financial reform, and an extension of unemployment insurance, but job creation is paramount.
Of the most viable short-term possible legislative solutions has been offered by Congressman John Conyers (MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act” (House Resolution 5204) seeks to create a full employment society by 2020. The legislation is modeled after full employment legislation offered by Senator Hubert Humphrey (MN) and Representative Augustus Hawkins (CA) that was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978.
Under the proposed legislation a trust fund would be established with two separate funds: one for job creation, and the other for job training. Job creation money would be modeled on the Community Development Block Grant formula and be administered by local elected officials. The second account would be based on the Workforce Investment Act and resemble the Jobs Corps. After all, local elected officials who are members of the National Black Caucus of State Elected Officials, National Association of Black County Officials, National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, and the National Conference of Black Mayors are best suited to know where job funds should be allocated.
Full employment is needed fast.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
July 25-August 1, 2010
This week, while most of the media nation was transfixed by a diversionary-racist smear campaign against United States Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod on the issue of perceived racial animus—an issue deserving full attention on another day—President signed legislation to extend unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed.
By the president’s signature, the jobless were given a little relief to their lack of financial resources in a critically depressing economic period many refer to as the Great Recession. The legislation extended unemployment benefits for 99 weeks. Prior to the extension unemployed Americans who receive federal benefits had been waiting for 7 weeks without money while Republican members of Congress held up legislation because “extending benefits would hurt the national debt unless cuts could be made in other areas of the federal budget (mostly programs helping the poor and the elderly).
Congressional filibusters (deliberate blockage of legislation) were used by national Republicans for the flimsiest of reasons in opposing benefit extension. Among them, unemployment benefits: Do not help economic recovery; only the private sector can solve economic issues affecting the poor; benefits reduce people’s desire to look for work; and the fixing the national debt is more important than feeding the poor.
However, the issue of how to address unemployment benefits belies the thirty-year war on the poor. In 1980, President Ronald Reagan, the actor-turned politician, played the role of a reverse Robin Hood by stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Reagan’s rationale was the economic recovery “trickles down” to the less fortunate.
Most recently, President George W. Bush in his 8-year term of office cut taxes for the top 2% of Americans (who did not need or ask for tax break) while cutting programs for the poor such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), not to mention allowing American companies tax breaks while exporting jobs to cheaper labor markets. The result of the war on the poor is that most Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Officially, according to a recent Duke University study, national poverty has increased 5% in the past four years.
Therefore, putting America back to work is the nation’s highest need. Yes, president Obama and Congress have passed modest legislation around health care reform, financial reform, and an extension of unemployment insurance, but job creation is paramount.
Of the most viable short-term possible legislative solutions has been offered by Congressman John Conyers (MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The 21st Century Full Employment and Training Act” (House Resolution 5204) seeks to create a full employment society by 2020. The legislation is modeled after full employment legislation offered by Senator Hubert Humphrey (MN) and Representative Augustus Hawkins (CA) that was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1978.
Under the proposed legislation a trust fund would be established with two separate funds: one for job creation, and the other for job training. Job creation money would be modeled on the Community Development Block Grant formula and be administered by local elected officials. The second account would be based on the Workforce Investment Act and resemble the Jobs Corps. After all, local elected officials who are members of the National Black Caucus of State Elected Officials, National Association of Black County Officials, National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, and the National Conference of Black Mayors are best suited to know where job funds should be allocated.
Full employment is needed fast.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, May 24, 2010
One Love Against Date Violence
One Love Against Date Violence
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
May 23-30, 2010
On Sunday, May 22, 2010 two students were absent from “walking the Lawn” as graduates of the University of Virginia—one is dead and one is in jail, charged with the other’s murder. As an alumnus of the University of Virginia I have joined the nation in mourning the seemingly senseless death of Yeardley Love, a former fourth year student and member of the women’s Lacrosse team at the University in Charlottesville, Virginia.
My first reaction was, “students at Thomas Jefferson’s academical village are not murderers!”
According to police reports, Yeardley Love died of blunt force trauma apparently following her head repeatedly hitting the apartment wall. Why, and at whose hand Ms. Love died is yet to be determined by the court system.
However, people close to Yeardley Love and George Huguely, the accused murderer, have reported multiple incidents of violent behavior between the romantic couple. On one occasion friends reported that in February 2010 Huguely began choking Love at a lacrosse party so violently that three other lacrosse players (two from rival University of North Carolina) had to pull him off of her.
In another report, following a night of drinking and partying Huguely believed a fellow lacrosse teammate had walked Yeardley home and allegedly kissed her. Huguely stormed into the teammate’s room and punched him in his sleep, as he shouted (according to his later accounts), “sweet dreams, punk.”
While publicly drunk on a “road trip” to Washington & Lee University Huguely shouted racial and gender epitaphs to an African American police officer. Ultimately, according to the officer, she had to use a Taser gun to restrain Huguely. The incident was not required to be reported to the University of Virginia officials under law.
Regardless of Huguely’s guilt or innocence on the charge of murder one thing is certain: a pattern of violent behavior to his romantic interest existed. Sadly, the issue of date violence is common on American college campuses. For example:
The issue of date violence is of national import on college campuses. For example:
• A study issued by the Yale University Department of Health Services reported 25% of college men surveyed admitted slapping, pushing or restraining a female partner
• Majority of victims murdered by date partners are estranged, separated, or in process of leaving relationship
• United States Department of Justice report cites that women 16-24 years old are the most likely victims of date partner violence
• Only 10% if male-to-female violence is reported
• White students had somewhat higher rates of violent victimization than Blacks and higher rates than students of other races, respectively
• According to National Center for Victims of Crime, 39-54% of dating violence victims remain in abusive relationships
The tragedy of Yeardley Love’s death is a small sense is the confluence of race and privilege. What may have united George and Yeardley is that they both were White, from upper-middle class families, and both played the elite game of lacrosse.
In 1912, Huguely’s great-great grandfather co-founded the Galliher & Huguely lumber yard in Washington, DC. His family invested in racehorses, owned yachts, and was life members in racially exclusive country clubs. George grew up in a million dollar home in lofty area of Potomac, Maryland and graduated from the prestigious Landon School where he starred on the football and lacrosse team.
Love was raised in an upscale suburb of Baltimore, Maryland. Yeardley graduated from the elite Notre Dame Preparatory School. At the University Love was a member of the well-to-do sorority, Kappa Alpha Theta.
While not all lacrosse players come from wealthy families the preponderance do so. And where there is privilege the sense of entitlement many times is not far behind (i.e. Duke lacrosse players in 2005 accused of sexually assaulting a stripper in a bathroom of a party house).
Whereas, the incidents at the University of Virginia and Duke University revolve around wealth, privilege, and race, most date violence results mostly from men violently striking females. Date violence against women is a national crisis.
To address the national issue of date violence state legislatures, NCAA, and college presidents should adopt uniform policies on college campuses that require arrests of students to be reported to college presidents. Additionally, anger management courses should be sponsored by college organizations such as fraternities and sororities. Most of all, friends of battered women must share information with authorities and families.
Americans should show one love against date violence.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
May 23-30, 2010
On Sunday, May 22, 2010 two students were absent from “walking the Lawn” as graduates of the University of Virginia—one is dead and one is in jail, charged with the other’s murder. As an alumnus of the University of Virginia I have joined the nation in mourning the seemingly senseless death of Yeardley Love, a former fourth year student and member of the women’s Lacrosse team at the University in Charlottesville, Virginia.
My first reaction was, “students at Thomas Jefferson’s academical village are not murderers!”
According to police reports, Yeardley Love died of blunt force trauma apparently following her head repeatedly hitting the apartment wall. Why, and at whose hand Ms. Love died is yet to be determined by the court system.
However, people close to Yeardley Love and George Huguely, the accused murderer, have reported multiple incidents of violent behavior between the romantic couple. On one occasion friends reported that in February 2010 Huguely began choking Love at a lacrosse party so violently that three other lacrosse players (two from rival University of North Carolina) had to pull him off of her.
In another report, following a night of drinking and partying Huguely believed a fellow lacrosse teammate had walked Yeardley home and allegedly kissed her. Huguely stormed into the teammate’s room and punched him in his sleep, as he shouted (according to his later accounts), “sweet dreams, punk.”
While publicly drunk on a “road trip” to Washington & Lee University Huguely shouted racial and gender epitaphs to an African American police officer. Ultimately, according to the officer, she had to use a Taser gun to restrain Huguely. The incident was not required to be reported to the University of Virginia officials under law.
Regardless of Huguely’s guilt or innocence on the charge of murder one thing is certain: a pattern of violent behavior to his romantic interest existed. Sadly, the issue of date violence is common on American college campuses. For example:
The issue of date violence is of national import on college campuses. For example:
• A study issued by the Yale University Department of Health Services reported 25% of college men surveyed admitted slapping, pushing or restraining a female partner
• Majority of victims murdered by date partners are estranged, separated, or in process of leaving relationship
• United States Department of Justice report cites that women 16-24 years old are the most likely victims of date partner violence
• Only 10% if male-to-female violence is reported
• White students had somewhat higher rates of violent victimization than Blacks and higher rates than students of other races, respectively
• According to National Center for Victims of Crime, 39-54% of dating violence victims remain in abusive relationships
The tragedy of Yeardley Love’s death is a small sense is the confluence of race and privilege. What may have united George and Yeardley is that they both were White, from upper-middle class families, and both played the elite game of lacrosse.
In 1912, Huguely’s great-great grandfather co-founded the Galliher & Huguely lumber yard in Washington, DC. His family invested in racehorses, owned yachts, and was life members in racially exclusive country clubs. George grew up in a million dollar home in lofty area of Potomac, Maryland and graduated from the prestigious Landon School where he starred on the football and lacrosse team.
Love was raised in an upscale suburb of Baltimore, Maryland. Yeardley graduated from the elite Notre Dame Preparatory School. At the University Love was a member of the well-to-do sorority, Kappa Alpha Theta.
While not all lacrosse players come from wealthy families the preponderance do so. And where there is privilege the sense of entitlement many times is not far behind (i.e. Duke lacrosse players in 2005 accused of sexually assaulting a stripper in a bathroom of a party house).
Whereas, the incidents at the University of Virginia and Duke University revolve around wealth, privilege, and race, most date violence results mostly from men violently striking females. Date violence against women is a national crisis.
To address the national issue of date violence state legislatures, NCAA, and college presidents should adopt uniform policies on college campuses that require arrests of students to be reported to college presidents. Additionally, anger management courses should be sponsored by college organizations such as fraternities and sororities. Most of all, friends of battered women must share information with authorities and families.
Americans should show one love against date violence.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care Protesters are Today’s Confederates
“A zebra does not change its stripes”
African Proverb
Confederates never die.
During the final hours of the American health care debate this week protesters opposed to President Obama and health care insurance reform shouted “nigger” and “faggot” at members of Congress supporting the idea that health care should be deemed a federal right and not merely a state privilege. In fact, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver reported that he was spat upon while moving through the raucous and racially motivated protesters. Really?
For the record, Union forces defeated Confederate traitors in the American Civil War at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. The Union stood for freedom, federal authority, and the Untied States of America. The Confederates stood for slavery, secession, and states’ rights.
At the War’s end race-conscious resisters to federal authority extending American benefits such as emancipation, citizenship, and voting rights of African Americans protested by domestic terrorism by the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.
In 1954, following the Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case a small but vocal portion of White Americans protested court-ordered racial desegregation with racial epitaphs and spitting upon school students and those seeking to desegregate lunch counters. The disdain for racial desegregation was so high in the Commonwealth of Virginia that the state closed entire school districts rather than comply with federal law. For example, in his seminal book, In the Matter of Color, the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham revealed that Virginia led the protest movement against racial desegregation with a policy plan known as Massive Resistance. The most counter intuitive policy was to pay out-of-state university tuition rather than admit African Americans to Virginia colleges and universities.
Likewise, ten years later following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 idiots outnumbered ideas in the rancorous race protesters. The idea of complying to federal law allowing all Americans to eat, sleep, and shop where they pleased—regardless of race—was resisted with unspeakable words and acts.
Today, health care protesters are once again spitting shouted racist phrases at people of color who wish nothing more than the United States of America to honor her words of “all men [and women] are created equal.” Of course, today’s race haters claim policy, not pigment, propels their protests. Really? Such claims are refuted by the fact that they did not protest the policies of George W. Bush’s Administration with such vitriol public actions. After all, if money and federal monitoring were actually the primary issue in health care insurance reform today than the Bush education policy of No Child Left Behind would have also riled today’s resisters. No Child Left Behind was a federal mandate costing hundreds of billions of dollars monitored by the federal government.
Beyond the speeches of last week protesters actually stormed the U.S. Capitol requiring Congressional staffers to remain in their respective offices. Imagine if a crowd of Black protesters had shouted racial slurs, spat upon Member of Congress, and stormed the Capitol Building? In such a case, the National Guard would have more than likely have been dispatched. Moreover, if a Black Congressional leader used profanity in a floor speech as House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) did, the Congress would have punished that member.
As I listened to, read, and viewed news accounts of the protests this week the constant theme was a “divided policy debate” between supporters of different policy views. Little mention was made of spitting, slurs, and Congressman Boehner’s profane outburst.
As was the case with all-White Confederates during the American Civil War today’s protesters concentrate more on the color of the policy formulator (president Obama) and beneficiaries (poor Black and Brown) than the content of legislation.
Similar to race resisters of yesteryear the Attorney General of Virginia has announced his intention to resist federal authority for health insurance reform by litigation. Confederates never die; they multiply.
By the way, 22 of 34 Democrats who voted against President Obama’s health care insurance reform are from former Confederate or slave states. Hmmmm.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
African Proverb
Confederates never die.
During the final hours of the American health care debate this week protesters opposed to President Obama and health care insurance reform shouted “nigger” and “faggot” at members of Congress supporting the idea that health care should be deemed a federal right and not merely a state privilege. In fact, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver reported that he was spat upon while moving through the raucous and racially motivated protesters. Really?
For the record, Union forces defeated Confederate traitors in the American Civil War at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. The Union stood for freedom, federal authority, and the Untied States of America. The Confederates stood for slavery, secession, and states’ rights.
At the War’s end race-conscious resisters to federal authority extending American benefits such as emancipation, citizenship, and voting rights of African Americans protested by domestic terrorism by the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.
In 1954, following the Supreme Court ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case a small but vocal portion of White Americans protested court-ordered racial desegregation with racial epitaphs and spitting upon school students and those seeking to desegregate lunch counters. The disdain for racial desegregation was so high in the Commonwealth of Virginia that the state closed entire school districts rather than comply with federal law. For example, in his seminal book, In the Matter of Color, the late Judge A. Leon Higginbotham revealed that Virginia led the protest movement against racial desegregation with a policy plan known as Massive Resistance. The most counter intuitive policy was to pay out-of-state university tuition rather than admit African Americans to Virginia colleges and universities.
Likewise, ten years later following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 idiots outnumbered ideas in the rancorous race protesters. The idea of complying to federal law allowing all Americans to eat, sleep, and shop where they pleased—regardless of race—was resisted with unspeakable words and acts.
Today, health care protesters are once again spitting shouted racist phrases at people of color who wish nothing more than the United States of America to honor her words of “all men [and women] are created equal.” Of course, today’s race haters claim policy, not pigment, propels their protests. Really? Such claims are refuted by the fact that they did not protest the policies of George W. Bush’s Administration with such vitriol public actions. After all, if money and federal monitoring were actually the primary issue in health care insurance reform today than the Bush education policy of No Child Left Behind would have also riled today’s resisters. No Child Left Behind was a federal mandate costing hundreds of billions of dollars monitored by the federal government.
Beyond the speeches of last week protesters actually stormed the U.S. Capitol requiring Congressional staffers to remain in their respective offices. Imagine if a crowd of Black protesters had shouted racial slurs, spat upon Member of Congress, and stormed the Capitol Building? In such a case, the National Guard would have more than likely have been dispatched. Moreover, if a Black Congressional leader used profanity in a floor speech as House Minority Leader John Boehner (OH) did, the Congress would have punished that member.
As I listened to, read, and viewed news accounts of the protests this week the constant theme was a “divided policy debate” between supporters of different policy views. Little mention was made of spitting, slurs, and Congressman Boehner’s profane outburst.
As was the case with all-White Confederates during the American Civil War today’s protesters concentrate more on the color of the policy formulator (president Obama) and beneficiaries (poor Black and Brown) than the content of legislation.
Similar to race resisters of yesteryear the Attorney General of Virginia has announced his intention to resist federal authority for health insurance reform by litigation. Confederates never die; they multiply.
By the way, 22 of 34 Democrats who voted against President Obama’s health care insurance reform are from former Confederate or slave states. Hmmmm.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, March 15, 2010
Increasing Jobs is Job One
Increasing Jobs is Job One
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
March 8 - 15, 2010
“Equality means dignity. And dignity demands a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week ”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
1963
Let’s begin with the obvious in our nation’s joblessness crisis—there are more workers than jobs available. Conversely, there are fewer jobs than workers who need employment. That said, the question of our times is how to put Mr. and Mrs. Humpty Unemployed Dumpty back together again.
As the Obama Administration and Congress address the issue of historically-high unemployment in the United States of America I have an idea: Think big. Given America’s unemployment crisis looms large, so too should be the response by representatives of the government. Lessons learned—good and bad—from the Great Depression of 1930-41 are useful today.
President Franklin Roosevelt thought big when America needed it most. In his 1944 State of the Union Speech he said, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men [and women] are not free men [and women].’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
In 1963, nineteen years later, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the issue of America’s unemployment in his famous speech of 1963. Contrary to the main-streamed media’s marketing of the speech’s title as “I Have a Dream”, Dr. King’s message that hot humid August day in Washington, DC was America had broken her promise to all of its people, particularly African Americans who then could not enjoy public accommodations, the right to vote, or the right to live where they chose. In short, Dr. King said that the people in whose honor the National Mall monuments and memorials symbolized promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. President Lincoln by way of the Emancipation Proclamation. President Jefferson via the United States Constitution. And Congress through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. All promised. All broken.
Months before his tragic assassination in 1968, Dr. King prophetically proclaimed in his platform for the Poor People’s March of 1968 that all Americans should have the right to a job and a livable wage. Dr. King did not live to see his dream of America’s broken promise in employment kept by full employment.
Today, the Obama Administration has such an opportunity.
I agree with L Randall Wray who offers in the book Understanding Modern Money the following commonsensical ideas for jobs for the jobless:
• Companions to the elderly, orphans, physically challenged, mental health patients
• Public school classroom assistants who tutor reading, writing, and math (also aides for school field trips and after-school programs)
• Child-care assistants, and Head Start assistants
• Safety monitors and facilitators assigned to public school playgrounds and transit hubs
• Neighborhood and road clean-up crews
• Home insulation assistants for low-income housing
• Environmental safety monitors testing lead paint levels, water quality, and beach contamination
• Improvement teams for national and state parks
• Artiists, musicians and performers for public schools
• Community and cultural historians
• Public assistants to monitor government regulations
• Prison and juvenile facility education assistants
Mr. Wray’s list makes so much sense, not to mention the need for massive public works jobs. As such, the federal government would become the “employer of last resort.”
Why not guarantee all Americans a job with a livable wage by Constitutional Amendment?
Such ideas are out-of-the-box big. America’s founding is a big idea
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
March 8 - 15, 2010
“Equality means dignity. And dignity demands a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week ”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom
1963
Let’s begin with the obvious in our nation’s joblessness crisis—there are more workers than jobs available. Conversely, there are fewer jobs than workers who need employment. That said, the question of our times is how to put Mr. and Mrs. Humpty Unemployed Dumpty back together again.
As the Obama Administration and Congress address the issue of historically-high unemployment in the United States of America I have an idea: Think big. Given America’s unemployment crisis looms large, so too should be the response by representatives of the government. Lessons learned—good and bad—from the Great Depression of 1930-41 are useful today.
President Franklin Roosevelt thought big when America needed it most. In his 1944 State of the Union Speech he said, “We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. ‘Necessitous men [and women] are not free men [and women].’ People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
In 1963, nineteen years later, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the issue of America’s unemployment in his famous speech of 1963. Contrary to the main-streamed media’s marketing of the speech’s title as “I Have a Dream”, Dr. King’s message that hot humid August day in Washington, DC was America had broken her promise to all of its people, particularly African Americans who then could not enjoy public accommodations, the right to vote, or the right to live where they chose. In short, Dr. King said that the people in whose honor the National Mall monuments and memorials symbolized promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. President Lincoln by way of the Emancipation Proclamation. President Jefferson via the United States Constitution. And Congress through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. All promised. All broken.
Months before his tragic assassination in 1968, Dr. King prophetically proclaimed in his platform for the Poor People’s March of 1968 that all Americans should have the right to a job and a livable wage. Dr. King did not live to see his dream of America’s broken promise in employment kept by full employment.
Today, the Obama Administration has such an opportunity.
I agree with L Randall Wray who offers in the book Understanding Modern Money the following commonsensical ideas for jobs for the jobless:
• Companions to the elderly, orphans, physically challenged, mental health patients
• Public school classroom assistants who tutor reading, writing, and math (also aides for school field trips and after-school programs)
• Child-care assistants, and Head Start assistants
• Safety monitors and facilitators assigned to public school playgrounds and transit hubs
• Neighborhood and road clean-up crews
• Home insulation assistants for low-income housing
• Environmental safety monitors testing lead paint levels, water quality, and beach contamination
• Improvement teams for national and state parks
• Artiists, musicians and performers for public schools
• Community and cultural historians
• Public assistants to monitor government regulations
• Prison and juvenile facility education assistants
Mr. Wray’s list makes so much sense, not to mention the need for massive public works jobs. As such, the federal government would become the “employer of last resort.”
Why not guarantee all Americans a job with a livable wage by Constitutional Amendment?
Such ideas are out-of-the-box big. America’s founding is a big idea
Monday, February 22, 2010
American Workers Owe the Labor Movement
American Workers Owe the Labor Movement
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
February 21 – 28, 2009
Americans today are indebted to the labor movement of the United States of America. The American labor movement has transformed work life for all people—whether union members or not. How much money workers make; how many hours are worked; under what conditions; and whether collective bargaining is a part of the process is directly attributable to the struggle for workers’ rights. In particular, if not for the American labor movement, there would be no 8-hour workday; no weekend; no protections against child labor, and no protections against unsafe working conditions.
Prior to the modern American labor movement in the United States workers—both Black and White—were exploited for their labor. Whether the enslavement of Africans or exploitation of European workers the nation’s economy has rested on the backs of working people.
There are several meaningful events that impacted the effectiveness of American workers against management. In 1676, an Englishman named Nathaniel Bacon was upset with Virginia Governor Berkeley who denied Bacon a commission. Bacon organized African and European servants in Surry, Virginia to protest the power of the Governor and it became known as Bacon’s Rebellion. The union of Black and White workers sped up the institution of racial slavery in America.
In 1677, the state of New York prosecuted striking workers for the first time within the colonies. In 1773, Boston dockworkers rebelled against unfair taxes imposed by the British government while throwing tea into the Boston Harbor. The event became known as the Boston Tea Party (a far cry from today’s right-wing Tea Party.) In 1786, printers in Philadelphia organized against low wages. Five years late in 1791 Philadelphia carpenters successfully organized against the 10-hour workday.
However, two events in labor history became precedent-setting legal cases that would shape labor relations today. On May 1, 1866, 340,000 workers (65,000 in Chicago) protested across the United States for an 8-hour workday. On May 3, police killed 4 protestors. And a day later, 3,000 workers gathered in Chicago’s Haymarket Square where a deadly riot issued. The result was a giant step towards the 8-hour workday for all Americans now enjoy as a law.
In 1873, independent meat butchers in New Orleans, LA regularly dumped their discarded meat into the rivers and bayous surrounding New Orleans. The state responded with sanitation statutes outlawing the dumping by using the newly constituted 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since its ratification in 1868, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect the due process of former African American slaves, had not been challenged by a direct claim. In the Slaughter-House cases not only were workers ruled against, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th fell into disuse until the 1950’s when challenged and upheld in the Brown v. Board case.
There has been little major legislation to benefit workers since the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Accordingly, workers in unions have decreased. In the 1950’s, 55% of American workers were in a private union. Today, the percentage of privately unionized workers is 7%, due to manufacturing jobs being exported to cheaper labor markets abroad. However, 39% of public workers belong to a union.
The legislative answer may be the Employee Free Choice Act. The proposed legislation would allow American workers to unionize by a majority of workers without a secret ballot election. The bill would force outside mediation if an agreement between workers and management were not reached in several months.
As the Obama Administration and Congress consider a Jobs Bill one major stumbling block for the economy and workers is the increase of temporary and transient jobs that are difficult to organize.
America’s economy was built on free and exploited labor. Congress must now pass the Employees Free Choice Act to protect the American labor tradition of organized workers.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
February 21 – 28, 2009
Americans today are indebted to the labor movement of the United States of America. The American labor movement has transformed work life for all people—whether union members or not. How much money workers make; how many hours are worked; under what conditions; and whether collective bargaining is a part of the process is directly attributable to the struggle for workers’ rights. In particular, if not for the American labor movement, there would be no 8-hour workday; no weekend; no protections against child labor, and no protections against unsafe working conditions.
Prior to the modern American labor movement in the United States workers—both Black and White—were exploited for their labor. Whether the enslavement of Africans or exploitation of European workers the nation’s economy has rested on the backs of working people.
There are several meaningful events that impacted the effectiveness of American workers against management. In 1676, an Englishman named Nathaniel Bacon was upset with Virginia Governor Berkeley who denied Bacon a commission. Bacon organized African and European servants in Surry, Virginia to protest the power of the Governor and it became known as Bacon’s Rebellion. The union of Black and White workers sped up the institution of racial slavery in America.
In 1677, the state of New York prosecuted striking workers for the first time within the colonies. In 1773, Boston dockworkers rebelled against unfair taxes imposed by the British government while throwing tea into the Boston Harbor. The event became known as the Boston Tea Party (a far cry from today’s right-wing Tea Party.) In 1786, printers in Philadelphia organized against low wages. Five years late in 1791 Philadelphia carpenters successfully organized against the 10-hour workday.
However, two events in labor history became precedent-setting legal cases that would shape labor relations today. On May 1, 1866, 340,000 workers (65,000 in Chicago) protested across the United States for an 8-hour workday. On May 3, police killed 4 protestors. And a day later, 3,000 workers gathered in Chicago’s Haymarket Square where a deadly riot issued. The result was a giant step towards the 8-hour workday for all Americans now enjoy as a law.
In 1873, independent meat butchers in New Orleans, LA regularly dumped their discarded meat into the rivers and bayous surrounding New Orleans. The state responded with sanitation statutes outlawing the dumping by using the newly constituted 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since its ratification in 1868, the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect the due process of former African American slaves, had not been challenged by a direct claim. In the Slaughter-House cases not only were workers ruled against, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th fell into disuse until the 1950’s when challenged and upheld in the Brown v. Board case.
There has been little major legislation to benefit workers since the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Accordingly, workers in unions have decreased. In the 1950’s, 55% of American workers were in a private union. Today, the percentage of privately unionized workers is 7%, due to manufacturing jobs being exported to cheaper labor markets abroad. However, 39% of public workers belong to a union.
The legislative answer may be the Employee Free Choice Act. The proposed legislation would allow American workers to unionize by a majority of workers without a secret ballot election. The bill would force outside mediation if an agreement between workers and management were not reached in several months.
As the Obama Administration and Congress consider a Jobs Bill one major stumbling block for the economy and workers is the increase of temporary and transient jobs that are difficult to organize.
America’s economy was built on free and exploited labor. Congress must now pass the Employees Free Choice Act to protect the American labor tradition of organized workers.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, February 15, 2010
Avatar and Tarzan
Most Americans over 45-years old remember the movie Tarzan, King of the Apes. For those younger, Tarzan, the movie, was set in the jungles of Africa and falsely depicted natives as primitive and backward. That is, until baby Tarzan is raised by the natives and taught their social mores and cultural rituals. As Tarzan grows older he become “one of the natives” and eventually “king of the natives.” Such a scenario was not far fetched for the racist-tinged times of the 1950’s and 1960’s.
However, evidence that the United States of America is not “post-racial” may well be found in the racially and ethnically stereotypical movie, Avatar released in 2110. While Avatar shifts the motion picture paradigm brilliantly with respect to special affects the essential story line is: Good hearted Anglo soldier signs up to infiltrate native culture and convince them to vacate their homeland in order to permit imperialist nation to mine natural resources for national use. Mid-way through mission soldier is conflicted and “joins” natives, only to become their leader against super power.
Tarzan and Avatar are lamentably linked together by the cross of religious disrespect and cultural condescension.
For example, the opening scene of Avatar features highly charged soldiers being briefed by blond-haired, blue-eyed thunderously-testosteroned military commander who in a barrage of bigoted bursts refers the to indigenous natives as “savages…who shoot arrows.”
Such a reference is eerily similar to references by then president Andrew Jackson of Native Americans during the American historical era known as “Jacksonian Democracy” or “Manifest Destiny.” During the 1840’s and 1850’s United States Calvary soldiers were essentially given approval to “remove” Native Americans in order to secure land and the minerals (gold) underneath. In fact, the life of the indigenous peoples of the American west were so devalued that the phrase “an Indian’s life was not worth ‘one red cent’”.
The value placed on greed and military might over sharing and moral right in Avatar is based on the predicate of cultural disrespect. Equally shameful to the military commander’s bigotry is the highly educated civilian director of operations who—as many “liberal-minded” analyst do today—decries that, in spite of the natives’ rich cultural, ecological, spiritual, and moral society, “…we give them education, money, and a new place to live.” In a religious context, the director of operations’ Christian references of “Jesus Christ” belittles the holistic religious practices of the native people. In one scene he says: “…my God, these ‘people’ are primitive and worship trees…” Sound familiar to today’s American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Sadly, far too many social commentators paternalistically view “gifts” of education and social programs to the denied and dispossessed as consideration for exploitative and imperialist actions.
Even the professorial character of Signori Weaver’s pursuit of scientific truths is negated by her acceptance of the might is right paradigm. She ignores the unrighteousness of the military mission only for her “scientific discoveries.”
In addition to the movie Tarzan, Avatar cuts and pastes from previous movies such as Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. In each, a nice White guy is anointed as king of the natives to save them. If we are to truly be the United States of America, popular culture in movies must reflect cross-cultural respect. Inclusion and a shared ethos must be the order of the day. Specifically, the Motion Picture Association should, not withstanding First Amendment rights, incentivize movie directors to at least base movies on the concept that, in the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “difference does not mean deficiency.”
African Americans and most people of color in the United States are undervalued for their intelligence, culture, and world view.
If not, American society is doomed to the same fate of the “sky people” in Avatar.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
However, evidence that the United States of America is not “post-racial” may well be found in the racially and ethnically stereotypical movie, Avatar released in 2110. While Avatar shifts the motion picture paradigm brilliantly with respect to special affects the essential story line is: Good hearted Anglo soldier signs up to infiltrate native culture and convince them to vacate their homeland in order to permit imperialist nation to mine natural resources for national use. Mid-way through mission soldier is conflicted and “joins” natives, only to become their leader against super power.
Tarzan and Avatar are lamentably linked together by the cross of religious disrespect and cultural condescension.
For example, the opening scene of Avatar features highly charged soldiers being briefed by blond-haired, blue-eyed thunderously-testosteroned military commander who in a barrage of bigoted bursts refers the to indigenous natives as “savages…who shoot arrows.”
Such a reference is eerily similar to references by then president Andrew Jackson of Native Americans during the American historical era known as “Jacksonian Democracy” or “Manifest Destiny.” During the 1840’s and 1850’s United States Calvary soldiers were essentially given approval to “remove” Native Americans in order to secure land and the minerals (gold) underneath. In fact, the life of the indigenous peoples of the American west were so devalued that the phrase “an Indian’s life was not worth ‘one red cent’”.
The value placed on greed and military might over sharing and moral right in Avatar is based on the predicate of cultural disrespect. Equally shameful to the military commander’s bigotry is the highly educated civilian director of operations who—as many “liberal-minded” analyst do today—decries that, in spite of the natives’ rich cultural, ecological, spiritual, and moral society, “…we give them education, money, and a new place to live.” In a religious context, the director of operations’ Christian references of “Jesus Christ” belittles the holistic religious practices of the native people. In one scene he says: “…my God, these ‘people’ are primitive and worship trees…” Sound familiar to today’s American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Sadly, far too many social commentators paternalistically view “gifts” of education and social programs to the denied and dispossessed as consideration for exploitative and imperialist actions.
Even the professorial character of Signori Weaver’s pursuit of scientific truths is negated by her acceptance of the might is right paradigm. She ignores the unrighteousness of the military mission only for her “scientific discoveries.”
In addition to the movie Tarzan, Avatar cuts and pastes from previous movies such as Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai. In each, a nice White guy is anointed as king of the natives to save them. If we are to truly be the United States of America, popular culture in movies must reflect cross-cultural respect. Inclusion and a shared ethos must be the order of the day. Specifically, the Motion Picture Association should, not withstanding First Amendment rights, incentivize movie directors to at least base movies on the concept that, in the words of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, “difference does not mean deficiency.”
African Americans and most people of color in the United States are undervalued for their intelligence, culture, and world view.
If not, American society is doomed to the same fate of the “sky people” in Avatar.
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, February 1, 2010
United State Senate Has False Fear of Filibuster
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 31-February 7, 2010
Last week, many of us watched with anxious anticipation the State of the Union Address by President Obama. The President opened with light-hearted recognition of recent Democratic political losses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, The Commonwealth of Virginia, and the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The policy significance of the United States Senate race in Massachusetts was that the perceived balance of power in the Upper Chamber of Congress was in jeopardy. Why?
Unlike the United States House of Representatives which functions on a simple majority vote of the 435 members, the U.S. Senate operates on a completely different—and un-democratic—set of rules. For example, in the House bills are introduced and voted on by committees. If a bill is voted out of committee to the House floor, all members vote it upon with a simple majority vote. However, the down side of democracy in the House is that the majority party (Speaker of the House) can shut down how much of a role the minority party may play. Not the case is the Senate.
In fact, one Senator can halt the course of a particular bill under current rules. In addition, there are no time limits on how long a Senator can speak on an issue, which opens the door for an even larger issue.
Paradoxically, the most democratic and un-democratic practice of the U.S. Senate is the use of a filibuster. What is filibuster? How is the filibuster used? Should the use of the filibuster be prohibited? A review of American Government 101 is useful to discover answers.
A filibuster is a procedural tool used by legislators to slow down the passage of legislation or the confirmation of a nominee to a high position. Under a filibuster, a Senator may speak indefinitely until the other political party withdraws the bill or person nominated.
In its most negative sense, the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s saw racist southern—and northern—Senators filibuster civil rights legislation aimed at securing the right to vote and the use of public accommodations by people of color. In most cases, a legislator would read long books or even the comic section of papers until the other side relented. Blah, blah, blah was the order of the day.
The most positive use of the filibuster has come in slowing down Bush Administration judicial nominees with sorted records on racial issues.
In order to diminish the impact of the filibuster in the U. S. Senate a “super majority” rule was adopted to require 60 (of 100) votes to block a filibuster. Problem is: in order to countervail the un-democratic nature of frivolous filibuster the Senate engages in “fuzzy math” that erroneously permits politicians to think that 41 votes (thus, 59 votes on the other side) constitutes a majority. Not true.
I would like to see the majority party “call the hand” of the minority party when the filibuster is threatened. In other words, if the Republican Party currently wishes to filibuster health care reform by talking incessantly on the Senate floor, then let them do so. The American people would not look kindly on politicians puffing hot air while people die while being denied access and affordability to health care. Senators predicate such a wish on more spines.
My message to the United States Senate: Fear not the filibuster. Call the opposition’s bluff and let the voters decide what issues and Senators to support.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 31-February 7, 2010
Last week, many of us watched with anxious anticipation the State of the Union Address by President Obama. The President opened with light-hearted recognition of recent Democratic political losses in Massachusetts, New Jersey, The Commonwealth of Virginia, and the The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The policy significance of the United States Senate race in Massachusetts was that the perceived balance of power in the Upper Chamber of Congress was in jeopardy. Why?
Unlike the United States House of Representatives which functions on a simple majority vote of the 435 members, the U.S. Senate operates on a completely different—and un-democratic—set of rules. For example, in the House bills are introduced and voted on by committees. If a bill is voted out of committee to the House floor, all members vote it upon with a simple majority vote. However, the down side of democracy in the House is that the majority party (Speaker of the House) can shut down how much of a role the minority party may play. Not the case is the Senate.
In fact, one Senator can halt the course of a particular bill under current rules. In addition, there are no time limits on how long a Senator can speak on an issue, which opens the door for an even larger issue.
Paradoxically, the most democratic and un-democratic practice of the U.S. Senate is the use of a filibuster. What is filibuster? How is the filibuster used? Should the use of the filibuster be prohibited? A review of American Government 101 is useful to discover answers.
A filibuster is a procedural tool used by legislators to slow down the passage of legislation or the confirmation of a nominee to a high position. Under a filibuster, a Senator may speak indefinitely until the other political party withdraws the bill or person nominated.
In its most negative sense, the 1940’s, 1950’s, and 1960’s saw racist southern—and northern—Senators filibuster civil rights legislation aimed at securing the right to vote and the use of public accommodations by people of color. In most cases, a legislator would read long books or even the comic section of papers until the other side relented. Blah, blah, blah was the order of the day.
The most positive use of the filibuster has come in slowing down Bush Administration judicial nominees with sorted records on racial issues.
In order to diminish the impact of the filibuster in the U. S. Senate a “super majority” rule was adopted to require 60 (of 100) votes to block a filibuster. Problem is: in order to countervail the un-democratic nature of frivolous filibuster the Senate engages in “fuzzy math” that erroneously permits politicians to think that 41 votes (thus, 59 votes on the other side) constitutes a majority. Not true.
I would like to see the majority party “call the hand” of the minority party when the filibuster is threatened. In other words, if the Republican Party currently wishes to filibuster health care reform by talking incessantly on the Senate floor, then let them do so. The American people would not look kindly on politicians puffing hot air while people die while being denied access and affordability to health care. Senators predicate such a wish on more spines.
My message to the United States Senate: Fear not the filibuster. Call the opposition’s bluff and let the voters decide what issues and Senators to support.
In linking leadership,
Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
633 Pennsylvania Ave
5th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
Office: 202.689.1965
Fax: 202.689.1954
Cell: 773.230.3554
Monday, January 11, 2010
Pull Together or Parish
Pull Together or Perish
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 11-19, 2010
We rightfully honor this week the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on what would be his 80th birthday. Much of what Dr. Martin Luther King espoused is now being denounced by the words and actions of so-called, “good Americans.” Dr. King called for a radical restructuring of American values to eliminate all “isms”—racism, sexism, militarism, and imperialism.
There is no better guide than history in understanding Dr. King and his influence on American society is the 21st Century. As I passed the historic memorials of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson en route to my Washington, DC office ground crews were beginning the excavation process for Dr. King’s memorial—the first dedicated by the United States government to an African American. Historic irony places Dr. King’s Memorial between that of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
As we should remember, President Lincoln was a “Radical” who campaigned for, and signed legislation to abolish slavery in the United States via the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (and after death influenced the passage of the 1865 13th Amendment which abolished slavery for the entire nation). For a White politician to advocate for slavery’s end—regardless of his actual motives—was quite courageous and worthy of global respect and honor. Lincoln warned of the perils of an American “house divided.”
The 16th President was assassinated immediately following the end of the American Civil War. In 1877, as economic hardships humbled the rebellious south, the Ku Klux Klan was formed by ex-Confederate officers and soldiers in Pulaski, Tennessee. But his legacy endures.
On the other hand, President Jefferson was a “moderate/liberal” and wrote with egalitarian eloquence, but his record of governance was wrought with racial restrictions of humanity and citizenship (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). He hypocritically espoused that “…all men are created equal…” while enslaving African Americans. Upon learning of the Haitian Revolution in which Toussaint L’Overture defeated the armies of France, England, and the American Colonies for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness Jefferson feared that Africans enslaved in America would also revolt. The result is over 200 years of forced poverty in Haiti by the United States, France, and England. America’s promise of equality was limited under Jeffersonian Democracy. While Jefferson expanded the nations borders by the Louisiana Purchase (a direct result from the Haitian Revolution) he did not expand the ideals of racial tolerance and inclusion.
Dr. King, however, in his 1963 seminal speech at the Lincoln Memorial challenged the American people to live up to its promise of equal opportunity for all. He stood before the likeness of Lincoln and quoted Jefferson to make this nation a more perfect union. Moreover, his passion for progressive public policy is still felt today by way of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which granted ALL Americans equal opportunity.
The point is that If America is to truly honor Dr. King we should affix our national eyes to the policy prize by enacting legislation that comports with Dr. King’s five requirements for American democracy:
1. A job for every American
2. An income for every American
3. Health care for every American
4. Housing for every American
5. Quality education for every American
In light of the racially-charged rhetoric of “moderates” such as Senate leader Harry Reid (“…president Obama was electable partly due to not have a ‘Negro’ dialect…”) and former President Clinton (referring to then candidate Obama “…5 years ago this guy would have been serving us coffee…”) in which they both articulated—wittingly or otherwise—words of White supremacists, the greater point is whether either supports legislation in keeping with King’s policy positions. By their record the answer is no.
Frederick Douglas was profound when he said 150 years ago:
There is no Negro Problem. The question is whether the American people have the honor, loyalty, and patriotism to live out their Constitution.
For America to live out its Constitution monumental legislation must be strengthened and enacted. Courageous people of all colors (particularly White) must challenge “Tea Baggers” as well as “moderates” who do not supports the rights of all Americans, and not just the White and wealthy. Not to do so is un-American and unworthy of Dr. King’s legacy. Dr. King challenged us all to pull together as brothers (and sisters) or perish as fools.
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
January 11-19, 2010
We rightfully honor this week the life and legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on what would be his 80th birthday. Much of what Dr. Martin Luther King espoused is now being denounced by the words and actions of so-called, “good Americans.” Dr. King called for a radical restructuring of American values to eliminate all “isms”—racism, sexism, militarism, and imperialism.
There is no better guide than history in understanding Dr. King and his influence on American society is the 21st Century. As I passed the historic memorials of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson en route to my Washington, DC office ground crews were beginning the excavation process for Dr. King’s memorial—the first dedicated by the United States government to an African American. Historic irony places Dr. King’s Memorial between that of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
As we should remember, President Lincoln was a “Radical” who campaigned for, and signed legislation to abolish slavery in the United States via the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 (and after death influenced the passage of the 1865 13th Amendment which abolished slavery for the entire nation). For a White politician to advocate for slavery’s end—regardless of his actual motives—was quite courageous and worthy of global respect and honor. Lincoln warned of the perils of an American “house divided.”
The 16th President was assassinated immediately following the end of the American Civil War. In 1877, as economic hardships humbled the rebellious south, the Ku Klux Klan was formed by ex-Confederate officers and soldiers in Pulaski, Tennessee. But his legacy endures.
On the other hand, President Jefferson was a “moderate/liberal” and wrote with egalitarian eloquence, but his record of governance was wrought with racial restrictions of humanity and citizenship (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). He hypocritically espoused that “…all men are created equal…” while enslaving African Americans. Upon learning of the Haitian Revolution in which Toussaint L’Overture defeated the armies of France, England, and the American Colonies for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness Jefferson feared that Africans enslaved in America would also revolt. The result is over 200 years of forced poverty in Haiti by the United States, France, and England. America’s promise of equality was limited under Jeffersonian Democracy. While Jefferson expanded the nations borders by the Louisiana Purchase (a direct result from the Haitian Revolution) he did not expand the ideals of racial tolerance and inclusion.
Dr. King, however, in his 1963 seminal speech at the Lincoln Memorial challenged the American people to live up to its promise of equal opportunity for all. He stood before the likeness of Lincoln and quoted Jefferson to make this nation a more perfect union. Moreover, his passion for progressive public policy is still felt today by way of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; the 1965 Voting Rights Act; and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which granted ALL Americans equal opportunity.
The point is that If America is to truly honor Dr. King we should affix our national eyes to the policy prize by enacting legislation that comports with Dr. King’s five requirements for American democracy:
1. A job for every American
2. An income for every American
3. Health care for every American
4. Housing for every American
5. Quality education for every American
In light of the racially-charged rhetoric of “moderates” such as Senate leader Harry Reid (“…president Obama was electable partly due to not have a ‘Negro’ dialect…”) and former President Clinton (referring to then candidate Obama “…5 years ago this guy would have been serving us coffee…”) in which they both articulated—wittingly or otherwise—words of White supremacists, the greater point is whether either supports legislation in keeping with King’s policy positions. By their record the answer is no.
Frederick Douglas was profound when he said 150 years ago:
There is no Negro Problem. The question is whether the American people have the honor, loyalty, and patriotism to live out their Constitution.
For America to live out its Constitution monumental legislation must be strengthened and enacted. Courageous people of all colors (particularly White) must challenge “Tea Baggers” as well as “moderates” who do not supports the rights of all Americans, and not just the White and wealthy. Not to do so is un-American and unworthy of Dr. King’s legacy. Dr. King challenged us all to pull together as brothers (and sisters) or perish as fools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
