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

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

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.

Devastating, Yet Distinguished Decade

Devastating, Yet Distinguished Decade
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
December 20-27, 2009


As we approach the end of the first ten years of the 21stcentury it is useful to remember the legal lows and the historic highs of the past decade for the policy interest of Black people in America. My father’s advice to me is still applicable: “ do not to forget your ‘Egypt’". What my father meant was that no matter how high you ascend, do not lose memory of from whence you came. His lesson to me is timely for African Americans today.

In 2000, the presidential election saw the winner lose, and the loser win. Despite Vice President Al Gore receiving more popular votes than the incumbent, George Bush, the United States Supreme Court ruled on December 12, 2000 that there is “no individually protected right to vote in the United States Constitution, and therefore, Florida state officials (Katherine Harris) had full authority to determine the presidential outcome. Katherine Harris just happened to be a campaign worker for George W. Bush and was appointed to the position of Florida Secretary of State by the candidate’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush. More importantly, American states were affirmed by the highest court in the nation for their control of federal elections. The ruling was devastating to electoral politics.

If the stolen election of 2000 was bad enough, the same electoral crime occurred in 2004, only this time with crime tape around the precincts in the state of Ohio. Where the Florida crime was an African American Secretary of State for Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell, cleverly pulled off an historic heist at high noon. Ohio’s offense was utilizing rigged voting machines and limiting voting machines in African American precincts. Both the Florida and Ohio stolen elections should remind Black people that when the “referees” of a contest—whether in politics or on the playing field—wear one of the team colors objectivity is at least compromised, if not lost all together.

A somewhat bright year of the decade occurred in 2006 when the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were renewed by Congress for 25 years and signed into law by the White House. The Rosa Parks, Corretta Scott King, and Fannie Lou Hamer voting rights legislation meant a lot to African Americans due to its history. After all, Black people in the United States received their state right to vote in 1870. However, 95 years passed until the state right to vote was made constitutional by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, allowing all citizens—regardless of color—to exercise their right to vote. The renewal of federal voting rights protections marked a high point for Black people in the Bush Administration, although massive demonstrations by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition and the NAACP were needed to apply the national pressure for the Bush White House.

As Black people were losing lives in unjust and illegal foreign wars; losing jobs and homes in America; and losing faith in America Barack Hussein Obama appeared out of the political fog to become the first African American president of the United States of America. With his election, the tune of James Weldon Johnson’s, Lift Every Voice and Sing; a McFadden and Whitehead’s Ain’t No Stopping Us Now became the harmonic score for historic election. Celebratory pride lifted Black people to where we belonged—the main stream of American politics.

Yet, one year and after a legion of legislative initiatives by the Obama Administration, Black people are beginning to move from celebration to mobilization around the pain of undelivered political promises.

Most recently, apparent failed promise of a public option (or competition for private health insurance policies) in health care reform should remind African Americans that if politicians do no respect our legislative concerns, they should not expect us on their next election day.

While Black people began the year with electoral elation we must move to awareness of accountability of people we elect. Democracy percolates upward; and does not trickle downward.

In 2010, let’s begin to exercise our civic strength at the local, state, nation, and international level.

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

Congress Should Check Convenience Stores
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 23-29, 2009

As we prepare for Thanksgiving, and to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenience stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should check convenience stores into compliance with reasonable costs and healthy contents.



In linking leadership,

Junk Food Stores are Jacked Up

Junk Food Stores are Jacked Up
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 15-22, 2009

“The poor pay more for less, while living under stress, and die early”
Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

As we prepare to advocate for universal health care in the United States Senate one issue that impacts people’s health is the quality of food available to them. Wealthy people tend to have better health in part due to their diet of quality foods. Conversely, poor peoples’ poor health is usually predicated on their choices in food.
One reality for poor people of all pigments is that they have less choices of good food in their neighborhoods. Unlike well-to-do neighborhoods with gourmet grocers and organic options, poor people must, in many cases, use convenient stores to purchase produce and meats. For most poor people of color high quality meats and produce is virtually non-existent. The results are predictable.
The consumption of healthy foods—particularly fresh produce—is a key element to disease prevention. Likewise, eating bad food has bad health results. It does not take a “rocket scientist” to figure out the connection between diet and disease. The phrase, “you are what you eat”, plays out every day in poor neighborhoods. Predictably, diabetes, high-blood pressure, and obesity plague poor neighborhoods, disproportionately African American.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Black women are 70% more likely to be obese than White women; African Americans are 30% more likely to have Diabetes than Whites; and Black men are 30% more likely than their White counterparts of acquire heart disease. Many of these maladies arise from poor diets. Poor diets arise from junk food. Convenience stores jack up Black diets by selling junk food.
Convenience stores are central culprits in not only offering low-quality food products but also by jacking up their prices. On average, poor people pay a territory tax on food because of the perception of crime in low-income areas (of course low-income neighborhoods have more crime due to the lack of lack of jobs and capital, but I will save the subject for another column). Research reveals that poor people pay as much as 20% more than the national average for food. Some experts assert that such jacked up prices amount to $1200 more for the poor.
National chain grocery stores avoid poor neighborhoods as if poor people do not deserve high-quality food. Ten years ago I remember working on a “New Markets Initiative” project in 1999 with the Rainbow PUSH Coalition to locate a Pathmark Grocery Store in Harlem, New York. At that time, no national grocery chain store existed in Harlem. The reasons given were the perception of crime and the high cost of building. Our point was that such a store location would allow the national chain to do well by the residents of Harlem and do well by the business bottom line. Years later, the highest grossing Pathmark store in the nation was the one located in Harlem. So successful was the store that a second Pathmark was sited there.
Black communities have half as much access to chain supermarkets than White neighborhoods. Latinos have 30% less access to chain stores than Whites. With the absence of national chain stores allows for small convenience stores predominate poor communities.
Congress should enact legislation to end racial redlining in retail food stores by regulating convenience stores that sell junk food. For example, regulating junk food in the same manner that was done for tobacco and alcohol would go along way in reducing disease diets in Black communities. Why not require junk food producers in convenience stores to print warning labels reading, “EATING THIS PRODUCT COULD LEAD TO DIABETES, HIGH-BLOOD PRESSURE OR OBESITY”?
Congress should jack up convenience stores and junk food peddlers.

From Celebration to Mobilization
By Gary L. Flowers
Executive Director & CEO
Black Leadership Forum, Inc.
November 8-15, 2009

One year ago, the Americans joined the world community in celebrating the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. After years of preference to the greedy over policies for the needy we all embraced a new Administration, committed to pitching a wider tent under which all Americans could fit.

The highest policy priority of President Obama’s Administration has been health care reform. Throughout the summer of 2008 Congressional Committees in the United States Senate and House of Representatives worked on crafting legislative bills that could be enacted into law. As legislators worked, so did the leaders of the Black Leadership Forum, Inc.

This week, the United States House of Representatives voted to pass a health care reform bill, notwithstanding an amendment to restrict the provision of abortions in health policies.

Prior to the vote, the 51 Member Organizations of the Black Leadership Forum moved from celebration to mobilization.

Led by the National Urban League, National NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, National Conference of Black Mayors, National Council of Negro Women, National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, National Action Network, and the National Dental Association, the Black Leadership Forum moved from reactive to proactive.

A “civil rights war room” was established in Washington, DC to mobilize chapters and affiliates of the Black Leadership Forum to contact their Congressional members and demand progressive health care reform. One key element needed in the final legislation is an option to private health care providers—a government-run public option.

A strong public option is critical in countervailing the negative impact of private health insurers’ ability to make health care un-accessible and un-affordable. Currently, the health care industry is exempt from anti-trust laws. In other words, health providers can set fees “willy-nilly”, without violating laws. In many states, there are one or two health providers from which the public can choose. Such is not a choice at all. I submit that health care bullies violate moral laws by profiting on the backs of working people.

Health care in the United States of America should be a right and not a privilege. Congressman John Lewis, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives said it best: “We have a mission, a mandate, and a moral obligation to lead this nation into a new era, where health care is a right and not a privilege.”
Accordingly, the war room provided talking points and a toll-free telephone number connecting callers to their respective members of Congress. Member Organizations designated people to staff the war room for 10 critical days prior to the vote in the House of Representatives. In the best tradition of unity, Member Organizations left their individual “logos at the door” and worked in tandem to push for a strong public option in the legislation.

In the end, we proved that, contrary to naysayers; national Black organizations can (and do) work together to produce policies for the public good. Moreover, the Black Leadership Forum sent a message to our adversaries that we are proactive as leaders on legislation for the people.

In the words of the music-recording artist known as the O’Jays: “…got to give the people, give the people what they want.” The American people (over 65% according to CNN) want and need health care reform. In particular, the nation needs healthcare that is accessible and affordable. Now!