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
Monday, July 26, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
