diversifiedminds

Herman Cain: Why His Candidacy is an Insult to Black America

2011-11-04T01:30:00.006-04:00

Allow me to share a secret that is often said in black and brown communities. Parents often tell their children that in order to be successful and rise up in America, they must aspire to be better than white people. And when I say better I mean better in every way. Better in intellectual ability, better in style of dress, better in mannerisms, simply better. This edict is told across socioeconomic lines, from the barrios of Los Angeles, to the projects in the Bronx, to the shacks in Alabama. It is a clarion call for black and brown people to strive harder and push themselves further than their white counterparts. Then and only then, it is believed will they ever be able to be on equal footing. This being the case, Herman Cain is an insult to every black and brown parent who has told their children to be better.

During President Obama's rise to the presidency there was a feeling amongst many people, regardless of race, that there was something intrinsically good about his candidacy. Here was a man who had superior intellect, amazing rhetorical genius, a pedigree that allowed him to be one with the brothers in the hood, while at the same time comfortable in a room full of the smartest and most successful minds in the world. Here was a man who clearly listened to his mother and family, who I am sure instilled in him the edict of being better than those around him, regardless of race.

When I look and hear Herman Cain speak I ask myself, where has this country come in the past three years. While I admittedly know very little about Cain's academic pedigree, there is nothing in his presentation that says to me that he is worthy of the highest office in the land. Some of his statements would be laughable if not for the fact that he sincerely believes what he is saying. Not to know the President of Uzbekistan is one thing, but to refer to the country as "Ooze becky becky becky stan stan" is not only disrespectful to that country, but also disrespectful to the office of the Presidency. To not know that China has had nuclear weapons since the 1960's and make the statement that they are now beginning to aquire the means to make said weapons shows a wanton disregard for basic world history. It is as if he revels in his stupidity and lack of knowledge and clear unpreparedness to be on the world stage.

Why does he continue to rise in the polls? I sincerely believe that the Republican party, comprised predominantly by white people have some deep issues that they need answered. Some people say that Cain's rise is a "flavor of the month" move by the GOP who aren't enthralled with any candidate on the ballot. Let's not be so superficial. I believe that the rise of Cain speaks to two angles of the Republican party. There is a clear anti-intellectual movement amongst the base, indicative by the rise of Sarah Palin and now Cain. I believe that there is also a huge racial component when it comes to Cain. Republicans have for too long wanted to court a viable black candidate. By courting a viable black candidate they could then begin to sing the song of inclusion, even though the main musician would be but one face in an overwhelmingly white crowd. Cain plays well to both of those visions.

What Repblicans need to begin to realize is that Cain's candidacy inevitably hurts race relations in the United States. To many people, regardless of racial background, his candidacy is a mockery and a display of minstrelsy in the highest order. Among black circles Cain is referred to as "Uncle Ruckus" the character from Boondocks, not only because he has a striking resemblance to him, but because like the character from the cartoon series, Cain's views are at best comical and at worst are antithetical to the success of people who have long been disenfranchised in this country. Watching his rise (one that continues even though he has been accused of sexual harrassment) tells black and brown people that what our parents told us growing up isn't true. If you flip flop on the truth and show no real gravitas or intellectual capacity to debate and voice your thoughts then maybe some good old conservative person will support you. If you show that you can appeal to the senses of a conservative party that has alienated racial minorities for the past thirty years, then they will say that racism is a thing of the past, essentially ignoring how their own policies have continued to institutionalize it.

I had a visceral reaction to watching Cain sing at the National Press Club in Washington DC this week. At first I wasn't sure what it was that made me bristle and literally get nauseus. It then dawned on me. Watching Cain sing harkens back to the days when blacks, men in particular, had to literally perform for their survival. Minstrel shows were prevalent in the early 1900's and were often the only way that black actors could make a living to support themselves. Replace the venue, time and occassion and I ask you what is the difference between a minstrel show and Cain's candidacy. I guess the curse of Cain is inevitably a curse on all of us.

Homicide Rates Jump for Blacks in NYC: What does that mean?

2011-03-09T18:25:00.002-05:00

In today's edition of the New York Daily News it was revealed that for the 2010 year the homicide rate for black people jumped 31% while the homicide rate for whites dropped 27%. There is a lot in this data that is shocking on its head. One of the main things that shocked me is the fact that 25% of NYC's population is Black while 67% of the victims wee black. Even more shocking was that black males between the ages of 15-29 make up 3% of the city's population but a whopping 1/3 of all homicide victims. Having this data is sobering and informative but the larger questions we need to answer are why is this data so and what do we do with it?

It is clear by this data that black people killing black people is an epidemic. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control labeled gun violence and deaths amongst each other as a national epidemic, not unlike cancer and AIDS is sobering. I believe that the economic downturn that occurred over the past few years has acutely affected the black community, especially among black men. Black men, especially those in the 15-29 demographic face considerable economic and educational hardships that white people as a general group do not face in the same ways.

One of the large issues that exist as well is the lack of gun control laws in NYC. It is literally easier to procure a gun in NYC than it is to find a job. High powered weapons, extended magazine clips and weapons that do more damage at a quicker rate are all over the place. I believe that as long as purchasing gnus remains a deregulated industry then the rates of murder, especially amongst black people will continue to be high.

I am willing to believe that the murder rates from 2010 should serve as a sober reminder of just how much of a crisis black on black violence is, especially amongst the younger segment of our population. In certain African countries, generations of younger people are being wiped out by the AIDS epidemic. In America, it is safe to say, that a generation of young black men are being wiped out by gun violence. Where do we go from here? Who knows?

Vybz Kartel and the Deeper Impact of Skin Bleaching

2011-02-09T00:53:00.004-05:00

Now I am sure that all of you who follow dancehall music have been paying attention to the recent controversy surrounding dancehall artist Vybz Kartel and the images of what appear to be lighter skin that have circulated in the media. There is so much that can be said about these images but what I want to focus on is the larger message that is being said by Mr. Kartel's actions.

Now let's be clear. The idea of bleaching one's skin is not new to the black community. Since slaves came to the new world there was a systematic way that blacks were brainwashed to believe that white skin is better. Whether it was the story of Ham that were told to blacks to justify the institution of slavery in a religious context, to the clear favoritism that was shown to lighter skinned slaves, often referred to as house slaves, much of that impact filtered down through generations of black existence in this world. It's of utmost importance to remember that the reason slaves had different skin tones was primarily due to slave masters and slave wives sleeping with and raping slaves.

The creation of skin lighting chemicals came about during the early 1900's. Over the course of the century these chemicals became more and more popular. Towards the latter part of the century bleach creams became very popular in Africa and in the Caribbean. I myself was surprised to see how pervasive these chemicals were on my travels to Kenya in 2000. Not only were they popular but they were marketed on African television much like hair care products and perms are marketed toward women of color in the United States (there is a clear similarity that is not lost on me here).

I believe that the impact of slavery but more importantly western ideals of beauty sifts through peoples psyches and souls like osmosis. It is so strong that often times we don't even see it. There is something deeply concerning when a man or woman who has been blessed with whatever skin God gave him decides that he wants to be lighter and more white. It happens too often. But even sadder is the fact that younger people look up to more famous people who do this and thinks its ok. I can only hope that the discussion that is being had surrounding Vybz creates a larger discussion around beauty and what it truly means.

The Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell: What it Means for Diversity

2010-12-23T17:37:00.002-05:00

I know its been a while since I have written. Sometimes life comes in the way but I am back and in full effect. There has been so much to write about but I feel this is the perfect time to come back on the scene.

Yesterday President Obama signed legislation banning the military policy historically known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I could not be more happy for this development, not only for those in the LGBT community but for this country as a whole. I was a child when President Bill Clinton passed this legislation. As a young kid I didn't know what it really meant at the time. As I got older and began to make my own opinions about things in life, this was one of the most blatantly hyprocritical pieces of legislation that America had on its books. There is something very wrong with a country that is supposed to be founded on the premise of men and women being created equal having a law on its books that didn't allow for members of its armed services to participate fully and equally in the ranks of its military. To ask a man or a woman to potentially die for a country and a principle that didn't fully recognize their humanity is incredibly hard to fathom. What made this policy even worse was that we often ask our servicemen and women to go into battle in countries that already view America as a negative country. How could this be.

In the battle for full and equal human rights in the United States of America, the repealing of DADT will be looked at as just as significant as the passing of major Civil Rights legislation during the 1960's. Often times people try not to equate Civil Rights in the 1960's with modern day movements, but there is no doubt that they are all related. Even listening to our President yesterday, I could not help but feel that we were on the right side of history much in the way that many who were alive during the Civil Rights Laws being passed felt that they were on the right side of history. I believe that we as Americans can all feel that the goal of equality and the creation of a more equal union while still a way off, is closer to reality.

Glenn Beck and his Disingenuous Rally

2010-08-28T18:39:00.003-04:00

Let me be clear from the onset. I do not believe that the Tea Party is intrinsically racist. Nor do I believe that Glenn Beck is intrinsically racist. But I do believe that there are elements of the Tea Party and elements of things Glenn Beck has said in the past that could lead one down the path to assume that both are racist.

With that said I have a problem with Glenn Beck's rally in Washington DC today. I fully support his right to have a rally and march, much in the same way that I would support any organization wanting to do the same. I have supported the Nation of Islam's Million Man March and have even supported the rights of KKK members to hold rallies as well. But what concerns me the most is the clear co-opting and usage of Martin Luther King Jr. as a central image in Glen Beck's rally today. The reason I feel that the use of King is in poor taste is because much of what the rally claims to be simply is a perversion of everything King stood for.

Glenn Beck stated that it was merely coincidental that his march fell on the anniversary of King's famous I Have A Dream Speech. He then took this point further by saying that since it was a coincidence that maybe it was divine powers that aligned the event and the symbolic day together. Are you serious? Glenn Beck claims to be a historian and to his credit is very well versed in dates and history. There is no way that one can believe that he was unaware of the significance of August 28. Furthermore do not forget that August 28 holds significance to the current president as well since August 28,2008 on the 45th anniversary of MLK's speech he officially became the Democratic nominee for President and delivered his acceptance speech to a crowd of close to 100,000 in Denver. I am 100% positive that Beck knew of this. Denying that he was unaware of any of this history seems short-sighted at best and down right lying at most.

My bigger problem with the rally is that it perverts what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for. MLK never would have supported the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan as is proven by his increasingly outspoken views on Vietnam before he died. While he probably would have supported the troops and wanted to see them come home, his view on war in general would have been much less enthusiastic than Beck and his supporters want to portray. Furthermore much of what King believed in was creating a diverse America whereby people of all races could live in an equal society. There has been nothing in Glen Beck's past that seeks to unify people of different ethnicities. Remember this is the same man that stated on television that he believes that President Barack Obama, who is himself half-white, has racist views toward white people. King himself must have rolled over in his grave upon hearing not only this blasphemy, but the blasphemy that today's rally claimed to represent.

I spent some time looking at footage from today's rally and the March on Washington in 1963. Above anything what seemed to stand out was how different the crowds looked. Today barely a person of color could be seen amongst the crowd. In 1963 while the vast majority of the crowd was black there was a sizable white population as well. This to me clearly shows that Beck is not fooling anyone when he claims that he as well as the Tea Party are not racist. While the movement itself may not be, the elements that are in it definitely are. If that wasn't the case then people of all colors in sizable numbers would stand out publicly and privately in support of it. Frankly that has not been the case.

I have no issue with Beck holding his rally. But all it seems to show is his disgustingly tacky, potentially racist, and perverted way of looking at not only this country's present and past but ultimately the future of what he wants America to look like. If only Martin Luther King Jr. was still alive to see what was going on....

My personal apology to Shirley Sherrod: A Teachable Moment

2010-07-22T11:51:00.007-04:00

I would like to apologize to Shirley Sherrod. Not on behalf of this country that is so obsessed with race that we don't take the moment to look at the larger context of what a person says. Instead once we hear slightly offensive commentary we take it at face value and not look at the entirety of a person's statement or being. I don't apologize for an Obama administration that is so race sensitive that they were willing to fire a woman who did nothing wrong except for showing the true nature of humanity by learning from her past experiences and letting it shape her future. I don't apologize for the conservative media that has tried since the beginning of this presidency to use race as a prevailing factor in attempting to undermine not only the Obama agenda but Obama himself by using Jeremiah Wright, Henry Louis Gates, the New Black Panther Party, The Tea Party and now Shirley Sherrod to appeal to the inner racial stereotypes that we all tackle and fight each day. I apologize for none of these groups or people. I apologize for myself. As a person who has seen the effects of people jumping the gun and taking words and actions out of context, I should have been more keen on catching this when it occurred on Monday. Unfortunately I was not. I supported Ms. Sherrod's initial resignation much like Ben Jealous of the NAACP and many other groups, both for the advancements of all races, and those against. And for that simple moment of lapsed awareness on my part I am sorry.

I can only hope that at the end of this ordeal we as a country can learn how deeply ingrained race and racism is in our hearts, minds and actions. Even those of us who fight day in and day out to transcend the negative implications of its effect on us often times lose the battle. I believe that what Ms. Sherrod said was one of the most honest depictions of what racism can do to people at certain points in their lives. I for one have had moments where I have done and said things that was not indicative of my true feelings of and for other groups and people, but were said in anger of what I and people like myself have experienced for hundreds of years. Does that make these actions correct? Absolutely not. But have I learned from them and with time been more accepting, caring and careful of how I look at situations? Absolutely. At the end of the day I dare anyone of any race, political agenda, sexual orientation, socio-economic background, or any other demographic to tell me that they have not had similar moments. I will stand before them with complete conviction and call them liars. Because it is human nature, on a subconscious, or conscious level to have these emotions at times. It is what we do with these moments that ultimately judges our individual and collective character.

Ms. Sherrod comes from a family with a painful and historic journey. Her father was murdered by the KKK when she was young. Her husband was a founder of SNCC, one of the most important groups during the Civil Rights Movement. Ms. Sherrod herself helped obtain money for black farmers who were oppressed by the same department that she works for. Yet with all of these trying times in her life where she could simply exist in a cloud of hate for people that do not look like her, she was able to transcend that. We can all learn a valuable lesson from her, her speech to the NAACP and her subsequent actions since this issue broke last week.

Let this be a lesson to us all. Let us learn to continue to work on our own issues, with the hopes of being able to transcend the painful past of our history, while not forgetting it, but embracing what it means today. Most importantly let us learn that looking at the complete picture of things serves us all well in the end. Thank you Shirley Sherrod for all you have done and will continue to do in the advancements of all people. And for those who do not see it this way may the goodness in all humanity, find in you the good graces that you can not find in it.

Jesse Jackson and The Merits of the Slave-Owner Sports Analogy

2010-07-12T10:26:00.002-04:00

Jesse Jackson sure has hit a nerve with his most recent press release about the open letter that Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert released criticizing Lebron James. On the surface Jesse Jackson may seem to be a bit far-flung in saying that Gilbert is acting as if Lebron James is a runaway slave and he is a slave master. But digging deeper reveals a level of uneasiness with the way the situation has been handled that has even left me wondering about a lot of things.

I have always believed that modern day sports has clear similarities to slavery. While athletes, more often than not black and brown ones, make exorbitant amounts of money, their livelihoods are often inextricably tied to the whim and fancy of owners, almost all white, who are making considerably more money. If athletes fall out of favor with ownership they are often shipped out without any consideration of how that may impact their lives. I see no difference in this sort of ownership and what occurred during slavery when slave owners would own the rights to their slaves and sell and barter them as they seemed fit. Please realize that the slave owner dynamic is not something that only exists in sports or can only happen with people of color. In almost any profession where you are beholden to an owner of a company this dynamic can occur.

Please lets not forget that the value of the Cleveland Cavaliers jumped by almost $200M since Lebron was drafted by them seven years ago. In more general terms looking at the racial makeup of athletes in any professional sport aside from hockey, the percentage of people of color playing on the field is extremely high, while the number of owners, executives, and coaches are fairly low. While the NBA has done a very good job diversifying its management rankings proportionate to the players, there is still work to be done.

Going back specifically to the comments made by Jackson, there is one segment that is worth exploring. Jackson states that "by saying that he (Lebron) has gotten a free pass and that people have covered for him way too long, Gilbert suggests that LeBron has done something illegal or illicit." This is an interesting aspect to be discussed. For all intents and purposes while Lebron was a Cavalier, no one ever had negative comments to say about him. I find it very interesting that the day he decides that he wants to leave, there now is this maelstrom from the Cavaliers organization that Lebron is somehow a bad guy or is complicit in some behavior that is wrong. While Gilbert may not like his decision, his comments are simply out of touch with the reality of the situation.

Furthermore Jackson makes an outstanding follow-up to those who may defend Gilbert calling James out by stating "if he believes that LeBron quit in games 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the 2010 Eastern Conference semifinals, then, why did he fire the coach? If he believes that LeBron intentionally quit...why did he pursue him and offer him an additional $120 million to stay in Cleveland?" It seems that as bad as Gilbert wanted to paint Lebron as, he was still ready to hitch on to the bandwagon of his prized horse and ride him yet again. Or should I say he was ready to get Toby back to the plantation because he knew Toby could reign in more cotton than the rest of his slaves. I guess Toby saw better pastures on the other plantation in South Beach (I am only being partially sarcastic.)

I compare the Lebron James situation to the Brett Favre situation. While I believe there are clear differences in each, the level of passion, and subsequently the level of hate that the Cavs fan base feels compared to the Packers fan base is very different in this situation. At the end of the day the result was the same. Brett Favre was the face of Packer country for over a decade before he unceremoniously exited the franchise and ultimately played for the archrivals. While he is clearly disliked in Green Bay, I do not feel as though he is hated nearly as much as Lebron is. There needs to be some level of understanding why Lebron's jerseys are being burned in effigy while Favre wasn't. Why is the owner of the Cavs more angry than the owner of the Packers? Essentially both players did the same thing. But by no means is the reaction of each side similar at all.

Whether you agree with Jessy or not the fact that his comments struck such a strong nerve this morning is proof enough to me that there is some validity in his arguments. People do not get upset unless deep down there is a reason for that anger. Lets not just throw away Jackson's commentary. While it may sound ridiculous on its surface digging deeper allows us to have a more robust conversation on how vestiges from our past inherently impact our present and help shape our future.

The Rise in Interracial Marriage: What It Means for America

2010-06-25T16:57:00.003-04:00

There was a recent study that surveyed the number of interracial marriages in the United States. Not surprisingly the numbers of interracial marriages have increased dramatically. According to the data 13% of new marriages are between people of opposite races. This trend seems to be increasing across all racial lines, even amongst racial groups that historically have been more hesitant than others to marry outside of their race. On its own this is great. Looking at the much bigger picture is crucial.

Amazingly it has not been that long since interracial marriage was illegal in the United States. Miscegenation laws as they were called many years ago were in place in parts of the United States until 1967. Before then it was illegal to be in an interracial marriage and often times people were thrown in jail or forced to move to places where it was legal. In just 43 years things have changed quite a bit.

Interracial marriages still have quite a huge level of taboo. Even though many more people are deciding to date and marry outside of their race, there is still some discomfort to many people, especially in certain communities. The burden that interracial couples must face should not be lost by their increase in presence.

At the end of the day the rise in interracial couples directly shows the rise in acceptance of people of different cultures. Every single person that decides to enter an interracial relationship, or decides to accept others for being in one is making a direct statement about what they hope diversity should be like in America. It is only through acts like these are we ever going to be able to begin to break the racial and cultural divide that exists to this day.

I believe that the rise of interracial marriages is one of the most important sociological developments in the past 40 plus years. The benefit of interracial marriage is that it creates broadening of people's viewpoints, accepting of different cultures and also intermingling in different areas. But by no means is it an easy go for anyone involved. But in the long run the benefits definitely outweigh the hardships.

Rand Paul, The Negative Side of Conservative Extremism and What it Means for the Republican Party

2010-05-24T01:45:00.004-04:00

In one of the more shocking moments of recent political theater, Rand Paul, current candidate for Senate from Kentucky has went from the darling of the Tea Party Movement and is now the albatross hanging from the neck of the Republican Party in less than 24 hours.

Rand Paul who is an ardent Libertarian much like his father Ron Paul was supported by the Tea Party Movement during his run for the Republican nomination for Senator. His views are very radical. The Tea Party Movement decided to align themselves with his candidacy for clear reasons. His viewpoints were on the fringe of what is expected, especially when it comes to government and its limitations or lack thereof on citizens and private businesses. He was able to make a huge push and win the nomination due to much of the anti-incumbent fervor that exists in the nation, as well as the push for more extreme candidates and views to come to the forefront. This is especially true for the conservative segment of the electorate. But a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination.

On Wednesday, the day after Paul won the nomination, he appeared on the Rachel Maddow show (coincidentally the same show where he launched his campaign). This time things went very differently. Maddow pressed him on his view on the Civil Rights Act, and although Paul said he is against discrimination, he made a point to wax philosophical about key segments of the law that banned private businesses from segregating their establishments. Paul also did not agree with key segments of the Americans With Disabilities Act that allowed for governmental protection for people with disabilities.

In what can only be described as misery loving company, Paul then said that he did not like the way that the Obama administration was attacking BP. Paul stated that “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.” Comments like this shows just how out of touch Paul is with the larger viewpoints of most Americans. BP is getting blame across the political aisle and to say that criticizing them is "Un-American" may be one of the most ass-backwards comments I have ever heard, especially due to the increasing evidence that shows they are to blame for much of the disaster in the Gulf.

Common sense would say to most people that saying you are against segments of two of the most transformative pieces of legislation ever passed by the American government would be stupid. Common sense would also say that the President is un-American for calling out a big business for its handling of a disaster is equally stupid. I guess common sense increasingly is leaving the table in our discourse. I believe that Paul is such a political novice that this did not occur to him. I also believe that he comes from a segment of the electorate that is so radical in its ways that his views simply aren't in line with much of mainstream society. And frankly this radicalism falls on both sides of the political spectrum and should be called out as such. I believe that anarchists, Libertarians, Evangelical Christians, Fundamental Muslims among others all sleep in the same extremist bed and should be called out as such.

The larger problem with Paul and the GOP is that they are now connected forever. By supporting him as a candidate for Senator of Kentucky, what Republicans are saying not only to voters in that state, but to the larger country is that as a party becoming increasingly extreme is the trend. Very few people in the GOP have come out and said just how out of touch Paul is. To be silent on his views is to condone them. Essentially that is what is occurring. I remember when Michael Steele was chosen to lead the GOP. Steele had grand ideas of how the Republican Party could do a better job of reaching out to various segments of the American populace that have long felt abandoned by the Republican party, primarily younger people and non-whites. Rand Paul is just another example of how verbal rhetoric quickly meets blatant reality. What makes this case all the more interesting is that in the process not only were people of different races left out, but people with disabilities (many who happen to be military men and women) and people who are suffering to rebuild their lives after a man-made disaster. I have always believed that when people show you who they are the first time, you should believe it. Unfortunately with the GOP this is not the first time at all....

Black Unemployment So Bad The UN Investigating: What This Really Means

2010-05-16T18:49:00.004-04:00

In a recent article on www.racismreview.com the United Nations may investigate the incredibly low numbers for black employment in the U.S. The United Nations governing body is making the claim that the U.S. government is not living up to its commitment set up under previous human rights agreements. Among other absolutely sobering statistics listed in the article, the rate of unemployment for black men is at 20.2% in comparison to 9.6% for white men. These rates may be worse because the percentage does not include the numbers of people who simply stopped looking for employment. The rate of pay for black men is also lower than white men. The rate of unemployment is not monolithic. It goes across the spectrum of black life from the young, old, college educated, high school educated, urban or rural.

If the facts in this report are true, there are some serious things that need to be addressed. Systematically and socially blacks have been at the bottom of the employment ladder since Slavery. It is often said that when America catches a cold, black America has the flu. This report and subsequent investigation by the United Nation only proves that point further.

The first systemic issue that needs to be addressed is how we properly educate black people from elementary school to college graduation in hopes of gaining employment during those years and beyond. I believe that as long as education continues to be one of the most segregated and imbalanced facets of American culture, then we can not be surprised when black unemployment mirrors that. How can we expect black people to be adequately prepared for work that in today's market calls for more education, if the level of education blacks attain is not on par with whites.

Secondly the issue of black incarceration, especially amongst males needs to be on the forefront. The amount of black men in prison is completely disproportionate to their percentages in the general population. More often than not the reason for incarceration stems from non-violent drug offenses. When inmates are released, it is often very difficult to find employment based on felony convictions. The laws in the U.S. need to be overhauled so that they can be more fair to people of color. Laws also need to be reformed so that when inmates do come out of jail that they are able to obtain employment. At the end of the day the system becomes very circular. Someone gets locked up, serves their time, gets released, can't find a job and get locked up again. This cycle is ugly and often is the norm.

Blame needs to be spread around not only amongst larger segments of society. Black people can and should take their fair share of the blame for the unemployment issues that are prevalent. Black people often blame others when they do not push ourselves to be better and do better. If they do not strive for excellence and success then they can not expect it to be given to them. Black people need to create economic opportunities for others in their community as well. When black people do this, then they will not need to be dependent on others.

The issue of black unemployment is a long and deep one. The causes of low employment is very cyclical and multifaceted. There is more than enough blame for everyone to take some ownership. But at the end of the day the larger question must be asked and hopefully answered. What can we do, as a larger society to make sure this issue is addressed? It is beautiful that there are instances where black people achieve huge successes. But that needs not be an aberration, but the norm. But on a much simpler scale black people do not need huge examples of success. Simply all they need is an opportunity to make a livable wage and be fully functioning participants in creating their own American Dream. Is that too much to ask for?

Arizona Strikes Again: Now Education is Under Attack

2010-05-10T18:19:00.006-04:00

What is really going on in Arizona? As if creating an immigration law that can be perceived as racist wasn't enough, now the Arizona Legislature has decided that schools that teach courses about various races will lose state funding.

The exact wording of the document states that schools will lose funding if they "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Now there are some major issues with this policy. Of course I fully agree that if there are teachers and schools that are promoting overthrowing the American government they should lose funding. What American wouldn't agree with a policy like that? But I believe that comparing acts of treason to courses that "advocate ethnic solidarity" is completely ridiculous and frankly racist. Under this law if schools teach the history of anti-government groups they can be grouped with schools that teach the history of the Black Migration, Harlem, Chinatown or Latinos. Where is the correlation?

History and Humanities classes already lack much true discussion of peoples of color as is. It often feels like the histories of non-white people from around the world, and even people of color that were of vital importance to the making of America are often overlooked. I often found myself struggling to find instances in American History classes both in college and before that dealt with non-white people. This caused so much frustration for me and many of my peers that we fought for changes to the core curriculum at my university. My story is not unique at all. Many of my friends went through the same struggles and decided on taking similar actions.

I find that it is completely offensive for Arizona to want to ban classes that teach the histories of diverse people. It seems that in 2010 there should be more classes of this nature and not less. In an increasingly diverse country where very soon white people are going to be outnumbered by non-whites and where people of color have been vital to the history and creation of this country, history classes of a diverse nature need to be enhanced. These classes not only benefit the student of color who doesn't hear about people that look like him often, but can be just as beneficial to white students as well. It can create an understanding of the world and other peoples that they may not have the chance to see or experience. Proper education can create more tolerance and understanding. But I suppose Arizona, the last state to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. as a holiday, and the state that is implementing an immigration law that can discriminate against people of color continues the pattern of racially oppressive politics with this educational policy. Unfortunately the ones who suffer the most are the children. That is truly the saddest part.

Blacks Running as GOP Candidates: Is this good or bad?

2010-05-06T21:23:00.002-04:00

While I was sitting down watching Hardball with Chris Matthews, he had a segment on the resurgence of black people running for congressional seats as Republicans. There are currently 32 black people running for Congressional office as Republicans. This number is the most since Reconstruction. I believe that this resurgence has both good and bad aspects to it.

On one hand its a great thing that blacks feel comfortable to run as Republicans. It shows that we have come a long way in our history that while it is a story that this many are running, its not as big a story as it would have been a few years or decades ago. I believe that the election of Barack Obama as President and the selection of Michael Steele to head the Republican National Committee both have played a huge role in blacks wanting to win political office, and believing that they can. While blacks have run for political office in the past and have done well, especially in regions that have a solid black population, the election and selection of both Obama and Steele have opened up the doorways for blacks to run for office in places where they may not have felt they could do well in the past. At the end of the day this is great!

Where I have major issues with blacks running for political office as Republicans is that I do not feel that the Republican Party has been kind to people of color. Black people are not one monolithic voting block. Though it is fair to say that as of late blacks have voted almost exclusively for Democratic candidates. According to CNN's exit polls 96% of black people voted for Barack Obama in the election of 2008. While there are many reasons that this occurred, it is undeniable that the reputation of the Republican party has alienated people of color in ways that has been detrimental to the party. On issues that most concern people of color, from affirmative action, economy, war, race relations and prison reform just to name a few, the Republican party have long stood in opposition to what most people of color support.

This is not a new phenomenon. Historically blacks began migrating to the Democratic party during the 1930's during the Roosevelt era. This coincided with the creation of politically liberal ideas that more black people fell in line with. This alliance became more solidified during the 1960's when the Republican Party became the party of the South. Many believe that it was during this time that the alliance became etched in stone.

The current state of the Republican party does not appeal to the vast majority of blacks. This was no more evident than the comment made by Michael Steele at a recent discussion held at Depaul University. When asked why blacks should vote Republican Steele commented "You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one...For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South." If this is not the most telling statement from one of the leaders of the Republican party, I don't know what is.

I fully support blacks running for office, in any capacity. It is vitally important that people of all ethnic groups get involved in the political process. The Republican party has many redeeming qualities historically that can serve as huge appeals to segments of the black populace. But at the same time it is important to see where the party is today. To me there is no greater proof at where the Republican Party is than by looking at the past two conventions held in 2008. The Democratic National Convention was a mosaic of all that America has racially and otherwise. Conversely looking at the Republican National Convention was nothing like that. Where were the delegates of color? They didn't exist. If the delegates of color don't exist then there is a huge reason for that. Maybe getting some new faces of color into the GOP will be a huge help for changing the face of the party. Unfortunately this may not be the case.

Arizona Immigration Policy: What Have We Come To?

2010-04-22T22:15:00.006-04:00

Imagine this scenario: You are walking down the street and a police officer asks you for your identification and proof of citizenship. You are unable to prove that on the spot. You are then arrested for being illegally in the country and thrown in jail. This may sound like Nazi Gernamy in World War II. Unfortunately if Arizona passes the new anti-immigration policy, this will be the new America that we live in.

The new Arizona Immigration policy is one of the most blatant examples of racial profiling I have ever seen. For those of you who may not know, this past week Arizona lawmakers legalized the strictest anti-immigration ever passed in America. If signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, police officers would have the right to stop people and ask them to show documents proving that they are in America legally. If they are not, then they can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. Furthermore it makes it a crime for anyone to willingly harbor an illegal immigrant.

I believe that there needs to be new comprehensive immigration policy that seeks to strengthen America's borders and creates a system whereby illegal aliens currently in the United States can achieve legalized status, this bill is not the way to do it. While there are 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, there has to be a better way to address the situation. Arresting and throwing them in jail, making it a crime to possess them in your house among some of the other measures, is too similar to what occurred in World War II.

Another aspect of the bill that is problematic is the fact that police officers would be the one responsible for enforcing the law. As many people are aware, relationships between police officers and communities of color, especially Latino and black communities have always been strained. Creating a system whereby police can merely stop you if they think you are in the country illegally creates a huge problem. Let us all be honest. Most of the people that police officers will assume are illegal will look much more like Barack Obama and less like John McCain. What this policy essentially does is make it completely legal to racially profile people. What happens when you stop someone who is legal in America, based on the opinion that you assumed they were illegal? How do you prove in a court of law that the Civil Rights of the person stopped were not violated, especially if it is considered legal under state law. This can not go on.

I wonder what would happen if I walked the streets of Arizona. I have a Muslim first name and a French last name. I look African-American, but could easily be mistaken for a dark-skinned Latino. But the fact of the matter is I am a born American. Who is to say that the next person who looks more white than me, but who happens to be illegal will be stopped? If we are honest, the odds of that happening are very slim. And furthermore why should that person be stopped? What crime did that person commit so egregious that they should end up in jail and furthermore kicked out of the country.

America is supposed to be a country that welcomes immigrants and should never seek to forget that crucial part of its history. Lets create a system where we can continue to live up to that ideal. Lets not create a Gestapo state, where it feels as if we are in Nazi Germany. The words on the Statue of Liberty should be read by every member of the Arizona legislature who voted for this policy.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Words to live by!

Bigotry In Washington: What Does it Mean and What Must We Do

2010-03-23T01:57:00.015-04:00

This weekend was a throwback to the days of the 1960s that we often have seen on television and could not have imagined we would ever see again. I suppose we have traveled back in time to the days when being racist, bigoted, and anti-semitic have returned. As a young black male I have read stories of behavior like this. Never in my wildest dreams would I expect this to occur in 2010. And its not because I don't believe that racism and bigoted feelings do not still exist, but because I assumed people had more decency to do it behind closed doors. I guess I was wrong.

What occured Saturday in Washington DC stands as one of the most disgusting forms of public behavior that this generation of Americans have ever seen. Young children, who live in a much more diverse and accepting world than any of their parents could ever dream of did not deserve to see this. Black and white kids who play with each other every day did not deserve to see this. GLBT people who have families and interact with others often and Jewish people who have fought so long and hard for equality did not deserve to see this. It goes to show that our work is never done.

It was shocking to see people calling lawmakers and icons in American history such vitriolic names. This touched a nerve that has not been touched in me in a long time. And frankly it was at that moment that I realized that Health Care Reform became much more than a simple bill and more of a moral imperative, much in the way the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts have become many years ago. Seeing the image of John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi and others walking hand in hand reminded me of many Civil Rights Era footage. The only thing missing was a black and white screen and strains of We Shall Overcome in the background. History never fails to repeat itself now does it?

I have no problem people speaking their minds and standing up for what they believe in. But hate speech stands no place in American political or daily discourse. It only alienates people and puts everyone farther away from the common goal of making this country better than it already is.

Those that practice hate speech need to be made examples of. We need to make a stand, speak out and call them out on their actions. Many like to say that people who make these comments are ignorant or naive. It is almost as if we are excusing their actions by making it seem that they know no better. I for one will not stand for that anymore. Hate speech is hate speech. Racists are racists. Bigots are bigots. If you have the audacity to be as insulting as you were on Saturday, then you should be able to own up to what you really are on this day.

From the day that President Obama won the election, hate speech was on the rise. I have said that much of the oppositions arguments have been steeped in racism and bigotry. I believe that Saturday was proof. For the longest while the entire debate that has gone on has not been about socialism. It hasnt been about communism. It has and will always be about conservative (mostly white people) being afraid of change. Afraid of change not because change is bad, but afraid of change because they fear the loss of their power and status in life. Funny thing about this is that often these same people are not rich or even afluent in society, just simply average people who understand and see the face of America changing and are unsure what to make of it. I believe that this ugliness will continue to bear its ugly head but as Obama showed this weekend, we must continue to try and shape our more perfect union. It is our moral imperative to continue to knock them down, call thruth to power and continue striving for the equality that we clearly need. And here is hoping that we do so with even a fraction of grace that John Lewis and others showed this weekend in the face of such hatred.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Why it is Uniquely Unamerican

2010-02-04T22:49:00.004-05:00

Over the past few days, the debate about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has come to the forefront. For those of you who do not know, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the policy that prohibits members of the LGBT community from openly serving in the United States Armed Forces. If members of the LGBT community are found to be serving in the military, they are often kicked out because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." In my opinion this policy is one of the most offensive policies that is on the books, jeopardizes the American military and is uniquely unamerican.

Whether or not you support LBBT issues and causes, the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" must be looked at in a more global sense. If the American military is supposed to be going into countries, instilling democracy and democratic ideals, while still having a policy on the books that discriminates segments of its own population, that is a slap in the face to all the men and women who have fought and died fighting for this country. If we are going to be sending men and women to fight for the ideals of "freedom and justice for all" or "that all men are created equal" then we need to live up to that ideal, at the very least in the U.S. military. It is very hard to ask men and women to put on a uniform and risk their lives for the Red, White and Blue, when the same flag for which they are fighting for will not accept fellow Americans because of their sexual orientation. This is completely unacceptable in my view to say the least.

Furthermore there have been cases where LGBT members of the U.S. military who have unique skills have been dismissed because of their sexual orientation. Imagine a member of the U.S. military who speaks Farsi, or may be an expert in Muslim religion and culture being kicked out because of his/her sexual orientation. Well it has happened and as long as this policy continues to be on the books it will continue to happen. Countless lives may be in jeopardy as we speak because we do not have the best and most capable members of the American people on board, simply because some of them may be gay.

The American military is undoubtedly the most powerful, the most revered, the most awe inspiring and the most phenomenal military that exists today, and maybe in history. It is imperative at this point in history, when people want to destroy the ideas of America and what it stands for, that that military is a clear reflection of all that exists in American society. Every hue and color, every religion and affiliation, every education level and yes every sexual orientation should be included as well. If the military isn't reflective of the great mosaic of people that America has to offer then how can we seriously ask people to fight for this country. And furthermore how can we ask people to die for this country. It doesn't make much sense to me.

Grading Obama One Year Later

2010-01-20T12:47:00.005-05:00

One year ago today, many people experienced one of the most euphoric and amazing experiences ever. Being able to witness the inaguration of the first black president of the United States of America was a moving experience to say the least. Fast forward one year and the larger question of what has the Obama presidency done for diversity needs to be addressed.

Having a black president in office has had a profound impact on how people of color view themselves as active members of the American body politic. Being able to see a President that looks very different than previous presidents goes a long way to making people who have felt disenfranchised feel a little less so. It may simply be a matter of aesthetics, but do not doubt how important aesthetics are to many people both nationally and internationally.

Over the course of the year the image of the United States has improved greatly on an international front. President Obama made a duty to reach out to foreign countries, many of whom have been critical, or at the very least lukewarm, to the United States under the Bush administration. Overall his efforts to engage these countries have been well received. His speech to the Muslim world in Egypt was especially a powerful moment not only for his early presidency, but for the country and world as a whole. I also believe that the immediate response to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti will go a long way in showing that America cares for people outside of its borders.

While I support the aesthetic value and much of the foreign policies that the Obama administration has undertaken, I do believe that much more needs to be done on the homefront to truly make his presidency one that benefits diversity. In many instances over the past year many people have felt that President Obama has tried to steer clear of all matters having to do with race and sexual orientation (aside from the Skip Gates controversy, which he has a vested interest since Gates was a personal friend). While it is very much understood why Obama would steer clear of these issues as he has a very full slate to handle, it is incredibly important that he begins to address some of the larger issues that disproportionately affect the diverse communities that came out in droves to vote for him. Don't ask don't tell, immigration reform, race relations, the higher than average unemployment rate for people of color among many other issues all need to be addresses in some manner if not by Obama himself, then by his administration as a whole.

It is my hope that Obama taps into the high amounts of good will that he continues to have with many people in America. While many do not neccessarily support his policies (which is fair), he still can make amazing inroads on changing not only this country but also diversity as a whole. My grade on the Obama administration is a B/B-. While definitely not great, his potential is still high.

Harry Reid: Don't Kill The Messenger, Debate the Message

2010-01-12T08:50:00.008-05:00

Senator Harry Reid has put himself in quite a political bind by stating that the electorate would vote for Obama because he is "light-skinned" and "has no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one."

I will begin by saying that there needs to be a clarification between what is true or false and what is right or wrong. While what Senator Reid may have been wrong morally, he is telling the complete truth. And that is the sad part.

Many people may want to make a big deal out of the use of the word "Negro." And there are valid reasons why people should. Nowadays the word is out of date. But in segments of society, especially among an older generation, the word still is used. In fact so many people self-identified themselves as Negro on the 2000 census that it is now a choice on the 2010 census. I agree that the term does have offensive connotations and am not a fan of its use. But I also agree that harping on that one word dillutes the larger point that Reid made in his statement.

The next argument is what is Negro dialect. While there is no set definition on what that is, there is a clear pattern of speech, cadence to the voice and use of urban slang that is stereotypically more ascribed to people of color. One may argue about the merits of said ascription to people of color as opposed to whites, but the fact still remains that even within communities of color the term "speaking white" and "not speaking white" is used. So let's not get upset that someone would argue about the benefits or not of speaking with a stereotypical racial dialect, when that has been a debate that has raged for decades.

As for the debate about light skinned versus dark skinned people, that too has been very charged for a long time. There are even studies that say that the amygdala, the segment of the brain that controls emotions, especially fear, becomes more active when dark images, including people are viewed. So one would assume that lighter images, including people would be seen as more safe, at the very least from a scientific standpoint. Needless to say light skinned blacks have been viewed as closer to whites because of their skintone. Again I am not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but it is true.

If we are to look at the context of what Harry Reid said, one would be hardpressed to disagree. If Barack Obama spoke more like brothers on the corner not only would whites not vote for him but neither would people of color. Now as long as there is imprircal as well as anecdotal data to suggest that lightskinned blacks are more palatable than darkskinned blacks, to not only whites but to segments of the black community itself, one would assume that his skintone was maybe not a benefit but definitely did not hurt his chances of winning the Presidency.

Now people want to make the argument that Reid's comments are similair what Trent Lott said back in 2002. This is ridiculous. To compare Lott saying that the country would not have the problems that it has if we would have elected a segregationalist president to what Reid says smacks in the face of all that makes sense. I do not even see the comparison frankly.

The debate needs to be had about wbat Reid said. But I do not believe the focus should be on his words, but on the uncomfortable truth about them and what that means for larger society. We have made great strides in race relations, but there still is work that needs to be done and discussions and thought practices that need to be addressed. I am not in the least bit upset at Reid. In fact his honesty and candor should be appreciated. Too often when it comes to issues of race and diversity we say what is appropriate as opposed to what is honest. We say beautiful falsehoods as opposed to ugly truths. And we say what is politically correct as opposed to what are societal blatancies. Maybe we should not just look at the packaging, but open up and actually look at what is inside the box. Because whether or not you choose to agree with the message, truth of the matter is the messenger was right.

Rod Blagojevich is blacker than Obama?

2010-01-11T21:54:00.005-05:00

You ever have one of those moments where you hear something so outrageous and ridiculous that you look around the room thinking that you are in a bad episode of Ashton Kutcher's "Punked". That happened to me this morning when I heard former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's comments in Esquire Magazine.

For those of you who haven't heard the quote, Blagojevich stated "I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where he lived. I saw it all growing up."

Excuse me?! Where do I begin? Firstly this commentary is so ignorant that I really wonder how a man like this even gets elected as governor of a state. I know Chicago politics are wild but come on. What I find extremely troubling with this commentary is not that Blagojevich would even say it, but the fact that he uses shining shoes and living in a small apartment to sum up what being black is.

The black culture is as diverse as any culture in the world. From the varying cultures of the African diaspora, to the hoods of cities around this country, to the affluent black communities of Sag Harbor and suburban Atlanta and Washington DC just to name a few. Even to the halls of HBCU's and non HBCU's, black culture can not and should not be defined in such simple terms. It is not only offensive, but it is so ridiculously ignorant that an apology can not be accepted at this point. One may say that we shouldn't care what a fool of Blagojevich has to say. Truth be told I doubt anyone does. But for us to let his comments go lets another teachable moment pass us by. Let the dialogue begin so that we can have a larger discussion of what blackness is and has been. Narrow minded commentary has no place in our political discourse. But narrow minded people who simply let narrow minded comments go by the wayside are even more troublesome to me.

But if Blagojevich really wants to prove that he is more blacker than President Obama, I can show him a few places where he can prove that. But like his political career he wouldn't last very long. I guess that could make an awesome episode of "Punked". How about we use all Ivy League educated Black actors who surprise him in the end with their degrees. I know I would enjoy that episode.

An Open Letter To Gilbert Arenas

2010-01-07T04:39:00.005-05:00

To Mr. Arenas,
As an avid fan of the NBA, I can not describe the level of anger, frustration and malaise that I currently feel in regards to your gun situation. I am deeply curious what was on your mind when you decided to bring four guns into a basketball arena (which is a clear violation of federal as well as local law), but even more curious as to your actions after bringing those guns into an arena. Do you honestly think that people would believe that you brought these weapons in order to play a joke on your teammate (please help me find the humor in this). Or that people would enjoy the image of you firing finger-pistols at your teammates while they pretended to be shot. Sorry Mr. Arenas, this is not working for any of us.

Many people are killed by guns on a daily basis. Too often they are of the black and brown variety. For you to make light of guns and gun use slaps in the face of the countless men and women whose lives have been taken by the wanton use of guns in this country. But I guess you didn't think about those people when you posed for your twitter pic with your team.

Lest you forget you are a role model for many young men and women who look up to you for your great talent. You have set the worst kind of example to these children. At a time when gun violence and murder affect many people that look like you, one would expect you to be somewhat understanding of the way your behavior looks to those who look up to you. I guess that slipped your mind. Well hopefully now as you sit home missing out on your $147,000 a game, you can begin to feel the true impact of your actions. But I doubt that you will. You may just continue to make light of the situation.

I wonder if you look at the other athletes like you who have gotten in trouble for ridiculous behavior. Did you pay attention to Plaxico Burress? Did you shake your head at the Tiger Woods scandal? I suppose not. Do not forget that as a black man you have been given a power and a blessing that few of us get and many of us want. The ability to do what we enjoy, and become ridiculously rich off of that passion is a dream come true. What you have shown with your wanton, flippant and insulting behavior is that you clearly have a horrible sense of humor and even more that you have a considerable amount of growing up to do.

I hope that this teaches you a lesson about behavior. But the sad thing is that it had to take something so drastic to get that message across. In my opinion if you never play in the NBA again I would not have a problem with that. Too many men would take your spot and do well with the chance. Here's hoping you get your act together, for your sake.
Yours truly,
A former fan

Blacks with College Degrees face hardships

2009-12-01T03:32:00.002-05:00

In an article published in the New York Times published 12/1/09, entitled "In Job Hunt, College Degree Can't Close Racial Gap" there has been new evidence that suggests that Blacks with college degrees have suffered more than Blacks without college degrees. The article cites the statistic that the jobless rate for black male graduates 25 and over is 8.4% compared with 4.4% for white males. The article also cites a study says White, Asian and Hispanic managers tended to hire more Whites and fewer Blacks than black managers.

The impact of this is hardly lost on me. Personally I have been on a rather arduous job search for over a year. I have often wondered whether my race plays a role in me getting hired or even called back for interviews. Many who know me would consider me unashamedly black and clearly opinionated at that. I have walked into interviews after having great phone conversations, felt that things went well to find out that I did not get the job. By no means do I sit down and automatically assume that I did not get the job because of race. But when I see many blacks and other minorities with college degrees from equally amazing universities in situations similar to mine, I tend to wonder does race play some part in the continuing battle for economic equality?

I know the impact of the recession on everyone, but as the old adage goes when the country gets a cold, black people get a flu. And in this recession the flu that Blacks are getting will no doubt erase many of the economic gains that have been accomplished during the past 20 years. The saddest part to the whole thing is that as we continue to tell our young people to go to college and get a degree and want them to believe that they will be fine, the stats show a completely different reality. By no means do I favor Blacks not going to college. In my opinion that is simply stupid, but the way we view a college degree needs to be analyzed even more.

I do believe that with time as the economy rebounds Blacks will start getting hired in positions. But as the scarcity of jobs becomes more obvious and companies have to dig through a pile of qualified candidates, people with names like Akim and Akilah will continue to struggle in comparison to Adam and Ashley. Things will change eventually, but the impact of the damage done may even take longer to recover from.

Jimmy Carter's Comments? True or not?

2009-09-20T18:28:00.006-04:00

Now I have been very hesitant to delve into the comments that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter made recently. If you all haven't heard, President Carter made this statement in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans...And that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

The reason I have been hesitant is because I normally am very careful when using the "race card." In essence I like to make sure that my motives are very clear and beyond reproach before I accuse people of being racist. In my opinion I believe that there is a level of truth to what Jimmy Carter is saying.

Unlike Carter I don't believe that most of the arguments against Obama's policies are steeped in racist ideology. But like Carter I do see major areas where the arguments have a strong racial overtone. I also believe that many of the arguments that are having the biggest voice and most power tend to be very much from the far conservative population. Furthermore I believe that what makes this argument palatable is that many of the arguments against Obama are not policy based but tend to call into question him as a person.

I will detail three areas where I believe racism played a role in how the opposing side views Obama. The areas are the Birther Movement, the Obama is a Muslim debate and last but not least Talk Radio (namely Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh).

The Birther Movement to me is the most obvious forms of racism I have seen in quite some time. There is a clear group in society, even some journalists and politicians (Lou Dobbs) who honestly believe that President Obama was not born in America. This is even after he issued his birth certificate, after Hawaii's major newspapers released notices of birth stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on the date he was and even after every authentication service has come to the same conclusion. There still is a segment of society that believes he isn't a citizen of the United States. While there are people that said John McCain was not a citizen of the United States during the campaign, the clamor died down quickly. In this case it hasn't been the same. There are still government officials who publicly comment that Obama isn't a citizen. The only reason I can come up with is that there must be of a level of xenophobia and cultural racist thought that allows for this to be permeated in the manner it has been.

The question of Obama's religious affiliation has been a topic of discussion since Obama announced his candidacy for President. Many people have questioned whether he was a Muslim as a result of his father being from Kenya as well as the fact that Obama lived in Indonesia and attended an Indonesian school as a youngster. Aside from these few aspects of his life there is no proof that Obama is a Muslim. In fact he was a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for a few decades. But the larger argument that I make is even if Obama was a Muslim what is wrong with that? I believe that to a segment of society being anti-Muslim is problematic. The argument goes to the xenophobic and cultural issues that Obama has experienced in being the first black president.

The most blatant form of racist thought clearly comes from conservative talk radio. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been some of the most outspoken broadcasters who have blatantly said that Obama either was racist or made comments that could be perceived as racist to him. Glenn Beck has called Obama "racist to white people" and Limbaugh has gone to the extreme of saying that a school bus incident involving a white teenager and some black boys was racist, after the police department found no racial overtones in the incident. He even went so far as saying that segregated buses should become the norm to protect kids. I find the level of racist thought that exists on conservative radio to play a huge role in whether some of the arguments against Obama and his policies have a racist overtone.

While I believe there are many policy angles that should be debated amongst supporters as well as opponents to the President, when we allow comments steeped in racial subtleties to become the way in which those against his policies make their point, then we have a problem. I fully believe that as a country we can and should be bigger than that. But I also feel that those who quickly comment and say that there isn't a racial overtone to the arguments that exist are being blind to the simple reality of it all. While again its not all the arguments, there definitely appears to be enough out there that makes this argument stand on its own feet. Racism to me is not the most obvious things to discuss or even notice sometimes, but when its there it is incumbent on people to call others on it. It is my hope that other prominent members of the political elite, especially other white politicians, speak truth to power. Then and only then will others begin to take the arguments seriously.

Bill O'Reilly's Ode to Barack Obama and What It Could Mean for Politics

2009-08-13T14:49:00.005-04:00

Yes you read the headline right. Bill O'Reilly, one of America's most popular conservative journalists recently wrote in an article in Parade Magazine entitled "What President Obama Can Teach America's Kids". In what I can only describe as a tribute to Barack Obama, O'Reilly wrote about four areas that Obama's life story can help impact children. Those areas were: Forgiveness, Respect, Persistence, Hard Work, and Anything is Possible. These are all key traits that can be a source of inspiration to children around the world.

While I could easily detail the article, I believe that there is a larger context to look at. The potential political ramifications for what O'Reilly has done can be far-reaching. But the only way this can happen is IF we allow the current political discussion to open up more. Bill O'Reilly has never been one of my favorite journalists (the impact he had on Ludacris years ago that ultimately cost Ludacris the Pepsi endorsement was deplorable). But what he showed in writing this article was the belief that you can dislike a person's politics, but you don't have to dislike them as people. I believe that this tenet of democracy is slowly eroding in America today.

Look at any of the major political battles that are raging today, from health care, to the "birther movement", to the conservative-liberal divide among others and there clearly seems to be a discourse that is infected by hate. To see images of political leaders being hung in effigy next to smiling people doing the hanging hearkens back to a hateful moment in America where hanging was done on the regular. Seeing leaders of Congress receive letters calling them Marxists and niggers has become part of the political dialogue. Watching members of the other side being called stupid and uninformed have been offensive as well. And the recent trend of militia groups coming back in force, with one of the main reasons being that the face of America is becoming more diverse and less of what it used to be.

What Bill O'Reilly did by writing this letter is clear. He showed that it is fine to disagree with one's politics. But at the same time you don't have to hate that person for who he is. I can only hope that as the debates on various politics and policies rage on that we as a country can debate in peace. Because once hate comes into the discussion, then where are we to go. So kudos to you Bill O'Reilly for doing the right thing. Here's hope that others, on both sides of the aisle learn a lesson from it. If not for their sake, then for the sake of the children who you hope can learn from Barack Obama.

My Take on The Henry Louis Gates situation

2009-07-24T02:47:00.004-04:00

Now I am sure many people have been wondering when I was going to dive into the debate that is brewing around this country. Truthfully I wanted to leave my opinion out of it. But after seeing some of the recent developments, I believe I may have some valuable insight into the matter.

I attended Boston College and have spent many evenings over in Cambridge visiting friends at Harvard, MIT or in the neighborhood. It is simply one of my favorite towns. The diversity, culture and overall vibe is amazing. It has a Greenwich Village feels that is quite enjoyable. But that doesn't mean that everything is smooth under the sun. I admit that I have heard from many of my Harvard friends of color that they don't feel comfortable with the police departments of either Cambridge or Harvard University. I must believe that they have valid reasons that many people of color around this country have about other police agencies. There is a sense by many that even in one of the bastions of American education, race is a factor in how one is treated. Being asked to show ID while on campus, or having extra security for events that people of color attend, all leaves quite unsettling feelings to many.

I have been a fan of Henry Louis Gates for years. He is one of the preeminent minds in America, black or otherwise. I won't rehash the details of the story for the sake or sounding redundant, but I will give my views on where I see things.

The more I look at things, the one question that keeps coming up is: Why Was Gates Arrested? Now some may say it is clear that he was being belligerent with the police and was in the wrong. I do not argue the validity of that. I would be upset too if police came to my door and said that they were investigating a home break-in and began accusing me of being the one breaking in. His anger seemed very valid. I believe that this would occur whether he was black or otherwise. But was he being so angry that it warranted an arrest. And if it did why wasn't he arrested in his house? And furthermore, why were the charges dropped?

It is clear to me that the police officer couldn't arrest him in his house for disorderly conduct and there must have been a feeling amongst the police department that the charges couldn't stand up in court. This could be as a result of Gates' stature in society or because they were frivolous. Either way it seems that the police officer felt that he didn't want to be embarrassed by the other officers outside the Gates' residence, and felt that the only way to mitigate that was by arresting him. Clearly having this man questioning his authority left him quite upset. But again, why the arrest?

I have a problem with people saying that in no way did race play a factor in this case. I have strong doubts that Gates' would have acted in the way he did if he were a white man. And even if he did, I find it hard to believe that he would have been arrested. Truth be told, I have seen white people say and do some of the most ridiculous things in front of and to police officers and not get arrested. Gates merely was defending himself against the inaccurate reports of him being a burglar and trying to get the identity of the male officer in his house. That does not warrant an arrest in my book. The question must be asked if he was a white man whether he would have even been accused of burglary.

I commend Barack Obama for speaking his mind on the topic. Now I don't support his use of the word "stupidly", but I do support his view on the police being out of line. For too long I believed that Obama had tried to stay above the fray of racial politics. And to this point he has done a good job of it. But blacks and other people of color have wanted to see him stand up for them, even if that stance was unpopular by the white community. He did that well. I believe that those people who are upset at him for his stance, need to understand the history behind allegations of racial profiling, police brutality and how that has affected the relationship between the police and people of color in history.

I believe that Gates should push this as far as he can. He has been an advocate for the black community, an educator to many and now a symbol of what can happen to even one of the most recognizable members of the black community.

Michael Eric Dyson described it best on CNN this evening. I leave his comments as a question to all who wonder whether race played a role in this story:

"imagine if professor Henry Louis Gates was professor Henry Kissinger and was arrested. And imagine if President Obama was President Bush and said that he was my friend and treated unfairly. The debate would be completely different."-Michael Eric Dyson

Maybe he is right....

President Obama's NAACP Speech and What It Says for The Larger Goal of Equality

2009-07-19T14:32:00.004-04:00

In what I can only describe as an historic speech f0r not only African-Americans, but America as a whole, President Obama delivered the keynote speech at the 100th NAACP Convention this past Thursday in New York City. While his speech was ubiquitously black in its message and approach, there was major universality in his message.

In much of his speech President Obama described the ills of racism and segregation that have plagued the African-American community for generations. But in a shift that no U.S. President before him has done, he described the "structural inequalities" that affect so many.

"make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."

Very seldom have we seen a President, whether Republican or Democrat, describe what so many in marginalized communities know to be true. Here was the most powerful man in America giving voice to the voiceless that toil everyday, merely wishing that someone can understand where they are coming from.

Obama connected the Civil Rights Movement and education in a way that was quite impressive. Looking at the history of the Movement, it is clear that much of its origins and ultimate success stemmed from creating equal educational institutions. It is from this drive for educational equality arose new avenues whereby advocates of the Civil Rights Movement aimed to address. President Obama summed this up beautifully:

"There's a reason the story of the civil rights movement was written in our schools. There's a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There's a reason the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob. It's because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child's God-given potential."

The most important aspect of Obama's speech was his call for everyone to take responsibility for their success, and for parents to take responsibility for the success of their children.

"We have to say to our children, Yes, if you're African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that someone in a wealthy suburb does not. But that's not a reason to get bad grades, that's not a reason to cut class, that's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands - and don't you forget that. To parents, we can't tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home. For our kids to excel, we must accept our own responsibilities."

I believe that these words will be the lasting legacy of President Obama's speech. The larger question is what does his speech mean for the larger legacy of equality in America? I believe the answer is abundantly clear. President Obama being the first black president of the United States had a platform that no black person has ever had. This allowed him to speak in such a blunt manner that his words could not help but be taken with sincerity and seriousness not only to the black community, but to the larger country at hand. While some may read and listen to his speech and see the clear connection and outreach to the black community, the idea of educational reform and personal and community responsibility rings true in every hamlet of this great nation. The NAACP was founded on the principles of equality for all. And there we had our first non-white president delivering a speech that reached across all racial lines to make a point that needed to be made.

I believe that Obama's concluding remarks are of utmost importance and are the true rallying cry for a new generation to adhere to:

"If John Lewis could brave Billy clubs to cross a bridge, then I know young people today can do their part to lift up our communities. If Emmet Till's uncle Mose Wright could summon the courage to testify against the men who killed his nephew, I know we can be better fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters in our own families. If three civil rights workers in Mississippi - black and white, Christian and Jew, city-born and country-bred - could lay down their lives in freedom's cause, I know we can come together to face down the challenges of our own time. We can fix our schools, heal our sick, and rescue our youth from violence and despair. One hundred years from now...let it be said that this generation did its part; that we too ran the race; that full of the faith that our dark past has taught us, full of the hope that the present has brought us, we faced, in our own lives and all across this nation, the rising sun of a new day begun."

Mr. President, I could have said it no better.

Attacking Malia Obama?: What has the world come to!

2009-07-14T23:08:00.006-04:00

I guess racism isn't dead after all. The ubiquitous "Kumbaya" moment that many of us felt after the election of Barack Obama has clearly worn off. And now people feel that it is perfectly fair to attack his children.

Malia Obama, who just turned eleven, was in Italy last week. She wore a tee-shirt that had a peace-sign on it. This picture was posted in many different publications and on many different blogs (mine included). What occurred on one blog (Free Republic) was simply some of the most blatant, in your face, racist vile I have seen since Obama got elected. I won't reprint many of them here, out of respect for the First Family, but the posters used every negative stereotype one could use to describe black women and black families. What was really shocking about these posts is that apparently the website and its posts were supposed to be moderated. This means that someone allowed the posts to go on and did not do anything about it until someone started to complain. How crazy is that?

What really irritated me about these posts was the simple fact that Malia Obama has not even been in the public eye much since her father got elected. In fact President Obama has made it clear from the time he was a candidate that children of politicians should be off limits. Clearly that went out the window very quickly.

I sincerely feel bad for Malia and Sasha. Here are two young children who have not said or done anything to warrant any commentary. Yet they suffer from the plight of a racist segment of American society that views their family as second class citizens, even at the same time that their father is the leader of the Free World. Notice the crazy irony? Its as if slavery never ended, Jim Crow never died and the Civil Rights Movement never occurred. My biggest hope is that Malia didn't see or read any of the comments that her picture caused. And my even bigger hope is that those who posted their comments would come to the surface and make themselves known. But the odds of that are slim. Racists move in fear and darkness because if they came to light, they couldn't handle their own vitriol. The only way to get back at them is to simply continue being America's First Family.