On Tuesday most of the mainstream media celebrated the "one week anniversary" of President Obama. However in other circles there was a different type of chatter. Some critics of the President pointed to his decision to drop bombs on Pakistan as an act of unprovoked aggression that was synonymous with the most recent more hawkish past president. On top of his policy decisions the first family (specifically Michelle Obama) was even publicly chided by the Black Artist Association for her not wearing a Black designer during the inauguration.
Before any real discussion on the matter starts, let it be clear that the Black Artist Association does not represent fashion designers, instead it represents painters. However founder Amnau Eele said it was necessary to speak up for the fashion designers and that's why she spoke out. Now this brings a very interesting dilemna to the table for the Obamas and any other Black family with upward mobility. Should Michelle Obama have to wear a Black designer whenever there is a significant function of occasion? Should she be expected to give Black make-up artist, fashion designers, and organizations top preference when it comes to making appearance decisions? Does Barack Obama need to speak to issues that affect Black Americans in ways unique to White Americans?
It is telling that we stop to ask this question because it is a question that Black Americans have been wrestling with since there were Black citizens with upward mobility. It is even more interesting that this is a question Michelle and Barack Obama themselves wrestled with. What seems to be at odds is the African spirit of communalism versus the United States (and some may even argue western) spirit of individualism. There is a Sub-Saharan African philosophy called Ubuntu. It has come to mean in english "I am because we are". One of the most popular western philosophers Rene Descartes was famous for the phrase "cogito ergo sum" or "I think therefore I am". Clearly these positions run counter to each other and here is where we find the Obamas.
Barack himself wrote in his book Dreams from My Father that when he went to Kenya he felt he owed his family something. He talks about how he felt that same obligation to the people he worked with and for as a community organizer in Chicago. He felt that since he was "privileged" enough to have an education, he should be using that educatin to be of some use for the community. For her part Michelle Obama's senior thesis at Princeton centered on the connection that a Black college graduate from a prestigious school such as Princeton had with the Black community at large. She wrestled with the ideas of seperatist and intergrationist in search of what was most effective for Blacks who were becoming upwardly mobile.
The result of all this studying and all this theorizing is that there will be no consensus answer. People from Pan-Africanist circles will say the Obamas do owe something to the Black community at large. They will draw to points made by Cheikh Ante Diop, John Henrik Clark and Acklyn Lynch that people of African descent are still to be communal, as evidenced by the same cultural continuity that has preserved so many other African cultural influences over the years. At the same moment others to the right of that point of view will feel that Black Americans are still and above all "Americans". As Americans Blacks can purchase from, socialize with, and engage any one of any race and that decision has no consequence on other Blacks. Both arguments make solid points, but the fact remains that these are issues the Obamas will face for the next four or eight years. It is not an issue new to upwardly mobile Black Americans, but for the first time, it may be a conversation played out before a mainstream audience.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Reading is Fundamental
We are so often shaped by the information we expose ourselves to. This can be as personal as the choices we make in regards to what we watch on television, or as expansive as the type of company we decide to keep. Either way, that which we expose ourselves to have a pivotal hand in shaping not only who we are or what we know, but how we will react when presented with new information. This concept is something I've been wrestling with for quite some time now and I've come to the conclusion that despite how blatantly corny it is, the NBA's old theme that "Reading is Fundamental" is a culturally vital and meaningful phrase.
I have a friend who constantly stresses to those he is conversation with that if you have not wrestled with the information, or done the proper research about a given topic than please keep your opinion to yourself. I thought about that and wondered whether or not that was an arrogant statement. I concluded that it wasn't for one main reason. Dr. Gregory Carr of Howard University says that when you open your mouth you put your brain on display. I would like to think if I displayed my brain it would show people that I am an active seeker of knowledge not just someone who wants to hear themselves speak.
This topic is more meaningful at this time, than if at no other time. The nation has witnessed a community organizer from Chicago go from State Senator, to Senator, to President-elect now finally President Obama. With that comes the feeling that the country will enter into a new world of "posts". People feel that we will be "post-racial" or "post partisan" or even "post modern". However, in order to get to that place we have to move forward with a consistent and well informed view of history. This seems logical. It only seems right that one can't be post-anything unless they know what they are moving past.
This is where reading becomes a key point. There is much work done on a bevy of topics. Too much for any one person to seriously think themselves an expert on everything. However, in order to be beyond partisanship in politics, we must know how it got there, who introduced those concepts and for what reason. Any efforts to move to a “post-partisan” government without that knowledge are nothing other than empty dreams. This example goes for politics, sports, music, finance or any other topic of choice. Without a serious analysis of the topic, one's opinions are rendered useless because they have no foundation for their existence.
On the surface this idea of reading to gain a more intimate familiarity with a topic may seem obvious. This is not always apparent though and with a new President who demands that the citizens hold he and his administration accountable the burden of being informed doubles in its value. Being informed is more than simply catching the latest Keith Olbermann program; it is also more than having the news on in the morning when you get ready for work. Being informed is looking beyond what is presented in front of you, to find out as much as you can about a given topic. Don't be mistaken though, there will be things you simply don't know or weren't able to catch. That is not a problem. In those instances simply reserve your opinion until you've had the opportunity to fully inform yourself. In these days of information, facts are always around. It is our job to find them.
I have a friend who constantly stresses to those he is conversation with that if you have not wrestled with the information, or done the proper research about a given topic than please keep your opinion to yourself. I thought about that and wondered whether or not that was an arrogant statement. I concluded that it wasn't for one main reason. Dr. Gregory Carr of Howard University says that when you open your mouth you put your brain on display. I would like to think if I displayed my brain it would show people that I am an active seeker of knowledge not just someone who wants to hear themselves speak.
This topic is more meaningful at this time, than if at no other time. The nation has witnessed a community organizer from Chicago go from State Senator, to Senator, to President-elect now finally President Obama. With that comes the feeling that the country will enter into a new world of "posts". People feel that we will be "post-racial" or "post partisan" or even "post modern". However, in order to get to that place we have to move forward with a consistent and well informed view of history. This seems logical. It only seems right that one can't be post-anything unless they know what they are moving past.
This is where reading becomes a key point. There is much work done on a bevy of topics. Too much for any one person to seriously think themselves an expert on everything. However, in order to be beyond partisanship in politics, we must know how it got there, who introduced those concepts and for what reason. Any efforts to move to a “post-partisan” government without that knowledge are nothing other than empty dreams. This example goes for politics, sports, music, finance or any other topic of choice. Without a serious analysis of the topic, one's opinions are rendered useless because they have no foundation for their existence.
On the surface this idea of reading to gain a more intimate familiarity with a topic may seem obvious. This is not always apparent though and with a new President who demands that the citizens hold he and his administration accountable the burden of being informed doubles in its value. Being informed is more than simply catching the latest Keith Olbermann program; it is also more than having the news on in the morning when you get ready for work. Being informed is looking beyond what is presented in front of you, to find out as much as you can about a given topic. Don't be mistaken though, there will be things you simply don't know or weren't able to catch. That is not a problem. In those instances simply reserve your opinion until you've had the opportunity to fully inform yourself. In these days of information, facts are always around. It is our job to find them.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
To Serve and Protect
The Police in the United States have had a strenuous relationship with Black Americans. It has never been "all good". Even at times when the issues and circumstances surrounding an incident were all but but black and white (no pun intended) many people of African descent had a serious distrust of law enforcement officers. For their worth, law enforcement officers also carried with them a predisposition that Black citizens at best didn't like them, and at worst sought to do them harm. In the opening days of 2009 we see this already restive relationship stretched to its limits.
As many may know on New Years Day at least two Black men were killed by police. The first and perhaps most discussed of the two is Oscar Grant. Grant was a 22 year old man who was shot in the back by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer following a fistfight on a BART train. Grant was not armed and there is even video of his murder on the Internet. While handcuffed, Grant was shot. The officer believed to have done the shooting has resigned from the force and gotten himself legal representation.
The other case is that of Adolf Grimes III. Grimes was also 22. He was sitting in a parked car in front of his family's New Orleans home when police officers fired on him. There has been discussion as to who fired first. Police did find a legally registered gun in Grimes' possession. Grimes was shot 12 times in the back. New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley disputes the coroner's claim that Grimes was hit 12 times in the back saying that of few of the rounds hit him in his legs, side and torso. However, it wasn't until a report aired on CNN about Grimes' murder, did Riley and New Orleans police officials agree to meet with Grimes' family to discuss the incident.
These cases seem rather self-evident that sadly in some places Black males are still seen as a threat to the police officers. The way officers have been responding to those threats is by killing the people they feel threaten them. This is not a new phenomenon. In 2008 we witnessed as the murders of Sean Bell went free. Before that there were numerous cases of police brutality from Amadou Diallo to Timothy Stansbury. Even in our nation's capital young DeOnte Rawlings was shot in the back of his head by a police officer. All of this mind you takes place after the now infamous Rodney King beating.
Some will no doubt say that a few bad apples do not represent the entire law enforcement community in the United States, this is true. But I do feel bad for the men and women who go out every day with earnest hopes to do right by people. Right now their comrades are behaving as if it is their sworn right and privilege to murder Black males. In the midst of the riots that broke out in Oakland following Grant's murder, one woman said "we live a life of fear, and we want them to be afraid tonight". That doesn't sound like a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident. So to the countless numbers of law-abiding law enforcement officers, I suggest you do a better job of policing the "few" rogue officers if you want to keep riots out of the streets and hate out of the hearts of our communities.
As many may know on New Years Day at least two Black men were killed by police. The first and perhaps most discussed of the two is Oscar Grant. Grant was a 22 year old man who was shot in the back by a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer following a fistfight on a BART train. Grant was not armed and there is even video of his murder on the Internet. While handcuffed, Grant was shot. The officer believed to have done the shooting has resigned from the force and gotten himself legal representation.
The other case is that of Adolf Grimes III. Grimes was also 22. He was sitting in a parked car in front of his family's New Orleans home when police officers fired on him. There has been discussion as to who fired first. Police did find a legally registered gun in Grimes' possession. Grimes was shot 12 times in the back. New Orleans Police Superintendent Warren Riley disputes the coroner's claim that Grimes was hit 12 times in the back saying that of few of the rounds hit him in his legs, side and torso. However, it wasn't until a report aired on CNN about Grimes' murder, did Riley and New Orleans police officials agree to meet with Grimes' family to discuss the incident.
These cases seem rather self-evident that sadly in some places Black males are still seen as a threat to the police officers. The way officers have been responding to those threats is by killing the people they feel threaten them. This is not a new phenomenon. In 2008 we witnessed as the murders of Sean Bell went free. Before that there were numerous cases of police brutality from Amadou Diallo to Timothy Stansbury. Even in our nation's capital young DeOnte Rawlings was shot in the back of his head by a police officer. All of this mind you takes place after the now infamous Rodney King beating.
Some will no doubt say that a few bad apples do not represent the entire law enforcement community in the United States, this is true. But I do feel bad for the men and women who go out every day with earnest hopes to do right by people. Right now their comrades are behaving as if it is their sworn right and privilege to murder Black males. In the midst of the riots that broke out in Oakland following Grant's murder, one woman said "we live a life of fear, and we want them to be afraid tonight". That doesn't sound like a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated incident. So to the countless numbers of law-abiding law enforcement officers, I suggest you do a better job of policing the "few" rogue officers if you want to keep riots out of the streets and hate out of the hearts of our communities.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Minority Report
Black Americans have voted for the Democratic party in bloc for several decades. Many cite the ideals of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal proposals as what drew Black voters. Others say it was cemented a few decades later when John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson made serious strides in civil rights legislation. No matter the reason why, Black voters have turned out strong for Democratic candidates for many years now. Recently though, Republicans wondered why Blacks supported Democratic tickets despite Democrats not running many Black candidates for statewide or national office. And then came Barack Obama.
Obama was a candidate that Democrats not only ran for a statewide position but also for a national position and obviously is the current President-elect. This quieted much of the conversation about whether or not Democrats were sincere and deserved the support of Black voters. But if you dig a little deeper beneath the surface some meaningful questions need to be answered regarding which party (if any) should receive the support of Black voters.
Before any serious discussion about "the Black vote" begins we have to acknowledge that there is no "Black vote". Black voters are not monolithic and do not all vote or think on one accord. History has shown that Black voters tend to be more communal in their approach to voting. That is to say Black voters tend to support candidates that speak to issues that disproportionately affect people of their race. Despite all this, Republicans challenged Blacks to get more "bang for their buck". In 2005 then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman went on speaking tours to such places as Howard University and the NAACP in efforts to bring more Blacks into the Republican party. The idea may have been noble but polling shows that Mehlman wasn't successful.
If we look today though, we see that Black voters still may not have a "home" so to speak among Democrats. Last week the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Senate majority leader Harry Reid told Gov. Blagojevich not to pick certain candidates including Congressmen Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones. All three of these men are Black. It stands to reason that Reid didn't think any of these candidates could win re-election in 2010. Again despite nominating a Black candidate for president only to see him win, Democratic leaders appear to think a Black man is not good enough to fill that seat. This says nothing of the way the Democratic party has treated Black women politicians. A careful look at Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely-Braun's political careers would show that Democrats have not given Black politicians as much support as Black voters give the Democratic party.
As we speak the Republican National Committee is waiting to choose a new party leader. Among the six candidates two of them are African American. Republicans can also lay claim to Maryland's first African American Lt. Governor and in 2006 they ran African Americans candidates in statewide Senatorial and Gubenatorial races in Maryland and Ohio. With all of this the Republican party, platform and campaigning techniques have been at worst utterly disrepectful to Blacks and at best, neglectful to Black voters. Some may read this and assume I advocate for Blacks to join the Republican party. That is not what I am doing at all. I am asking that all people who are affiliated with a party, step back and examine what their party is doing for them as individuals and the community they belong to. If we take a close look, we'll see that neither major party is doing a good job on their minority report.
Obama was a candidate that Democrats not only ran for a statewide position but also for a national position and obviously is the current President-elect. This quieted much of the conversation about whether or not Democrats were sincere and deserved the support of Black voters. But if you dig a little deeper beneath the surface some meaningful questions need to be answered regarding which party (if any) should receive the support of Black voters.
Before any serious discussion about "the Black vote" begins we have to acknowledge that there is no "Black vote". Black voters are not monolithic and do not all vote or think on one accord. History has shown that Black voters tend to be more communal in their approach to voting. That is to say Black voters tend to support candidates that speak to issues that disproportionately affect people of their race. Despite all this, Republicans challenged Blacks to get more "bang for their buck". In 2005 then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman went on speaking tours to such places as Howard University and the NAACP in efforts to bring more Blacks into the Republican party. The idea may have been noble but polling shows that Mehlman wasn't successful.
If we look today though, we see that Black voters still may not have a "home" so to speak among Democrats. Last week the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Senate majority leader Harry Reid told Gov. Blagojevich not to pick certain candidates including Congressmen Danny Davis, Jesse Jackson Jr. and Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones. All three of these men are Black. It stands to reason that Reid didn't think any of these candidates could win re-election in 2010. Again despite nominating a Black candidate for president only to see him win, Democratic leaders appear to think a Black man is not good enough to fill that seat. This says nothing of the way the Democratic party has treated Black women politicians. A careful look at Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely-Braun's political careers would show that Democrats have not given Black politicians as much support as Black voters give the Democratic party.
As we speak the Republican National Committee is waiting to choose a new party leader. Among the six candidates two of them are African American. Republicans can also lay claim to Maryland's first African American Lt. Governor and in 2006 they ran African Americans candidates in statewide Senatorial and Gubenatorial races in Maryland and Ohio. With all of this the Republican party, platform and campaigning techniques have been at worst utterly disrepectful to Blacks and at best, neglectful to Black voters. Some may read this and assume I advocate for Blacks to join the Republican party. That is not what I am doing at all. I am asking that all people who are affiliated with a party, step back and examine what their party is doing for them as individuals and the community they belong to. If we take a close look, we'll see that neither major party is doing a good job on their minority report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
