Much has been made about the United States celebrating the first one hundred days of the Obama Presidency. In essence the celebration is becoming much like Valentine's Day. Its a day that has no real meaning or significance but something we've allowed ourselves to observe none the less. In no other job does the first one hundred days matter the way the mainstream media has created this "First 100 Days". Surely there is much to track when assessing the pros and cons of an Obama presidency but to set an arbitrary mark of one hundred days does nothing but give mainstream media outlets something to gear up for. In the coming days here are few things you can expect to see most media outlets ignore when "grading" Obama on his first hundred.
Much of the foreign policy talk has been about three central topics; these topics tend to be torture, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These areas have been identified by much of the press as areas of pressing concern to the safety and security of the United States. Thus when commentators will give Obama a grade on the matter they will be using the affairs of these topics as a rubric. Recently the plight of Somalians became a point of conversation but once the Navy Seals shot them, their story also died. Also Venezuela and Cuba have been talking points but the United States nor the government can (with a straight face) claim a moral high ground on that argument. So the media is likely to have that phased out of the public discourse. So in honor of the 100th day expect the media to center the discourse on foreign policy where the United States can claim moral superiority.
As far as domestic policy goes the media again seems to be disinterested in anything that doesn't pit Democrats and Republican against each other like wild animals. Debates about the budget, government spending, warrant less wiretapping, the bank crisis and same sex marriage are continually viewed through the prism of right/left, conservative/liberal and red/blue. As the news channels acknowledge the 100th day it is safe to expect those that lean left to heap praise on Obama on the aforementioned issues. Those news organizations that lean right will lambaste him on the matters. Either way no new information is gathered and the dialogue is full of partisan rhetoric that doesn't advance the culture or the conversation
With all the conversation about domestic policy surrounding the partisan nature of modern news organizations, it is easy to for see news organizations neglecting questions of whether or not small businesses are benefiting from a flowing credit market. The case against the police officer who shot and killed a handcuffed citizen in Oakland will more than likely be swept under the rug and not receive a great deal of attention. Whether or not the states that refused the stimulus money will be able to survive on their own will be another ignored story. The prosecution (or lack there of) for bankers who were criminally negligent in their actions will also be something that may not make it to airwaves or to press.
A main reason for the void in meaningful dialogue or a thorough look at serious issues is because to truly see them play out takes time. It takes clearly more than 100 days. Unfortunately because so many of us are subjected to getting our news and information from the mainstream media, we are also limited to the news stories that they feel as though shape our life. In this case, we will be paraded through the gamut of opinions and grades on "Obama's first 100 days". All the Sunday morning talk shows are likely to have a roundtable discussion about it as well. This will be all in the name of profit. News networks can count on viewers to watch as they assess Obama's performance over this short time. It is clear that things are bad when James Carville notices the partisan jockeying. This is sadly the media's attempt to generate a story despite most rational people realizing that 100 days is no real barometer in assessing a president. But even I can't complain that much. Even I am writing about it. Looks like everyone is caught up in the Hundred Day Hoopla.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
By Culture and By Merit
The Supreme Court is again about to venture into murky waters. They have begun hearing arguments over a case involving 20 firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut and the city of New Haven. The case centers on a test that took place in 2003 to determine command level positions for the New Haven Fire Department. As a result of the test 20 firefighters were to be awarded promotions. Of those 20, 19 were white and one was Hispanic. Seeing a major lack of diversity, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and canceled the promotions. The city of New Haven believed there must be an inherent fallacy of the test if it failed to yield any worthy Black candidates. The 20 firefighters filed a lawsuit saying they achieved the promotions based on the merit of their work and they should be rewarded as such
This case has been heard by two lower courts that dismissed the lawsuit, and now it makes its way to the Supreme Court. A casual glance suggest that this should be a simple case depending upon the lens with which you view the United States. For those with a liberal view of politics and social issues, it only makes sense to promote diversity. In that spirit, any job that does not seek to promote and encourage diversity needs to be reprimanded for it. For those who look at political and social issues from a conservative lens than this is slam dunk. Hard working Americans are being denied something they rightfully achieved. For the conservative observer this is a case of reverse discrimination because the firefighters who scored well on the test did so by their own merit.
The conservative viewpoint makes a lot of sense as an observer. The firefighters did exhibit the merit to serve in the leadership capacity, that can not be denied. In fact I even agree that what the city of New Haven is doing is discriminatory against the white firefighters. What's interesting to note though is how necessary the city's decision was. It was necessary because since 1776 the city of New Haven and the rest of the United States has been practicing discriminatory policies and tactics against Americans of African descent. Sadly this is the tangled web that has been woven by centuries of neglect, mistreatment, abuse and exclusion from the "American Dream" where if you work hard enough you can achieve anything. In fact the reality was (and in most instances is) if your culture permits, your merit can provide.
Sadly, and definitely unfortunately, what the firefighters are learning is a fallacy that many Americans of African descent learned centuries ago. The United States is not a meritocracy. Accomplishments are not based primarily on your ability to work hard, or achieve or perform. Rather accomplishments are the prize of those that have access. They are the reward of culture and privilege. The fallacy is only allowed to maintain because every so often there is a successful person who does not come from the upper class. Often times, those with cultural advantages use this as justification of meritocracy. They argue if John can succeed being at a socio-economic disadvantage so too can everyone else in that position. What goes largely unmentioned is that the success stories are the exception not the rule. As culture relates to this case, being white in America has been and is still a huge advantage. To neglect that would be to neglect truth.
In a feeble attempt to right the wrongs of this nation (and to avoid being taken to court for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) the city of New Haven acknowledge that there is a great probability that its test was culturally biased (as have been most standardized test in the United States) and they wanted to right that wrong. In the process they have (though not intentionally) wronged the 20 firefighters who scored well on the test. There really is no right answer. When a society based on meritocracy doesn't start it's existence based on merit but rather cultural capital there is no way to go back and even the playing field. So now the city is stuck; not so much between a rock and a hard place but they have to decide to reward by culture or by merit.
This case has been heard by two lower courts that dismissed the lawsuit, and now it makes its way to the Supreme Court. A casual glance suggest that this should be a simple case depending upon the lens with which you view the United States. For those with a liberal view of politics and social issues, it only makes sense to promote diversity. In that spirit, any job that does not seek to promote and encourage diversity needs to be reprimanded for it. For those who look at political and social issues from a conservative lens than this is slam dunk. Hard working Americans are being denied something they rightfully achieved. For the conservative observer this is a case of reverse discrimination because the firefighters who scored well on the test did so by their own merit.
The conservative viewpoint makes a lot of sense as an observer. The firefighters did exhibit the merit to serve in the leadership capacity, that can not be denied. In fact I even agree that what the city of New Haven is doing is discriminatory against the white firefighters. What's interesting to note though is how necessary the city's decision was. It was necessary because since 1776 the city of New Haven and the rest of the United States has been practicing discriminatory policies and tactics against Americans of African descent. Sadly this is the tangled web that has been woven by centuries of neglect, mistreatment, abuse and exclusion from the "American Dream" where if you work hard enough you can achieve anything. In fact the reality was (and in most instances is) if your culture permits, your merit can provide.
Sadly, and definitely unfortunately, what the firefighters are learning is a fallacy that many Americans of African descent learned centuries ago. The United States is not a meritocracy. Accomplishments are not based primarily on your ability to work hard, or achieve or perform. Rather accomplishments are the prize of those that have access. They are the reward of culture and privilege. The fallacy is only allowed to maintain because every so often there is a successful person who does not come from the upper class. Often times, those with cultural advantages use this as justification of meritocracy. They argue if John can succeed being at a socio-economic disadvantage so too can everyone else in that position. What goes largely unmentioned is that the success stories are the exception not the rule. As culture relates to this case, being white in America has been and is still a huge advantage. To neglect that would be to neglect truth.
In a feeble attempt to right the wrongs of this nation (and to avoid being taken to court for violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) the city of New Haven acknowledge that there is a great probability that its test was culturally biased (as have been most standardized test in the United States) and they wanted to right that wrong. In the process they have (though not intentionally) wronged the 20 firefighters who scored well on the test. There really is no right answer. When a society based on meritocracy doesn't start it's existence based on merit but rather cultural capital there is no way to go back and even the playing field. So now the city is stuck; not so much between a rock and a hard place but they have to decide to reward by culture or by merit.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Terror on the High Seas
Much has been made about the recent developments on the seas and the waterways in Eastern Africa. The United States media has recently taken a keen interest in the affairs of that region of the world. Sadly and unfortunately many of these same outlets only seem to tell one side of the story. Rarely, if ever, does that side tend to be from the African point of view. As the Navy Seals are celebrated and the Maersk Alabama's captain is returned to the United States, key questions such as why and how that were not asked or answered in the mainstream media must be answered here.
The why and how that I seek to answer are less related to the efforts of the Somali pirates in their attempt to take the Maersk Alabama, but rather why they feel the need to patrol the seas and oceans of that area anyway. Initially one's first line of reasoning would be why would pirates patrol an area. Many will rightly say that's the navy's job. However for a country such as Somalia that has been in turmoil as long as it has it has no standing navy. Once we acknowledge that, then we can see a myriad of problems that will develop for Somalia because of a lack of a navy.
One main problem that has served as a key spark in this pirating epidemic is the dumping of nuclear waste. Because Somalia is a nation in chaos and lacks the ability to organize a standing navy to combat foreign navies, many countries (including some western countries) dump their nuclear waste in Somali waters. What this does is pollute the Somali air quality and shorten the life expectancy of Somali citizens. If this isn't bad enough, when other nations don't want to over fish their waters, they send their fishermen to Somali waters. This takes work away from the Somali fisherman and food away from the Somali people. In turn many western "aid" groups step in to provide essentials like food for the Somali people when it is these same aid groups governments that are a factor in causing the starvation of the Somali people in the first place.
The Somali people's response to this is to fight back. As has been belabored the Somalis do not have a navy to formally fight with, so they fight with improvised tactics. The United States first faced improvised tactics with the Vietnamese and guerrilla warfare. Since then other organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda have fought back using improvised techniques because they lacked proper armed forces. All of these groups have also been labeled as terrorist mind you. Sadly what happens in these cases is that otherwise innocent people are are the victims of the loose organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Pirates) on account of the policy decisions these innocent people's government have made. The United States mind you is the same government that armed and trained the Afghan people to fight against the Russians during the cold war in the 1980's. Then they were freedom fighters fighting off oppression. When they fight the United States they are called terrorist. What has changed? Nothing but the oppressor.
This is not in any way to condone or excuse violent behavior against innocent people. Perhaps (and one can only hope) the crew members of the Maersk Alabama were not on the high seas to dump nuclear waste and were there in fact as reported to deliver aid. If that is the case it is terrible that innocent people had their lives threatened. It was a shame that there were innocent victims in the numerous attacks across the world. In no way is this meant to praise the work of the Somali pirates or the Middle Eastern fighters. All we want to do, and it is our responsibility as citizens to do this, is look a little deeper than the obvious and find out the truth. The west and particularly the United States have never had clean hands when dealing with "third-world" or undeveloped countries. It is unlikely they'd start now.
The why and how that I seek to answer are less related to the efforts of the Somali pirates in their attempt to take the Maersk Alabama, but rather why they feel the need to patrol the seas and oceans of that area anyway. Initially one's first line of reasoning would be why would pirates patrol an area. Many will rightly say that's the navy's job. However for a country such as Somalia that has been in turmoil as long as it has it has no standing navy. Once we acknowledge that, then we can see a myriad of problems that will develop for Somalia because of a lack of a navy.
One main problem that has served as a key spark in this pirating epidemic is the dumping of nuclear waste. Because Somalia is a nation in chaos and lacks the ability to organize a standing navy to combat foreign navies, many countries (including some western countries) dump their nuclear waste in Somali waters. What this does is pollute the Somali air quality and shorten the life expectancy of Somali citizens. If this isn't bad enough, when other nations don't want to over fish their waters, they send their fishermen to Somali waters. This takes work away from the Somali fisherman and food away from the Somali people. In turn many western "aid" groups step in to provide essentials like food for the Somali people when it is these same aid groups governments that are a factor in causing the starvation of the Somali people in the first place.
The Somali people's response to this is to fight back. As has been belabored the Somalis do not have a navy to formally fight with, so they fight with improvised tactics. The United States first faced improvised tactics with the Vietnamese and guerrilla warfare. Since then other organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda have fought back using improvised techniques because they lacked proper armed forces. All of these groups have also been labeled as terrorist mind you. Sadly what happens in these cases is that otherwise innocent people are are the victims of the loose organizations (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Pirates) on account of the policy decisions these innocent people's government have made. The United States mind you is the same government that armed and trained the Afghan people to fight against the Russians during the cold war in the 1980's. Then they were freedom fighters fighting off oppression. When they fight the United States they are called terrorist. What has changed? Nothing but the oppressor.
This is not in any way to condone or excuse violent behavior against innocent people. Perhaps (and one can only hope) the crew members of the Maersk Alabama were not on the high seas to dump nuclear waste and were there in fact as reported to deliver aid. If that is the case it is terrible that innocent people had their lives threatened. It was a shame that there were innocent victims in the numerous attacks across the world. In no way is this meant to praise the work of the Somali pirates or the Middle Eastern fighters. All we want to do, and it is our responsibility as citizens to do this, is look a little deeper than the obvious and find out the truth. The west and particularly the United States have never had clean hands when dealing with "third-world" or undeveloped countries. It is unlikely they'd start now.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Honoring A Hero
Last week John Hope Franklin past away. He is best known as a historian and an ardent student of history. Dr. Franklin did more than just study American history he owned and mastered it. He was born in Oklahoma in 1915. His parents were both literate and educated and they sought to make their children's lives as comfortable as an African-Americans life could be at that time. In those pursuits they moved to an all Black section of Oklahoma. Unfortunately the vicious and insidious racism would find them there as Franklin's father's law office was burned during the Tulsa race riots that decimated much of the burgeoning Black commerce community.
Brother Franklin's parents instilled the idea of education in him at an early age and he became valedictorian of his class. After being rejected from the state university because of his race he went on to study at Fisk University before ultimately getting his PhD from Harvard. Dr. Franklin went on to publish some very serious and meaningful work. One prized piece that is used even in collegiate classrooms across the nation today is the book "From Slavery to Freedom". One of the greatest contributions that Dr. Franklin made however was less about his scholarship and more psychological.
Dr. Franklin embarked on his scholarship at a time when Blacks suffered a more blatant and painful self-loathing. The American Negro (as African-Americans were termed at the time) knew nothing of their self or their existence, culture and meaningful contributions in the United States to say nothing about their African history. Dr. Franklin would rewrite history not in a fantasy vain that would glorify Black people through lies and untruths, but rather by charting the impact Blacks made on the development, growth and expansion of the United States. As recent as 2006Dr. Franklin was still agitating the nation for honesty. He lamented how some 200 plus years after the nation's founding there still was nothing in the nation's capital to show what happened to African-Americans.
His work was not limited to scholarship though. He marched with Dr. King from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Prior to that he worked side by side with such luminaries as Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall to prepare the legal briefs for the landmark Brown v. Board of education decision. He said that working on public policy issues was a healthy combination of spirited activism and scholarship. His political and social work didn't stop there as he was appointed by several presidents to several commissions and councils investigating matters of history, society and race.
Dr. Franklin's work was not without legitimate criticism. Critics have argued that looking at the Black people's progress and calling it freedom is short cited considering the legacy and greatness of many African cultures. Beyond that though, even Dr. Franklin's critics respected him. Some even used his text in their classes. He sought to and was successful in retelling the historical narrative of America with a sincere truth and honesty about its treatment of non-Whites. Our only hope (no pun intended) is that in death his message words and legacy will not be tamed to accommodate the guilt of others. If he is indeed honored for his life and his life's work; let him be honored for who he was, not who others want him rembered as. It wouldn't be right because that had been what he was fighting against his entire life.
Brother Franklin's parents instilled the idea of education in him at an early age and he became valedictorian of his class. After being rejected from the state university because of his race he went on to study at Fisk University before ultimately getting his PhD from Harvard. Dr. Franklin went on to publish some very serious and meaningful work. One prized piece that is used even in collegiate classrooms across the nation today is the book "From Slavery to Freedom". One of the greatest contributions that Dr. Franklin made however was less about his scholarship and more psychological.
Dr. Franklin embarked on his scholarship at a time when Blacks suffered a more blatant and painful self-loathing. The American Negro (as African-Americans were termed at the time) knew nothing of their self or their existence, culture and meaningful contributions in the United States to say nothing about their African history. Dr. Franklin would rewrite history not in a fantasy vain that would glorify Black people through lies and untruths, but rather by charting the impact Blacks made on the development, growth and expansion of the United States. As recent as 2006Dr. Franklin was still agitating the nation for honesty. He lamented how some 200 plus years after the nation's founding there still was nothing in the nation's capital to show what happened to African-Americans.
His work was not limited to scholarship though. He marched with Dr. King from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. Prior to that he worked side by side with such luminaries as Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall to prepare the legal briefs for the landmark Brown v. Board of education decision. He said that working on public policy issues was a healthy combination of spirited activism and scholarship. His political and social work didn't stop there as he was appointed by several presidents to several commissions and councils investigating matters of history, society and race.
Dr. Franklin's work was not without legitimate criticism. Critics have argued that looking at the Black people's progress and calling it freedom is short cited considering the legacy and greatness of many African cultures. Beyond that though, even Dr. Franklin's critics respected him. Some even used his text in their classes. He sought to and was successful in retelling the historical narrative of America with a sincere truth and honesty about its treatment of non-Whites. Our only hope (no pun intended) is that in death his message words and legacy will not be tamed to accommodate the guilt of others. If he is indeed honored for his life and his life's work; let him be honored for who he was, not who others want him rembered as. It wouldn't be right because that had been what he was fighting against his entire life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
