The myth of "post-racialism".

"What the hell do you have to lose?"

That's what Donald trump told African Americans when he was trolling us for our votes in the last presidential elections.

Well, here we are nine months into his presidency, and already his question has been answered: It seems that we have quite a lot to lose with a Donald trump presidency.

Jamelle Bouie certainly things so.

"Most Americans believe active discrimination is a declining concern. They believe that despite the challenges our society currently faces, we are at least past the era of outright and explicit exclusion. The case for this belief rests on the fact that black Americans and other nonwhites have seen increased opportunities for professional advancement since the civil rights movement, as well as a growing prominence in American life. Our culture has also by now generally accepted inclusive principles. It helps, too, that this belief fits our national narrative of progress: our broad sense that, despite lingering conflicts and resentments, the present is a more just and humane place than the past and that the future shows the same promise.

 

But it isn’t true. Things may actually be getting worse, and not just in the casual interactions that comprise daily existence. There is hard evidence that explicit racial discrimination remains a major part of American life in the early 21^st century.
 

Just look at the startling results of a recent meta-analysis of available research into job market discrimination that found “no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years.” After identifying all existing field experiments (published or unpublished) on labor market discrimination in the U.S, the researchers narrowed their field of inquiry to 24 studies containing 30 different estimates of discrimination against blacks and Latinos since 1989—a data set representing tens of thousands of applications submitted for tens of thousands of jobs. In analyzing that data, what they found was stasis. Throughout the period, whites received an average 36 percent more job callbacks than blacks, and 24 percent more than Latinos. “Contrary to widespread assumptions about the declining significance of race, the magnitude and consistency of discrimination we observe over time is a sobering counterpoint,” they conclude, while offering the caveat and possibility that discrimination diminished in the two decades prior to 1989. If true, that still leaves the United States with pervasive discrimination in hiring, a phenomenon that may explain part of the racial employment gap, which leaves black Americans with double the unemployment of white Americans, in good times and bad.

How do we square this reality of discrimination with the acceptance of racially egalitarian views among white Americans? The short answer is that there’s a disconnect. Many white Americans express opposition to the most hateful forms of racism while holding prejudiced views and facilitating racist behavior. A new Reuters-Ipsos poll, taken in the aftermath of August’s violent neo-Nazi protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, illustrates this paradox, showing both wide condemnation of white supremacists and substantial support for white nationalist slogans. Although 89 percent of respondents agreed that “all races should be treated equally”—and 70 percent agreed that “all races are equal”—35 percent of whites said that America must “protect and preserve its White European Heritage” and 47 percent agreed that “white people are currently under attack in this country.”

It’s possible this disconnect stems from the profound segregation that still shapes and defines life in the United States. Even if they live in diverse metropolitan areas, most white Americans still live in largely white neighborhoods and suburbs (some white by circumstance, others by policy, intimidation, and worse), send their children to white schools, and attend white churches. Their actual contact with nonwhites is minimal and circumscribed, an environment that can inculcate discriminatory beliefs, habits of mind, and behaviors, even as they endorse America’s egalitarian civic creed.

More pressing than the sociology of white racism, however, is its practical effects: a widening wealth gap between blacks and whites. Between 1983 and 2013, according to a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies, the wealth of the median black household declined 75 percent (from $6,800 to $1,700), and the median Latino household declined 50 percent (from $4,000 to $2,000). At the same time, wealth for the median white household increased 14 percent from $102,000 to $116,800. It’s an almost unbelievable contrast, and by 2020, black and Latino households are projected to lose even more wealth: 18 percent for the former, 12 percent for the latter. After those declines, the median white household will own 86 times more wealth than its black counterpart, and 68 times more wealth than its Latino one. This isn’t a wealth gap—it’s a wealth chasm.

If nothing is done, that chasm will grow larger. By 2024, “the continued rise in racial wealth inequality between median black, Latino and white households is projected to lead White households to own 99 and 75 times more wealth than their black and Latino counterparts, respectively.” Even black incomes are stagnant and declining: The median black household makes substantially less today than it did in 2000. And if the wealth gap is left unaddressed, then by 2053, median household wealth for whites will grow to $137,000, while that for blacks will hit zero.

The myth of “post-racialism” has by now largely been dispelled, in part because of movements like Black Lives Matter—as well as the rise of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States. And there seems to be a growing awareness that “colorblindness” does more to entrench racial disadvantage than rectify it. Thankfully, there are policies that can begin to address this profound racial wealth gap. But we have yet to have any kind of discussion about it, even as we barrel toward a world where most blacks and Latinos live on the edge of immiseration. The racial wealth gap isn’t yet a national priority. It needs to be." [Source]

Unfortunately, Jamelle, we will have to wait at least four more years for that to happen.

 

A black writer tries to help the republican nominee get some black votes.

The Field Negro education series continues.

The following essay was written by Maya Rockeymoore  for theroot.com. 

"Donald Trump, thank you for thinking about us in the black community so much over the past few weeks. It means a lot to know we’ve got a true winner fighting for us on the road to the White House. But listen: You’ve stumbled a few times before, so I want to make sure you’re armed with a foolproof plan for winning over the skeptics among us. Yes, it’s a little late in the game, and yes, it’s going to be an uphill battle, but I’ve condensed your to-do list into three easy steps that will get you the black vote in no time.

Step 1: Take back everything you’ve said about race since you announced your presidential campaign. And ever, actually.

It may come as a surprise, but some of your comments on race have made black folks wonder if you have the slightest clue what it’s like to be a person of color in America in the 21st century.

For example: In November you tweeted an image with a number of false “statistics” about homicide rates, including one claiming that blacks had killed 81 percent of white homicide victims in 2015, that came from the fictitious “Crime Statistics Bureau” in San Francisco. That same month, you told Fox & Friends that a Black Lives Matter protester deserved the physical beating he got from your supporters during a rally in Alabama.

Then, in February, you refused to say whether you’d reject the support of David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan, a noted white supremacist and a hate group.

In May you implied that a federal judge could not fairly preside over a case on Trump University because of his Mexican heritage, which House Speaker Paul Ryan called “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”

Now that I’m thinking about it, let’s not limit this to just the past year. Your thinly veiled racist business practices have led to lawsuits by everyone from black casino workers in Indiana to the Justice Department—twice. You’ve openly voiced an opinion that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” You encouraged New York to reinstate the death penalty in order to execute five teenagers of color who were accused—falsely, as it turned out—of raping a woman in Central Park.

Once you’ve taken every single one of those positions back—unequivocally—you’ll be in a great position to launch into the next step. Only two more to go!

Step 2: Speak to some black people.

And I’m not talking about Omarosa.
The campaign staff with which you’ve surrounded yourself doesn’t have a good record when it comes to race. And the audiences you’ve chosen to address are overwhelmingly white—even when you first discussed your plan to get black voters on your side in Wisconsin.

By “speak to some black people,” I mean seriously engage with black thought leaders, policymakers and families and incorporate their perspectives and experiences into your platform. Swaying to the music at a black church doesn’t count. Maybe then, black voters will understand that you’re “the least racist person” out there.

So if you really want the black vote, get out there and speak to some black people. You can start with me, which leads to the final step.

Step 3: Adopt a progressive and inclusive policy platform that includes real reforms to reduce inequality and lift up communities of color.

In December I asked you to specify the steps you would take to close this country’s racial wealth gap, in which white households have a median net worth more than 15 times larger than that of black households and more than 13 times that of Latinos. This gap is the result of centuries of second-class citizenship and is perpetuated by the economic and physical exclusion of people of color in every community. It has bred and reinforced segregation in education, housing and opportunity and contributed to a violent culture in which black Americans are more than twice as likely as whites to be killed by the police.

You didn’t answer.

I encourage you to do so now, and to pledge to fight for inclusive policies that will move our society toward the equal-opportunity nation you claim to desire. That means taking bold actions like closing the wage gap, expanding Social Security, preventing the restriction of voting rights and pushing other elected officials to value America’s diversity instead of pushing it aside.

And that’s it. Who knew it would be so easy to court the black vote? Just three steps and I have no doubt you’ll get, as you predicted, “over 95 percent” of us on board in no time. No need to thank me. Just stop trying to plant the false idea that voter fraud—which is largely nonexistent—in majority-black areas is going to cost you the election, and focus on making these last two months count. See you in November!" [Source]

I could add a few more to that, but for now I will just add one: Apologize to the president for your disgusting birther charade. 

*Pic from politicsusa.com

Is it only "Black American Lives" that matter?

The Field Negro education series continues.

The following essay is important, because here in America folks need to realize that there is a big world out there. 

"Let's be honest: When people say "Black Lives Matter," what they really mean is that Black American Lives Matter.

Not Afro-Brazilian lives, not South Sudanese lives and certainly not Congolese lives. Just black American lives.

In July, as outrage over the police shooting of Alton Sterling dominated the news -- propelling black protesters across the world to the streets, much as Black Lives Matter protesters shut down London City Airport on Tuesday -- 300 people were killed in Juba, South Sudan.

That same week, an estimated 8,500 people were also killed in Congo, Africa's largest Sub-Saharan country, where proxy wars over control of its mineral resources that go into our mobile phones killed more than estimated 5.4 million between 1998 and 2008 -- and continue to claim 1,500 lives, with 1,100 women and young girls reportedly raped each day.

Yet, as with most killings in Africa, there wasn't any international protest within black communities in the diasporas to defend the humanity of these black people.

I cannot help thinking about this paradox: our preoccupation with the killing of black people in the United States versus our almost overt disregard for the killing of black people in Africa.

Why do we feel strongly enough to take to the streets over the killing of black people in Baltimore, Ferguson, Missouri, or Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but remain silent about killing in the Congo, Brazil or South Sudan?

Is it because Staten Island, Ferguson and Baton Rouge were flooded with media reporters from almost every major news outlet, with vigorous editorial discussion in the morning, noon and evening for viewers around the globe, while crises in the Congo and across Africa barely receive any airtime?

Is it because victims in the United States are black and their killers are white, whereas in places such as the Congo both the victims and perpetrators are black?

Or, perhaps, is it because we still see black people in Africa as primitive, not as fellow humans?

Whichever way you look at it, it cannot be right that our indignation arrives only when black people are killed in the United States.

Friends of mine have offered a predictable rebuttal: Black Lives Matter, I have heard it argued, must remain a US-focused campaign because of the impunity with which white police officers (even in the relatively enlightened 21st century) disproportionately kill black people for, in the words of James Baldwin, no other reason than simply being black: a painful reminder of the compromised existence black people have had in America since 1619.

My answer to this is simple. Police killing of black people in the United States is a symptom of a structural and systemic problem -- so far omitted from conversations -- that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called white supremacy: the ideology that inspired Nazi Germany, the Berlin Conference, the slave trade, apartheid South Africa, Jim Crow South, the Ku Klux Klan, white privilege, white power and the West's love affair with Africa's strongmen.

This problem doesn't just trouble America. Every black person lives in constant menace of it -- on both a personal and societal level.

According to popular culture, to paraphrase Muhammad Ali, Jesus is white, angels are white and Snow White is white. Outside of popular culture all synonyms for "blackness" in the dictionary are nasty and negative, while every synonym for "whiteness" is positive and beautiful.

In Brazil, it is a fact that Afro-Brazilians -- people who self-identify as black or brown and who make up 53% of Brazil's population -- are poor, marginalized and almost three times more likely to get killed than their white counterparts, according to the UN Children's Fund.

At the United Nations, it goes much further. The Rwandan genocide in 1994 is perhaps the most consequential example. At the height of the killing, the UN Security Council decided to reduce its peacekeepers from the meager 2,500 trying to prevent the killing to merely 270, while at the same time sending an additional 6,500 troops to strengthen the already 24,000 UN troops deployed to save lives in Bosnia, where the victims were white.

Understanding this (for this generation and for generations to come) is so crucial and critical that it must be emphasized. Police killing of black people in the United States and the West's support for regimes responsible for mass killing in places such as the Congo are practically inextricable. They both kill black people.

And if our protests in US and UK streets and across the globe on social media are a reflection of our moral outrage, then surely killings in Juba, Congo or Brazil must also be a priority. This means expanding Black Lives Matter from a social policy issue to a foreign policy test in the United States, UK and across the globe. Otherwise our protest looks like a sham and hypocrisy, thinly disguised as moral outrage." [Source]

*Pic from blacklivesmatter.com

If you thought that the Oscars were white.....

I tweeted this earlier, and it is worth repeating for this post: The problem with not knowing any black people or having any "black friends" (I see you Paul Ryan), is that when you need to trot out a black face you are forced to go with lunatics like Sheriff David Clarke.

Dude is one of the speakers at the RNC convention tonight (Don 't worry David, that white only elevator sign was just an oversight), and to say that he is a bit unhinged is an understatement.

Let's just say that the sheriff from Milwaukee has some issues.

I certainly hope that speakers like David Clarke will be few and far between at the RNC convention this week.

And I hope, for the sake of the country, that we won't have anymore of this:

"Donald Trump has moved on from the birther movement to float another equally reckless conspiracy theory about President Barack Obama.

After three police officers were killed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the president said that “there is no justification for violence against law enforcement. None.” He made similar comments after five officers were killed in Dallas on July 7, calling the attack “vicious, calculated and despicable.” He also flew to Dallas on Tuesday to speak at a memorial for the fallen officers.

Still, Trump questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s grief and concern.

“I watched the president, and sometimes the words are okay. But you just look at the body language and there’s something going on. Look, there’s something going on,” Trump told “Fox & Friends” on Monday.

“There’s just bad feeling,” he said.

Trump was responding to the head of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association’s claim that Obama “has blood on his hands” because he also condemned the police shootings of two African-American men.

“The president of the United States validated a false narrative and the nonsense that Black Lives Matter and the media are pressing out there to the public,” Steve Loomis said. “He validated with his very divisive statements and now we see an escalation.” [Source]

I suppose that president Obama can't grieve and show genuine concern because...well....you know.... those Black Lives Matter folks have to stick together. *big eye-roll* 

*Pic from rawstory.com

Demonizing a movement.

"  If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."

~Desmond Tutu~

The debate is so silly. "Why do they say that only black lives matter? Don't all lives matter?"

Let's think about that for a minute. The name of the movement is not only black lives matter, or, white lives don't matter. It's not even something as intimidating to hear as say, Black Panthers, or Black Power. The name itself is tame: Black Lives Matter. All of us who identify with the movement in one way or another are still scratching our heads over the majority population's issue with what it represents.

To listen to people like Sarah Palin and other right- wing zealots, you would think that the black lives matter movement is right up there with Isis as a group that should be feared in this country.

It's why I am not sure of what to make of some of the platitudes coming from politicians in Washington. There is a disingenuous nature to all of it. Let's just strike the right tone. Even though deep down we feel just like Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly.

I listened to Charles Blow on CNN last night, and he made an excellent point to Don Lemon, who was doing his usual best to make his white listeners feel comfortable.

I am paraphrasing, but he said something to the effect that he should not be apologizing for his blackness, and the burden shouldn't be on him to have to teach folks in the majority not to be racist. He argued that he is the one being victimized. Why should the one doing the victimizing, he wanted to know, get a pass?

He is right. The debate about racism and injustice in this country has always been about blaming the oppressed. If you call out racism, you are the racist. If you see injustice and speak on it, you are rocking the boat. "Can't we all just get along?" 

We could. But the charlatans and hucksters who are profiting from making poor and marginalized white people believe that  black people are the root of all of their problems would never stand for it.

On a personal note I need folks to understand something: If we never come together as a country it will not effect my life one bit.

It won't make my home or wife any less beautiful; it won't take a dollar out of my bank account; and it wont raise my golf score or improve my second serve or the quality of my backhand in tennis. I will continue to enjoy the life I have now, and the memories of a wonderful life that I have lived to this point. 

This debate is about the people (black and white) who have been marginalized in this country, and the systematic and institutionalized racism that keeps tearing our country apart by denying people at the bottom of the social and economic ladder real opportunities.

To blame this on the black lives matter movement is just silly and wrong. It strikes me as people who need to look at themselves and their own short-comings, trying to find an excuse for something that they have failed to do.    

This struggle for social justice and equal rights is not about black versus white; it's about the survival of this country. The sooner we all realize that and stop trying to blame or situation on a movement formed around a hashtag, the better off we will be.

*Pic from wikipedia.org

A trump break.

There has been a lot of coverage about the tragic passing of Prince this past news cycle. As a result, and thankfully, the wall to wall coverage of our national elections has taken a back seat.  I am devastated by losing such a musical genius, but I am glad for a break from these cable news stations and their trump love-fests for just a little bit.

Anyway, another story that was pushed to number two this past news cycle was the execution style murders of eight people (EIGHT!) in Ohio. That figure equals the amount of people murdered in quite a few countries all over the world in an entire year.  One woman was shot execution style with her six month child under her arms. *shaking head*

"Eight family members found dead in a rural southern Ohio community were shot in the head 'execution style,' most while they slept, authorities said Friday.

Officers are searching for the killer or killers, who are probably armed and a danger to surviving family members, Pike County Sheriff Charles Reader said.

"We have a specific family that's been targeted but I don't think there's been a threat to any other members of the community," he said. "I've given the family precautionary measures to make. They know we're available."

 

Investigators discovered seven adults and a 16-year-old dead at four crime scenes, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said. The victims included a mother slain while her 4-day-old child lay beside her, he said.

 

That child, along with a 6-month-old and a 3-year-old, survived the killings, Reader said.

 

He didn't name a suspect or give a motive, but said all victims are members of the Rhoden family.

"We're advising family members to be very careful and take particular caution," DeWine said. "This is a matter of public safety, especially for the Rhoden family." [Source]

 

"Especially for the Rhoden family? Isn't it  a little late for them? My lord, this country needs help.

 

Finally, some folks in the majority population still can't understand why we have to stress the fact that Black Lives Matter to anyone who will listen. 

 

Take, for instance, the story in Florida, where we thought that the police involved were heroes because we thought at the time that the had saved the lives of thee black girls.

 

Well as it turns out, not so fast.

 

"Flak over three teens’ deaths in a cemetery pond following a car theft chase prompted a Florida sheriff to release more dashcam footage of the incident Friday.

 

Family members of Dominique Battle, 16, Ashaunti Butler, 15, and Laniya Miller, 15, are questioning the Pinellas County Sheriff’s account of why deputies did not jump into the St. Petersburg pond to save them around 4 a.m. March 31, ABC News reported.

 

“In my opinion, this has been a rush to judgment,” said a lawyer for the families, William Anderson. “In my opinion, this has been a smear campaign.”

 

Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri has said the mud was too thick to get to the gold Honda Accord in the 15-foot deep pond after the teens stole it, led deputies on a chase and crashed into the water. The sheriff’s office released a video Friday showing three deputies with parts of their uniform off returning to their cars after wading into the mud off Gandy Blvd.

 

Unfortunately, some people are irresponsibly and falsely posting on Facebook that deputies did not attempt to rescue the three girls who tragically drowned while fleeing from the police in a stolen car a few weeks ago,” the sheriff’s office said in a statement.

 

“The sheriff stated at the time that deputies removed their gun belts and clothes and tried to enter the water to rescue the girls, but the conditions in the water prevented them from doing so. This is exactly what happened, and we stand by that.”

Yet the release of other video from the crash scene Monday and audio earlier in the month provoked questions. The deputies could be heard in the video footage discussing whether they heard the three teens screaming." [Source]

*Pic from twitter.

 

 

 

Mr. Trump's America.

  Congrats to Donald trump for winning Nevada last night.

It now seems that he is clearly on his way to becoming the republican nominee to be president of these divided states of America.

Seven years of unadulterated hatred for the man in the White House has gotten the republicans this mountebank to emerge as their leader. It couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch.

I have heard the constant refrain of, I don't support everything trump says, but I like the way he shoots from the hip, and I think he will shake up Washington.  He might in fact do those things, but you can't separate who trump is and what he represents from supporting his policies and the influence that he will have on the political class. 

The following article sums it up perfectly:

"Let's take a page from Donald Trump's book and ignore political correctness for a moment: If you support Trump, you support his sexist, bigoted and racist views.

There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. And this is especially true for GOP party leaders, elected officials and even community leaders.

 

Some have said things such as, "I don't like Trump's history of demeaning women, but I think he will be good for the economy." Sorry, you don't get a pass because you like one of his policy proposals. It's akin to saying, "I supported Hitler for his tax plan." And no, I'm absolutely not comparing Trump to Hitler. But Anne Frank's 86-year-old stepsister, Eva Schloss, who survived Auschwitz, did just that a few weeks ago, telling Newsweek that Trump "is acting like another Hitler by inciting racism."  So when elected officials such as South Carolina Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster or Republican New Jersey state Sen. Mike Doherty -- shockingly a person from my home state -- endorse Trump, we need to ask them why. Do they support resolving disagreements with women by publicly referring to them as "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals"? Because Trump does.

 

And what about the other elected officials who have endorsed Trump such as Arizona Treasurer Jeff DeWit, Rhode Island state Rep. Joseph A. Trillo or Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun. What moved them to endorse Trump?

 

Could it be these elected officials admire the way Trump stoked the flames of hate toward Latinos? His labeling of Mexicans as "rapists"?

 

Maybe they admire the way Trump bullied and mocked not one but two disabled reporters: Serge Kovaleski and Charles Krauthammer -- Trump despicably ridiculed Krauthammer, a man paralyzed from the waist down, as "a guy that can't buy a pair of pants."

Do these officials admire Trump's call to tread on the rights of American Muslims using warrantless surveillance? Perhaps they enjoyed his race-baiting story -- lacking in any factual basis -- that "thousands" of Muslims were cheering in New Jersey on 9/11 to celebrate the attacks on the World Trade Center?

 

Or perhaps these Republican officials are drawn to Trump for defending violence against those who dared to disagree with him at campaign rallies. The most alarming incident came in November at a Trump rally in Birmingham, Alabama, when a Black Lives Matter protester interrupted the candidate. The GOP front-runner called on the crowd to get the man out of there. His supporters then beat up the man, reportedly calling the black protester "the N-word" and a "monkey." Shockingly the next day Trump defended those actions, saying, "Maybe he should have been roughed up."

 

And Monday night, Trump again invoked violence in stifling dissent at a rally, telling the crowd as a protester was being thrown out: "The guards are being very gentle with him. I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you that."

 

We must assume that those who endorse Trump know this history, given that the media have widely covered it. We must also assume they are not just endorsing Trump's policy positions but his disturbing sexist and bigoted history as well.

 

The same goes for people such as former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who recently proclaimed he would vote for Trump if he wins the GOP nomination because he feels compelled to back his party's nominee. Sorry, you don't get a free pass by saying you are in essence "following orders" by voting for the Republican nomination. You have a choice.

 

That's exactly why well-known conservative Erick Erickson wrote an article Monday titled simply, "I Will Not Vote For Donald Trump. Ever." Erickson, who I have vehemently disagreed with in the past, has offered a profile in courage knowing Trump's minions and even fellow conservatives will attack him.

 

Erickson first calls out Trump as a "liberal masquerading as a conservative." He writes that he simply can't support a candidate who "preys on nationalistic, tribal tendencies and has an army of white supremacists online as his loudest cheerleaders." That is one of several good reasons that no good person should support Trump.

 

GOP party leaders, elected officials and community leaders must realize that if they endorse Trump, the rest of us will be forced to assume they are just as bigoted and hateful as he is. " [Source]

 

Think about that for a minute. Erick Erickson, of all people, will not support trump because of his bigotry and the bigots who support him. 

 

That's scary stuff. 

 

This might all be too late, though, because I am afraid the genie has already left the bottle.

 

As America we must now prepare ourselves for the very real possibility that Donald trump could be her next president.  

 

Calling the Mandeville, Jamaica  Parish office now to make sure that my taxes are caught up.