Black Education, black youth and black parental issues. Our goal is to cover any and every issue that you find most relevant to you as an African-American, particularly as it pertains to education. Our school systems are in jeopardy, and it's critical that our people find a way to help our children learn.
PEARL, MS (WLBT) - Teachers are prohibiting students from talking about President-Elect Barack Obama. WLBT's newsroom has been flooded by calls and emails from angry parents in several cities. These parents say their children were threatened with suspension if they said Obama's name or wore clothing that supports him.
A historic presidential election leading to the appointment of the United State's first African American President Barack Obama has everyone talking, but students at some Mississippi schools are being prohibited from doing just that.
"It's like they've taken their rights way," said Natalie Taylor. She decided not to show her face because she is afraid of retaliation against her son who attends Pearl Junior High School.
"He told me he was warned by one of the teachers before school started that he could not mention the name because he would get in trouble," said Taylor.
Taylor's calls to the school principal have gone unanswered. "I thought Mississippi had come a long way and for this to happen? It is unbelievable," added Taylor.
We received this statement from Superintendent John Ladner; "As adults and professionals we are not going to deprive anyone of their excitement over the current election of President-Elect Obama, or any other candidate. The whole nation was excited, and in no way and at no time will children be disciplined for saying the name of the President-Elect of the United States. Any employee who would attempt to do that would be corrected and disciplined. We expect professional behavior, respect and demeanor of staff and students. It is unfortunate that some employees mishandled this situation, but they have been disciplined and I have spent the day clarifying our policies."
"Racism at its best, that's really what it is," said Paula Loften of Magee. She has two children in the Simpson County School District in Magee. She is angry that students are not allowed to wear any clothing that supports the new President-Elect.
"One student was sent home to change because she had on a Barack Obama T-shirt and on the back it said "yes we can," said Loten.
Magee High School teachers read a memorandum in class the day after the election. It stated, "Seeing history in the making and being a part of that process is a wonderful thing. Many of you are excited because of this. Others are not. It is absolutely critical that we not use this election as a divisive event. We should respect one another by not saying or doing things in the wrong way that would take away from this historical event and possibly cause a disruption here at school. Celebrations at school that cause disruptions are not acceptable and against the law therefore, this should not occur. Please by mindful of this and respect one another regardless of differences in opinion." Simpson County school officials say a disruption on campus led to the statement.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi is also expressing concern over violations of students' ffree speech. The ACLU is encouraging students and parents to contact the group if they are subjected to or witness any form of restrictions on speech, discipline, or santions in response to protected speech activities. Call (601) 354-3408 or 888-354-ACLU (2258).
The stage theatrics performed by the corporate press in analyzing the dynamics of Race vis-à-vis Sen. Obama, has been abysmal, at best. To put it bluntly, they suck. When Barack “Hussein” Obama, a Black man, initially announced his bid for the presidency, it was clear that the predominantly White media was unprepared, to say the least, in tackling the indomitable beast of RACE. The first revelation of this reality came, early 2007, when White pundits began asking the question: “Is Barack Obama Black enough?” It took an unprecedented level of effrontery for the grossly unenlightened conglomerate of White journalists to pose such a question, but, to paraphrase Sinatra, they did it their way.
Before long, the same group of overfed self-congratulators would declare, with such temerity, the dawn of a “post-racial” era. Considering the ground-work of “post-racialism,” it came as no surprise when the White, New York Times columnist, Matt Bai, declared Obama's candidacy to be “the end of Black politics.” Upon Bai’s preposterous assertion, numerous Black bloggers/Writers asked a simple question: What the heck is going on? Unfortunately, their reluctance to curtail mass media’s long-tradition of re-defining race-discourse had begun to bear fruit.
Once upon a time, a Black scholar’s usefulness on TV was exclusively tied to race-analysis – also known as “intellectual ghettoes.” Malcolm X, in 1965, lamented the rarity of Whites, in the media, “asking any negroes what they think about the problem of world health or the space race to land men on the moon.” The White press seemed to have hearkened to Malcom’s timeless words – at least, in part. Now, they figure it tiring to entreat a Black intellectual to analyze the politics of race. Why invite a panel of Black scholars, as Charlie Rose was fond of in the ‘90s, when one can host a panel of cotton-club-like White pundits who can deliver their tortured analysis of race in the 21st century. The level of audacity which provoked Matt Bai to suggest that, “For a lot of younger African-Americans, the resistance of the civil rights generation to Obama's candidacy signified the failure of their parents to come to terms, at the dusk of their lives, with the success of their own struggle - to embrace the idea that black politics might now be disappearing into American politics,” is what accounts for today’s pitiful attempt, by Mass media, to come to grip with the reality of a Black man overseeing the affairs of the country.
White journalists covering the 2008 Presidential race have performed woefully, at best, in covering the 2008 Presidential Race. One salient example of the unsatisfactory job done is the wholesome neglect of Cynthia McKinney’s historic presidential run. In contrast, the White press has lauded Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and other third party candidates with ample coverage in their bid for the presidency. By some unforeseen means, the mainstream media has strategically executed, in McKinney’s words, “a whitewash” of the ’08 Race. Juxtaposed with the amount of press Ms. McKinney was instantaneously granted in 2006, after an incident with capitol police, something is, surely, out of kilter.
One of the greatest lies told in history is that the White media operates as the “conscience-filter” of politics. The ’08 presidential Race has laid bare that theory and rendered it invalid. In early 2007, Sen. Obama was compelled to dispel the proliferated rumor that he was raised in a Madrassa, and hence, a practicing Muslim. In doing this, the often spineless Senator utilized the oldest trick in political playbook. DENY! DENY! DENY! In his brash attempt to debunk the “smear,” Sen. Obama made a convincing case against the humanity of Muslim brothers and sisters. His “I am not a Muslim” tour was an instant hit with White neo-liberals who saw a conflict between the name, Barack “Hussein” Obama, and their concept of the American dream. If the media were truly a source of correction and conscientiousness, such an effort to dehumanize the quality of life of Islamic and Arabic brethren would have died the death of a thousand qualifications. Regrettably, the White media saw no moral incentive in protecting the integrity of Islamic and Arabic fellows. Those who began to speak out candidly against the rhetorical atrocities committed against middle-eastern people did so at a time when it was politically, economically and socially convenient to do so.
Last week, Gen. Colin Powell gave a ringing endorsement of Sen. Obama. Amongst many of his emotional words was his displayed concern for the handling of Obama’s theoretical Islamic ancestry/identity. Powell asked, in the plainest of terms: “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?” Sure, Powell’s morally upright comments could have dealt a bigger blow five years ago, but his politically-expedient remarks at this point still account for some ethical effect. Upon hearing this, many White neo-liberal Radio/TV talk-show hosts ran with the baton of crusading against Islamophobia.
Unfortunately, their epiphany comes too little, too late. Two months of amendment can hardly alter the damage done after 19 months (in the context of the ’08 Presidential Race) of continual attack. Many White neo-liberal hosts have been just as culpable as their neo-conservative counterparts in rendering paralyzed the voices who speak truth to power. Their inability to speak up candidly against injustice is leaving an indelible stain on the concept of democracy and equality. Speaking only when profitable to their cause, they blow with the cultural wind and remain steadfast in an illusory state of progressivism. White newscasters such as Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow frequently “defend” the plight of Black voters, but almost always is their defense directly tied into the objective of electing their candidate, Sen. Obama. Such acts of political profit are an immoral waste of time and energy.
HBO Host and Comedian, Bill Maher, who has deemed Obama the “Jackie Robinson of American politics,” appeared on Larry King Live a couple of weeks ago. In a discussion on Race, Maher spoke of Obama’s meteoric rise as emblematic of the country coming “a long way in a relatively short period of time – relatively.” The self-described “crazy-liberal” hopes that society would “move faster,” in addressing the enormous racial disparities between Black and White. Maher, who once referred to Sen. Obama has “our boy,” must be living in a state of grand-delusion. Coming a long way – with Sen. Obama’s candidacy as the yard stick – would connote a starting point of inequality. But most Blacks are immediately suspicious of such inference – as it would suggest that any step away from inequality is improvement. Malcolm X had a philosophical answer to that: “You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches, and then pull it out six inches, and say you’re making progress.” Mass media, however, seems overtly hesitant to pay homage to that blurb.
A few weeks ago, CNN hosted a segment in which they attempted to make Whites feel comfortable with their bigotry – or in the words of BlackCommentator.com publisher, Peter Gamble, “the white curtain of racism.” Banking on the wisdom of a New York TimesOp-Ed column, CNN noted how possible it was to be discriminatory or hateful toward a certain group, without knowing it! In a manner similar to a child therapist, the host explained, with much detail, the logic of “subconscious-racism.” With rage ricocheting through my entire body, I wondered: “Dr. Goebbels must be feeling real good with himself right about now.” Perhaps he’s thinking: “I’m a good man, after all. It wasn’t my fault. The Devil (my subconscious) made me do it!” CNN and the columnist’s excuse was that certain factions of society have inbred perceptions of ethnic groups, but cease to act upon those sentiments. The Holy Bible, which most Whites accept as irrefutable, informs that, “As a Man [or Woman] thinketh in his [or her] heart, so he [or she] is.” A recent AP/Yahoo poll, which found one-third of White Democrats to harbor racist resentments toward Blacks – costing Sen. Obama at least 6 percent in the polls – demonstrated how ridiculous it is for CNN, MSNBC, FOX News and other media conglomerates to tout the absurd claim that a “reverse Bradley effect” might be at work – the premise of which mysteriously causes more whites than expected, to vote for Sen. Obama on election day. With the likes of Pat Buchanan, the – in Tavis Smiley’s words – “racial arsonist,” who employed Klansman on his woeful presidential campaigns, working as paid analysts and consultants with major networks, one can definitely see how inexcusably narrow-minded race-discourse has become within the last 20 months.
White journalists’ analysis of race has often paled in sharp-contrast to that of their Black counterparts. In an effort to assuage the incongruity, White pundits often recruit Black pundits/scholars/buddies/consultants who lend credence to their attempts to rewrite history. Two perfect examples of this arose in the cases of Sen. McCain’s description of his opponent as “that one,” and Ashley Todd’s fabricated account of being robbed and mutilated by a menacing Black man. In the case of John McCain, most Black bloggers condemned his racially-hostile comments, but certain White pundits never believed it to be worthy of scrutiny, to begin with. Following McCain’s debate remark, Comedy Central Host, John Stewart, was swift in refuting any malice involved in McCain’s characterization of Obama. “I don’t think McCain was referring to him as a boy... I don’t think that when he said that one, that it was a racial thing,” Stewart opined. At this point, one of Stewart’s few, and rarely seen, Black correspondents had come out to affirm his boss’s take: “You’re right, it wasn’t,” the correspondent noted.
CNN News anchor, Campbell Brown, was less ambiguous. “Give me a break,”the White pundit hollered. “I can hear my grandfather talking about one of his kids or grandkids as ‘that one.’ He used it a lot. Maybe it’s a generational thing. Maybe it wasn’t a term of endearment the way it was when my grandfather used it. Maybe McCain did mean to be disrespectful. But racist? I don't think so.” Following Ms. Brown’s logic, Barack Obama would have to be a grandchild for McCain to successfully call him “that one,” and be devoid of any racist or pejorative intent.
Last week, when a Pittsburgh white lady, Ashley Todd, lied about an encounter with a six-foot Black man – who had allegedly robbed and engraved the letter, “B,” into her face, White pundits rallied around to protect Todd from any charges of racial animosity. Black pundits were immediately summoned on CNN to “control the atmosphere.” On MSNBC, Obama-supporter and author, Melissa Harris Lacewell, went as far as proclaiming the initial skepticism surrounding the case to be a sign of distinctive racial progress. The political-science professor suggested that while the Ashley Todd fiasco is not “the end of American racism,” the “measured response” by law enforcement marks the dawn of a new racial era, and displays how “different” the “country is now than… it was 50 years ago.” Sean Bell, Troy Davis, Amadou Diallo, Mumia Abu Jamal, Michael Tarif Warren and Evelyn Warren might argue otherwise.
The hubris of White corporate media structures has played itself out extensively in the 2008 Presidential Race. Saturday Night Live is an explicit example of this reality. Last season, when SNL sought a perfect match to impersonate Democratic Presidential Nominee, Sen. Obama, it seemed quite odd that the SNL executives picked a White man to play the part. The inability of SNL to enlist a talented Black comic is a birth child of the White media’s decision, early last year, to arrogantly host all-white panel discussions on race. To hide this reality, certain tokens are dipped into the political slot. But when a Black man is granted a show, on a national stage, to confront the role of Race in the presidential election, certain prerequisites must be at play. The host must display a knack for Stepin Fetchit-like characteristics, or be an unabashed despiser of Black Women. White media executives understand the devastating effect serious-minded Black talk-show hosts would have on the truncated version of race-discourse hosted by White journalists. It is in this vein that, till this day, no Black personality hosts a nightly newscast on any of the major TV news networks.
Author and Journalist, Tavis Smiley’s All-American Presidential Debates, last year, legitimized this truth. The top GOP front-runners, at the time, were nowhere to be found – as they last wished to answer the “hostile” and “unreceptive” questions from people of color/culture around the world (One Republican would rather share a meal at IHOP, than answer questions the debate textbooks don’t cover). With this logic in place, it came as no surprise when the Presidential debates, all hosted by White men, were devoid of any mention on the specific plight of people of color/culture in the U.S. and beyond.
Does anybody believe that if Black journalists were in control, the dehumanization of Arab souls would have operated unimpeded, bigots like John McCain and Sarah Palin would retrieve a free pass in their nonchalance toward peoples of culture/color, the illusion of “post-racialism” would pass the smell-test, the folly-imbued concept of “race-transcendence” might be entertained as anything other than wishful-thinking? The simple answer is: NO! BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member and Columnist, Dr. Lenore Daniels, had some choice words for the half-witted White pundits last week: “[I]t’s not just Racism! It’s white supremacy! You can’t wake up one day and be absolved of racism in an atmosphere of white supremacy. Racism seeps out every day in every way and you know it if your life is devalued by the continual reiteration everywhere of white privilege.” It would behoove White journalists, who hope to analyze race in the future and maintain their credibility, to meditate on her sobering caution.
an assistant professor of Africana studies at SUNY Stony Brook and the author of "Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America" Tuesday, March 27, 2007; Page C02
THE N WORD
Who Can Say It, Who Shouldn't, and Why
By Jabari Asim
Houghton Mifflin. 278 pp. $26
In an era when high-profile rappers, comedians and public intellectuals craft contorted defenses for the use of the word "nigger," Jabari Asim's "The N Word" provides an important, timely and much-needed critical intervention about this enduringly controversial subject. Beyond a simple discussion of the word itself, Asim deftly chronicles the way in which racist ideology went hand-in-hand with racist culture to permanently alter -- and stain -- the character of America's nascent democracy.
Asim's book is an ambitious, sweeping work that surveys four centuries of racist culture and custom in American society. From the outset, the term in question was a convenient, all-purpose condemnation that allowed such architects of American democracy as Thomas Jefferson to claim that blacks lacked the intellectual and emotional capacity to handle full citizenship. In Jefferson's words, blacks were "inferior to the whites in endowments both of body and mind." A veritable industry of scientific and cultural racism would make Jefferson's sentiments seem positively statesmanlike.
At each step of this sprawling, briskly paced history, Asim chronicles the way in which the word not only permeated popular culture through literary classics such as "Huck Finn" but had practical, real-world consequences, especially during the post-Reconstruction period of anti-black lynching, violence and rioting that swept across the nation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Asim, the deputy editor of The Washington Post's Book World section, documents how black Americans countered the dominant narrative perpetuated by "Niggerology"(as one "scholar" of black inferiority labeled it in the 19th century) with nuanced accounts of historical figures such as the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass and the anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells. Asim explores how, in the 1940 novel "Native Son," Richard Wright turned the word, and much of the literary world, upside down through his character Bigger Thomas, whose very name seemed to suggest the N-word. Bigger Thomas's unpredictable violence transformed the one-dimensional literary characters of the past (the imagined spooks of a racist literary tradition) into a hauntingly poignant emissary of social misery whose tragic actions illuminated the contours of racial oppression in Depression-era America.
The civil rights movement's heroic decade, between the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 and passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, seemed to signal the slow demise of the word in popular culture. No longer could respectable Southern politicians use the blunt, coarse and spectacularly successful language of someone like George Wallace.
But by the late 1960s and early '70s, blacks began openly using the term themselves. At the very moment when civil rights victories meant the word could no longer be spoken in public by whites, black provocateurs started to brandish the word like a sharp sword. The comedian Richard Pryor said it with an easy candor that scandalized white audiences and helped him emerge as a kind of outrageous prophet whose use of the word managed to sting whites more than blacks. The casual, everyday use of the word in black communities that had been a hidden part of a segregated past now became an accepted part of popular culture. The genie, so to speak, had been let out of the bottle, with predictable results. A generation of multi-hued youngsters now eagerly deploys the word in everyday language that betrays no hint of historical understanding of its horrific roots.
Asim tells this story with energy, insight and well-timed flashes of humor. "The N Word" also serves, both implicitly and explicitly, as a brilliant and bracing history lesson for the countless pundits debating the virtues of black popular culture. Unlike many commentators, Asim manages to avoid both facile condemnations and contorted rationalizations. Instead, he offers a passionate survey that places contemporary African American culture in the larger context of American history. Confronted by a generation largely uninterested in the nation's collective racial history but still burdened by its legacy, Asim argues that only by understanding the past can we reacquire the political courage and insights necessary to create new words and envision new worlds. "As long as we embrace the derogatory language that has long accompanied and abetted our systematic dehumanization," Asim writes, "we shackle ourselves to those corrupt white delusions -- and their attendant false story of our struggle in the United States. Throwing off those shackles would at least free us to stake a claim to an independent imagination." And, just perhaps, renew our hope in shaping a better world.
