Today we look again at the concept of individuality. James wrote a piece today called Am I destroying the black community? that is a response to something I wrote last November called How the myth of individualism is destroying the Black community. In it, he refutes many of my points, but I think at the core he misses some fundamental truths that are necessary for individual success and collective advancement.

2 I’s don’t make a We

James says (my emphasis added):

Charging those of us who fail to drink collectivist Kool-Aid with “destroying” anything is to miss many points, and the most obvious is that despite whatever struggles black people face, black people in America, in 2008, have it better off than we’ve ever had it and it’s not even close. There’s a very good chance that a black man could be elected President in November, yet we’re all supposed to open our history books to page 128 to study yet another of America’s broken promises to black people. As Barack Obama said in his race speech from Philadelphia, what’s amazing isn’t how badly blacks are doing, but how much we’ve accomplished, given the odds against us.

Life is undoubtedly different today than it was many years ago. Barack Obama becoming President is a net positive for this country as a whole. However, I firmly believe that outliers do not define trends. Making that statement is not an indictment on said outliers; it is instead a proclamation of the reality that having a Black Council[wo]man/Mayor/Senator/Governor/President in an of itself has limited impact on day-to-day life.

Let’s look at some data on Black male joblessness since Brown v. Board of Education. That’s just one measure, but it’s one of the more important ones because joblessness is often the first step towards other social issues. Tell me if this is better or worse:

• Employment rates among black male teens and young adults ages 16 to 19 have dropped considerably over the past 50 years, from 52% in ‘54 to 20% in ‘03. Worse.
• Among 20 to 24 year old black men, employment rates averaged just 57 percent during the past three years, compared with an average of 80 percent employment in the late 1960s. Worse.
• In 2002, a full quarter of African-American men ages 20 to 64 were not employed at any point during the year. The year-round joblessness rate for black adult males in 2002 was twice as high as that of white and Hispanic males. This trend has been steadily increasing since 1973. Worse.

What’s interesting is that over this same time period, we’ve seen a large wave of Black leadership is business, government, and pretty much everything else. There are individuals that are indeed breaking through. But a larger number of people being able to say “I made it” hasn’t translated very well to people being able to say “We mad it.” People being able to say “I made it” is nice, but they are using the “I” in “Individual” instead of the “I” in “Institutional”. Working towards the “Institutional” goal of collective advancement can make the phrase “I made it” actually matter to more people than you.

It is not selfish to [want to] achieve individual success, however you define it. It is short-sighted, however, to have that as the only end goal.

The Cost of Double Consciousness

James says:

Gilchrist’s argument brings to mind the very same reason individualists shy away from the black community: membership fees are often too high. When people hear that they need sacrifice their individualism to join the black community, they start thinking that maybe the community isn’t for them.

W.E.B. DuBois is credited with coining the phrase double consciousness, which in simple terms the duality inherent in the African American identity, that you were literally part African and part American. It talks about the gift and curse of having two parts of your identity, and how that manifests itself (or should manifest itself) in one’s thoughts, words, and deeds.

This concept is the basis of my thinking on individualism. My view of this double-consciousness is not only that I’m one part African and one part American, but that I am one part individual and one part member of the larger community. With this view of myself, I have equal responsibility and equal accountability to both myself and my community. It is not that one necessarily takes precedence, but what’s important to understand is that they both exist. If this notion was to inform our thinking of ourselves, our communities, our nations, our world, and our environment, we wouldn’t view helping others as payment of membership dues. We’d look at it as paying dues to ourselves.

The destroyer

I people do not think about or act in the best interest of the community or environment in which they exist, that neglect will become destructive to that community or environment. We have seen this with the environment virtually every day for the last 100+ years in the Western world. I don’t want a climate crisis to occur within the Black community due to similarly destructive neglect.

One Love. One II.

What’s up fam,

I am happy to kick off Black on Black Thought. This week, James wrote about CNN’s Black in America special (that will highlight life in Black America in all its complexity) and considers whether or not this series will over saturate America with “race talk” and its possible impact on the 2008 election. James basic conclusion is that we are reaching a saturation point in our “race-talk.” I think we are far from the point of saturation.

James’ article kicks off with a basic premise that America is not ready for a meaningful dialogue on race and to this end, I think he is right especially given the mistaken notion that we are living in a post-racial society and the willful ignorance of addressing the historical significance of Indian removal policy, slavery and Jim Crow (and others) as institutional wrongs whose impacts can be felt today

James goes on to question “whether America isn’t “done” with race for the moment, and whether re-engaging a dialogue on race won’t hurt race relations — but also the Obama candidacy — in the end.

I will address the aforementioned shortly but James supports his argument by stating that “By November we will have had the Wright/Pfleger controversy; Obama’s speech on race; questions about Obama’s patriotism; stories about white Americans who believe Obama represents a “change” too great; discussed Black Liberation theology; and will have “learned about what it’s like to be Black in America — and then be expected to vote for a black man in the poll booth.

If I could sum up James’ article it would be that America is getting tired of talking about race and this may have the impact of hurting race relations and damaging Obama’s chance of victory in November. However, if we are really honest with ourselves, it’s not that Americans are not tired of talking about race, they are just really annoyed and upset when it comes up.

To help illustrate my point, consider this, all of the major news outlets embark on a two-week campaign highlighting the need for Americans to give of their time and money to help victims of Hurricane Katrina. For clarification, imagine that this coverage is replete with graphic images and harrowing stories and intensity comparable to MSNBC’s coverage Tim Russert, whose passing moved me deeply and inspired me to cherish my family more. Now do you think Americans would a) Respectfully engage this campaign by watching/listening to this coverage and give of their time and money or b) Occasionally watch the coverage and before the end of the first week, start to think to themselves and become vocal in saying “OK, I get it. Katrina was bad but can we please change the subject now?” I suspect that the answer would be b) because people aren’t tired, they are really annoyed and upset.

For any remaining moral purists, tell me how long it takes for you to click away from television specials that highlight the need for giving aid to starving African children?

So if we are at a place where we can’t even mount sustainable campaigns where people have to give of their time and money for extremely worthy causes, how can we get people moved to do a far less taxing activity such as having a “race-talk.” As for Obama’s candidacy, I think his “race-talk” will be beneficial in comparison to the extent that the majority of Americans are not annoyed or angered. And in my opinion, if Americans are over saturated with anything, it is thinking that it is inherently unfair to correct this country’s original sin through public policy along with a severe lack of empathy for those less fortunate and/or different.

Fox News saw this as an act of terrorism. I don’t even know what to say to that.

I really, really can’t stand Fox News. For more reasons why, check out Fox Attacks.

One Love. One II.

I know there will be rallies held in New York to protest this miscarriage of justice and if you are in the area, you should go. After the marches though, Bell’s story like Amadou Diallo and others will be filed in the Black consciousness as the continuing saga of injustice that has plagued Black folk since we were kidnapped from Africa. Surely this is worth Black folk being bitter right?

Bell was killed at a strip club and the undercover detectives were there to investigate if there was prostitution going on. Prostitution is wrong I get it. But quite frankly, how in the world do you investigate prostitution? I mean you tell me that these detectives couldn’t have set up a camera and watch the footage from the precinct? Aren’t there enough unsolved murders in the hood that could be a better use of these detectives’s time? And while I don’t have a J.D., how is it these detectives were not brought before a jury?

I try to imagine the hell I would raise if one of my people suffered a death like Sean Bell. The fact is that while I never knew Sean, he is my brother and your brother too. Our prayers go out to Bell’s family and friends as they and we try to sort out this injustice.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

My former professor and now friend informed during vigorous debate once that they (Washington and DuBois) were both right in many respects and Black folks have been hoodwinked into thinking that things are “either, or” versus “both, and.” So for my people that have heard me make that argument, that is where it comes from but I digress.

My question to you is this, what would a hybrid vision of DuBois and Washington thought look like in 2008?

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Civil Rights Groups Wither – New Ones Taking Their Place

This Washington Post story Civil Rights Groups Seeing Gradual End of Their Era ends with this sentence though I’d like to start my response with it. It quotes E. Ethelbert Miller:

“What would happen if W.E.B. Du Bois or Marcus Garvey had a laptop?” Du Bois helped found the NAACP in 1909, and Garvey, a rival, started a back-to-Africa movement around the same time.

We are the answer to that question. In the vacuum of black leadership 40 years after Martin Luther King’s death, it’s his spiritual grandchildren that are carrying his mission forward now and not the civil rights groups he might have recognized. From the WaPo piece (emphasis mine):

In New York, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which helped shape the movement’s philosophy after adopting Mohandas K. Gandhi’s doctrine of nonviolent protest, is scarcely known outside Manhattan. CORE conceded that it now has about 10 percent of the 150,000 members it listed in the 1960s.

In Baltimore, the near-century-old NAACP, which tore down racial barriers with deft lawyering in the courts, recently cut a third of its administrative staff because of budget shortfalls. For decades, the NAACP asserted that it was the largest civil rights group, with about half a million dues-paying members, but one of its former presidents recently acknowledged that it has fewer than 300,000.

[...]

Charles Steele, president and chief executive of the SCLC, acknowledged that squabbling nearly doomed his organization. But, he said, the SCLC is coming back. The group says it has 150,000 members at more than 70 branches, but a 2004 analysis by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution showed that only 730 members paid the $25 membership dues.

Let me break it down for y’all: Color of Change now has over 400,000 members — 25% more than the NAACP. Over 100,000 unique visitors now read this blog at Jack and Jill Politics each month (and growing fast), putting our audience soon at perhaps 10 times that of CORE. Let’s not even talk about the SCLC.

We — you reading this blog and me writing it — we are Civil Rights 2.0. WaPo (sort of) acknowledges, stating:

Today, radio deejays, Internet groups such as Color of Change.org and organizations such as the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights are orchestrating bus rides, marches and other actions once performed by civil rights groups.

[...]

When six black teenagers in Jena, La., were being prosecuted as adults last year in the beating of a white classmate, the local branch of the NAACP played a small role in defending their rights, but it was Color of Change.org that secured their release.

Activist Al Sharpton learned about the Jena incident on the radio long after it started. Radio talk-show host Michael Baisden ranted about Jena throughout his program and helped organize bus tours to the town.

Strangely, the article doesn’t mention the role of black bloggers in aiding Color of Change and in publicizing the Jena case. We kept the story alive and made sure the facts got reported right. A strange oversight indeed since the media covered our involvement pretty extensively at the time, e.g. Chicago Tribune – Blogs Help Drive Jena Protest and NPR – Bloggers A Force Behind Jena Protests.

But shoot, you and I know what time it is. What if Martin Luther King or Stokely Carmichael and the Black Panthers had had laptops and high speed internet access…? And blogs? Hmmm…

BTW — the WaPo also spelled Stokely’s name wrong “Stokly”. Dag — that ain’t right.

Just so people know the vision of Trinity United Church of Christ;

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

I want people to know the mission of Wright’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

I have three main observations.1. Being pro-Black does not equate to being anti-anything. If you need clarification on this point, email me at bqwhite@gmail.com

2. Why don’t more Black churches have missions that are similar to that of Trinity United? I am not saying all Black churches must have the same mission statement but how many times have you seen a Black church make an explicit commitment to Africa? And why is it radical to support Africa?

3. Any sensible Black church leader who refuses to stick up for Wright is out of their mind. If a Black church can successfully be branded racist and/or separatist because they express love and support for Black people, then we as a people really need to get back to basics.

Two things you can do, call or email support to Pastor Wright ((773) 962-5650 or info@tucc.org) and if you do go to church, ask your pastor to address this issue to your congregation.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.

Last year, a big question around this event was whether or not Barack Obama was going to attend the event. He did not, but he was doing something that was much bigger: deciding to and formally announcing his run for the Presidency. Now, one year later, in the midst of a very competitive primary season, Obama faces the same question: will he go? Should he go?

Obama is not attending. Tavis Smiley is on record saying that he’s cool with that. Roland Martin at Essence Magazine thinks this was the right decision. His primary argument is that Obama must “look forward, not in the past” and that Obama “can’t be defined as the Black candidate.” He thinks that Obama should send his wife Michelle, and continue campaigning in Texas and Idaho.

I think that’s a terrible move and completely wrong, and here’s why.

Barack and Michelle Obama should both attend the Black State of the Union event. Any criticism of their attendance of this day, arguably the most important discussion of the state of this country’s Black affairs, would not only by unfounded and irresponsible, but easily refutable.

Don’t go backwards…

The first criticism, that Obama “should look forward” is off-base and ironically short-sighted. The reasoning for this position is that since Obama already won the Louisiana Primary, he does not need to go back to the state, and should be singularly focused on the upcoming, potentially decisive primaries in Ohio and Texas. The idea that a candidate should not interact with people that already voted for him is unwise. After being voted for and elected, you become an employee of those voters. Ignoring a voter at any time is a bad idea, but ignoring supporters is even worse.

Yes, the event is in New Orleans. Last time I checked though, people from outside of New Orleans attended, watched on TV, and/or participated in the event. I bet that people voters in Texas and Ohio will be tuned into this event. Seems like a great opportunity to address those potential supporters. Another thing: Where did large number of people affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita migrate to? Texas!!! Maybe those Texans care about N.O. after all.

The more sinister, underlying message of this criticism is the frame of a discussion focused solely on Black America as a look backward. I know that Obama has unfairly had to exhibit dazzling acrobatics with regard to his Blackness. However, a decision not to attend this event unnecessarily demonstrates an implicit endorsement of that notion. The fact is that talking about Black issues directly is in no way a step backward. Dialouge that leads to enlightened action is never a step backward, and no community needs such a discussion more than ours.

The “Black candidate” conundrum

Another potential criticism of Obama’s attendance of this event is that he cannot be seen as the Black candidate. This line of thinking is fundamentally flawed. Attending this event does not define him as the Black candidate anymore than going to a meeting of Latin voters defines him as the Latin candidate. Last I checked, Barack Obama was Black. That by definition makes him the Black candidate. The real question though is: why is being the Black candidate a bad thing? Moreover, why is a Black man being the Black candidate a bad thing? Why must that part of his identity be dealt with so tenderly?

Part of Barack Obama’s appeal is based on his message of the broad idea of change. It’s based on the idea of uniqueness, newness, of a new direction, of inclusion, of a new kind of politics. Such a message should actually include all parts of Obama’s identity: the leader part, the Black part, the intelligent part, the change part, the hope part, etc. A lack of attendance to arguably the most important discussion on Black America does not hurt him. Who would it hurt him with? Republicans? No, since any Republican bothered by his attendance wouldn’t vote for him anyway. Latinos? No, since the wedge that is attempted to be driven between Black and Brown is a myth pushed by the Right. Black people? I don’t think so.

What kind of change?

Some may call this view naive. If you do, I challenge your definition of change and the change you want to see if you do not want to see this become a country where a Black man can run for president and not have to think twice about attending an event about Black issues.

It’s clear that Obama, for invalid and potentially valid reasons, has chosen to at least partially downplay his dealings with some outwardly Black discussions/issues (one exception that comes to mind is his statement on the Jena 6). I have always thought that this was not necessary and was out of sync with the messages of hope and change. It actually makes the point that there is only hope and change if we don’t talk directly on too many Black things. That’s not the kind of change that makes me hopeful.

One Love. One II.

I am just frustrated because among Black folk in America, we have been somewhat vitriolic in our treatment of Black folks who do not support Obama. Supporting Clinton or Edwards does not make you a coon or an Uncle Tom. And my fear is that unlike Kenya, supporters of Clinton or Edwards (or other) have not had to fear for their life but respect and civility have taken some body blows. Maybe we could help heal those wounds by coming together to find out ways to help our Kenyan brothers and sisters.

Stay up fam,

Brandon Q.