Showing posts with label Wake Up Everybody. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wake Up Everybody. Show all posts

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Haiti..."God still Loves You!



 
Haiti -God’s Love You, Even If Man Do Not! 
Bishop L.J. Guillory


Haitians Respond to Media Portrayal of Homeland

By Kristin Gray


AFRO Managing Editor
(January 16, 2010) - As many Haitians live in peril amid indescribable destruction and death, their American relatives are vexed by the media’s depiction of their native country as an uninhabitable, poverty-stricken no man’s land.While Haiti’s history of widespread human suffering is irrefutable—something most Haitians recognize—some believe the Caribbean nation has been particularly demonized by international media following a 7.0-magnitude earthquake which pulverized its capital, Port-au-Prince.


“The media has been giving Haiti a bad rap since I could remember,” Pamela Vaval, a 25-year-old Haitian-American nurse living in Florida, told the AFRO. “Haiti is not the richest country, obviously, but neither is Jamaica, Bahamas and all the other islands in the West Indies….I know a lot of people who have lived here for many years and moved back to Haiti because they lived better over there than America.


My grandmother, who has a big beautiful house in Haiti, did not have to lift a finger in Haiti because she had maids.”Because positive stories from Haiti are rarely publicized in international media outlets, many come to know the citizens and the land —the first independent nation in Latin America—as the “poorest country in the Western hemisphere.”


Haiti has been linked to vaudou, Satanism and zombie lore in contemporary films such as “Live and Let Die” and “The Serpent and the Rainbow.” But Vaval believes Haiti’s overwhelmingly negative representation abroad has more to do with the media’s attempt to craft cookie-cutter images of a nation it does not understand.


The images have been reinforced by round-the-clock media coverage of the disaster which has consistently highlighted a lack of infrastructure in Haiti.“Honestly, I don’t know why the media talks about Haiti as if no part is good,” she said. “Probably the same reason they portray Africa as if all Africans live in huts and run with lions…I’m born and raised in America, [and] have been to Haiti only once when I was a toddler, so I can’t tell you any memories.


But from pictures and what my friends and family who go to Haiti all the time tell me, it is just like any other island [in the Caribbean] — beautiful beaches, rich culture, wonderful people. Hopefully after all of this, people will see Haiti and its people in a different light, but I’m not so optimistic. [The] only thing left to do is educate and enlighten.”




By AFRO Staff
(January 16, 2010) - Two prominent conservatives came under fire over comments made about the massive earthquake that hit Haiti on January 12.The Rev. Pat Robertson, a televangelist known for controversy as much as being a devout Christian, was the first to weigh in.During a Christian Bible Network telecast, Robertson said the Haitians made a deal with the devil to free them from French colonial rule.


“They got together and swore a pact to the devil,” Robertson said. “They said ‘we will serve you if you get us free from the French.’ True story.”The comment has drawn the ire of many, including top White House officials.“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the BBC. “But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.”In an effort to defend Robertson’s comments, conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh made controversial comments of his own.


Limbaugh said on his radio show that “this will play right into Obama’s hands, [casting him as] humanitarian, compassionate. They’ll use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in both the light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It’s made to order for him.”Gibbs also refuted Limbaugh’s statements.“I don’t know how anybody could sit where he does, having enjoyed the success that he has, and not feel some measure of sorrow for what has happened in Haiti,” Gibbs told CBS News.
 
“I, Bishop L.J. Guillory have never viewed Pat Robinson as Man of God!” However, he is a fellow Republican, one of whom I have disagreed with more than I have ever agreed. Like many of my Republican Counterparts; Pat Robinson, have used any and every issue to start a Campaign of Hate most with Democrats and some with African Americans!


It also should be noted that Pat, will fight anyone who isn’t apart of his 700 Club and or isn’t willing to support his odious ideals. He has become very rich from selling false information under the cover of News/Religion. Maybe this is an opportunity for AMERICANS to truly see this man for what he is…..“Not a Man of God!” Just a man who has used Religion and Paid News Programming to make Money.


And, Rush Limbaugh, lives to make controversial comments. He has also become rich from doing so! Some will ask the question “Is it the pills?


I spoke to Mr. Dumas Simeus, Philanthropist, and Former Presidential Candidate of Haiti. Mr. Simeus said; “Anyone wishing to help in the efforts in Haiti should contact a Non-Profit of their choosing and send money nothing else at this time!” Mr. Simeus will be a guest on the Ombudsman Press Show Hosted by Bishop L.J. Guillory next Sunday after Meet The Press.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Say What You Really Mean



Carl M. Cannon
Senior Washington Correspondent
New Campaign Book: Bill Clinton's Remark about Obama Angered Teddy Kennedy
 
The forceful 2008 endorsement of Barack Obama by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy – and Kennedy's sudden break with the Clintons – was caused in part by a racist comment made by Bill Clinton to Kennedy over the telephone, according to a new campaign book.
The book, Game Change, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, asserts on page 218 that after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Clinton called Kennedy to press for an endorsement from the influential Massachusetts liberal. But the call backfired, according to the authors, and left Kennedy deeply offended.

The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.
Bill Clinton, once lauded by African-American admirers as the "first black president," got in trouble later in the campaign when he came across as dismissive of Obama's South Carolina victory by noting that Jesse Jackson had also carried the state when he ran in 1988. But this is the first time the "coffee" remark has been reported, and it is likely to reopen all old wounds – and cause some new ones.

For his part, Clinton reacted angrily in 2008 to anyone who dared question his racial sensitivity. If history is any guide, the former president will not let this latest assertion go unchallenged, either. In his telling, which should come any minute, Clinton will surely recount the conversation differently. Unless he simply flatly denies the second hand account, Clinton will likely say something along the lines that on the contrary, he was not belittling Obama but extolling how much racial progress had been made in this country -- and characterizing not his own view of Obama's audacious campaign, but how Republicans would talk about it.

According to the Halperin/Heilemann book, however, this remark was not an isolated instance. On Page 161 Hillary Clinton is depicted as being tickled when her New Hampshire campaign chairman Bill Shaheen mentions Obama's use of drugs as a young man. "Good for him," Hillary is quoted as saying. "Let's push it out."

Most of the Clinton staff, knowing this instinct was wrong, dissuaded Mrs. Clinton. But not all. On Page 163, senior adviser Mark Penn is heard boasting to his staff how many times he managed to work the word "cocaine" into an MSNBC segment where he went after Obama.
Campaign books often give the feel of rehashing everything you thought you knew. Not this one – especially the revelations about Elizabeth Edwards and her wayward husband John who, even after everything had come a cropper in his personal life, still thought he could parlay an Obama endorsement into an appointment as Attorney General. That didn't happen, but Hillary Clinton is now Secretary of State, and the publication of Game Change could make for an interesting moment or two at the next White House cabinet meeting.
Now, if Bishop L. J. Guillory, had said any of these things he'd be on the news for a week!

Black or Right?


Harry Reid Shouldn't Have Said It Out Loud, But How Many Think It?
Mary C. Curtis
Contributor
 
It was one of the great lines said by an iconic character in a ground-breaking television show. When Mike "Meathead" Stivic wrongly guessed Harry Belafonte as the black guy Archie Bunker ferried in his taxi, the sage of Queens "corrected" him: Belafonte wasn't black, he said, just a "good-looking white guy dipped in caramel."

Archie Bunker's character was a comedic caricature, of course. But one reason "All in the Family" stayed on top of the ratings was because Archie said what a lot of like-minded people thought. And that's no joke. When some people think about black people, if they think about them at all, they rank them into a sort of racial hierarchy, as Archie did with Belafonte and his actual taxicab passenger, Sammy Davis Jr. How "black" is that person? It's not the convoluted categories of mulatto, quadroon and octoroon once favored in Louisiana, but Archie's line got a laugh because everyone knew what he meant. It no more needed a translator than the title of Chris Rock's recent documentary, "Good Hair."

Sen. Harry Reid is no Archie Bunker, though from the state of the polls in Nevada, even the fictional Archie might beat him in a head-to-head contest right about now. But all the outrage at Reid's admittedly clumsy, politically calculated remark is both cynical and hilarious.
During the campaign, he said Barack Obama's chances for the presidency were good because the country – read whites in America – were ready for someone "light-skinned" who spoke with "no Negro dialect," as reported in "Game Change," a book detailing the 2008 race by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words," Reid said in a statement. "I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans, for my improper comments."

I can't know all that was on his mind, or whether he meant "black dialect" as the rhythmic cadence of a preacher or full-on "Amos 'n' Andy."

I do know there's a reason that for some, black beauty begins with Beyonce and ends with Halle Berry. I still recall that when Middle America's favorite football hero, pitchman and bad actor O.J. Simpson became public enemy No. 1, Time magazine's cover wasted no time in darkening him up. Tiger Woods – who invented the word "Cablinasian" to reflect his Caucasian, black, American Indian and Asian background – is today all "thug life" bravado on the cover of Vanity Fair, transformed by his troubles into a black man, though no black person I know is rushing to claim him.

Not long ago, I took an archaeological tour of James Madison's Montpelier in Virginia. From the main house you could the see the spot where the house slaves' quarters stood. It wasn't as grand as where the master lived, but investigative clues discovered it had wood floors and a few amenities not awarded field slaves, who lived far out of sight. Traditionally, those house slaves were the "lighter-skinned" progeny of whites whose control over their property extended to the sexual. Those closest to white by blood were allowed a tantalizing closeness to the power they could not share. After slavery, those who were light enough to pass into white society sometimes did, with the reluctant acceptance of black family members aware that in America of the time, disappearing into whiteness meant a promotion to the status of human being.

Who hasn't heard the ditty: "If you're yellow, you're mellow. If you're brown, stick around. If you're black, get back." In black high society, some private clubs followed a paper bag test (if you were browner than a paper bag, you were out of luck). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has recalled painful prejudice he felt based on his dark complexion.

I missed out on a part in the fourth-grade play because my light-skinned, long-haired friend "looked like a princess," according to my nun nemesis. That I stole the show in my solo number as "The Little Blue Angel" of the title still, I am slightly embarrassed to say, gives me some measure of satisfaction. The history is long, it hurts and it's not yet over, as much as America would like it to be.

In the 2008 election, more than a few white folks – breathing a sigh of relief – told me they believed Barack Obama wasn't really black because he had a white parent, ignoring that few people white or black in America are pure anything. For some it was a just a failure to "get" that there have always been people with a white parent who self-identify as black because that is how society sees them and they're OK with it, proud to be identified with people who survived and thrived despite crushing, sometimes fatal acts of racism. What does it matter? Each person is an individual with a unique set of quirks and qualities, and we're all Americans, right?

A subset got downright angry when Obama called himself African American, as though, since he was given an out, why would he not take it? "Isn't he proud of his mother?" they asked me. Yes, and I'm sure she was equally as proud of her black son.

In others, you could see the familiar mind game in which people with a stereotype of a certain group declare a person who doesn't fit it as somehow different or exceptional because that's so much easier than changing that stereotypical view.

Reid didn't reference the twisted history, the generations of misunderstandings and missed connections. But his remarks acknowledged he had them in mind, albeit for a self-interested, politically advantageous reason. As usual in this partisan time, Reid's comments have lost any meaning except political cudgel. It's easier than people really discussing if his words have some truth and why in 2010, categorizing an entire race into divisions as meaningless as skin tone might be troubling.

President Obama's statement tried to cool the situation: "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed." He concentrated on Reid's record, not his words. What a concept!

Among those who are loving this? Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, who has taken heat for his own verbal gaffes, is calling for Reid to step down. Steele compares Reid's statement to then Sen. Trent Lott waxing nostalgic about Strom Thurmond. Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine countered – logically to me -- that there is no comparison between Reid, who enthusiastically supported the presidential candidacy of a black man, and Lott, who was praising a man who stood for, filibustered for, separation of the races.

Bill Clinton must be feeling relieved, as well. As my colleague Carl M. Cannon reports, "Game Change" also "asserts on page 218 that after Obama won the Iowa caucuses, Clinton called Kennedy to press for an endorsement from the influential Massachusetts liberal. But the call backfired, according to the authors, and left Kennedy deeply offended."
"The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

As long as Reid is apologizing, Clinton can dodge a comment at least as insensitive and can avoid once again shoring up his increasingly tattered race-related bona fides. Clinton's lucky that Reid's comment is more unusual than his own run-of-the-mill insult about Obama as fetcher of coffee.

Just a few days away from the holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., is it too much to ask that we honor his memory by finally having that honest conversation on race and privilege that we threaten to do each time there's a blow-up?

Though we can't afford not to in an increasingly diverse and divided country, the track record isn't promising.
Now, that's something that will have The Bishop L. J. Guillory thinking..... "Wow!"

Thursday, January 7, 2010

DRUG, DRUGS AND MORE DRUGS

http://http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/president-ronald-reagans-son-cameron-reagean-arrested/19308036

Ronald Reagan's Grandson Arrested
AP Staff

LOS ANGELES (Jan. 7) - The grandson of former President Ronald Reagan was arrested Thursday for investigation of obstructing an officer who responded to his home after the grandson unknowingly tripped a silent alarm, a family member said.Cameron Reagan, 31, was taken into custody in the Van Nuys area of Los Angeles, police said.

He later posted $10,000 bail and was released, police said.His father, Michael Reagan, a conservative commentator who used to live in the house, said his son accidentally hit the alarm."It goes directly to the police station," Michael Reagan said. "They surround the house with police cars because of who we are."Michael Reagan said his son panicked because he didn't know what was happening."There was a lot of misunderstanding at 1 a.m.," he said. Police Officer April Harding said she didn't know why officers were called to the home.

When they tried to stop Cameron Reagan from leaving, he was uncooperative and belligerent and was arrested, she said.In 2001, Cameron Reagan was ordered to a 90-day, live-in drug and anger management program for marijuana possession while on probation for a car break-in case. During court proceedings, attorneys said he had suffered from attention-deficit disorder since childhood.

They told the court it caused him to drop out of college and left him unable to hold a job and was responsible for one period when he was destitute and living on the streets. Joanne Drake, a spokeswoman for former first lady Nancy Reagan, said the family would not comment.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

REMEMBER COINTELPRO?

Through a secret program called the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), there was a concerted effort to subvert the will of the people to avoid the rise "of a black Messiah" that would mobilize the African-American community into a meaningful political force. This documentary establishes historical perspective on the measures initiated by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI which aimed to discredit black political figures and forces of the late 1960's and early 1970's. Combining declassified documents, interviews, rare footage and exhaustive research, it investigates the government's role in the assassinations of Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Martin Luther King Jr. Were the murders the result of this concerted effort to avoid "a black Messiah"? Through a secret program called the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), there was a concerted effort to subvert the will of the peopl...all » Through a secret program called the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), there was a concerted effort to subvert the will of the people to avoid the rise "of a black Messiah" that would mobilize the African-American community into a meaningful political force. This documentary establishes historical perspective on the measures initiated by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI which aimed to discredit black political figures and forces of the late 1960's and early 1970's. Combining declassified documents, interviews, rare footage and exhaustive research, it investigates the government's role in the assassinations of Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Martin Luther King Jr. Were the murders the result of this concerted effort to avoid "a black Messiah"?«

Rise of The New Black Leaders

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/12/12/gerrymander/print.html
To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser
Rise of the new black leaders
A new generation of black politicians is striving to put racial patronage and civic corruption behind it, and unite an increasingly diverse nation.
By Chris Thompson
Ron Dellums is a legend in Oakland, Calif. Thirty-five years ago, he was a passionate young congressman who went to Washington and denounced apartheid and the Vietnam War. He represented the town that spawned the Black Panthers and embodied black anger and ambition in America. His endorsement virtually guaranteed victory for any progressive young politician, and while he personally transcended crude racial politics, he was also the most celebrated African-American in a hard-luck town.
This Oct. 7, after almost a decade of retirement from public life, Dellums returned to Oakland, climbed the stage at the city's community college, and declared he was running for mayor. "If Ron Dellums running for mayor gives you hope," he said, "then let's get on with it!" The room exploded with cheers and politicos fell sobbing into each other's arms.
But Dellums is an odd sort of savior. For one thing, he made it clear he didn't want the job and had agreed to run only because hundreds of his old comrades begged him. For another, he's so, well, old. At age 69, Ron Dellums put politics behind him long ago and rarely set foot in Oakland over the years. An entire generation has grown up with no idea who he is. But in this election he's the last real chance for a black mayor to lead Oakland, once one of the country's epicenters of urban black life.
The case of Ron Dellums epitomizes a historic change in American politics. Dellums himself was always more than a machine pol; in fact, Rep. Barbara Lee called him "the father of coalition politics" in a recent e-mail to Salon. But the fans who tearfully rejoiced over his entry into the mayor's race represent all that is left of Oakland's racial old guard. They evoke a time when Oakland and black legislative districts around the country were run by leaders who often set up racial patronage systems, tolerated corruption and ineptitude, and never had to worry about competitive elections.
But today, particularly in the West, an era of black political power centered in urban enclaves is coming to an end. Latino migration is supplanting traditional African-American majorities in cities such as Compton and Los Angeles, and a rising black middle class is moving into the suburbs. California's inner cities are becoming less black and the political machines that have run them for decades are gasping their last breath. The number of black members of the California state Legislature has shrunk from nine in 1990 to six today, and no black state legislator holds office north of Los Angeles County. Tom Bradley ran Los Angeles for 20 years, Willie Brown ruled over San Francisco, and black mayors presided over Oakland from 1977 to 1998; today, none of those cities can boast an African-American mayor.
While at first glance this may seem like an unsettling development, it is also showing signs of producing a more responsive, transparent and sophisticated generation of African-American leaders.
Beginning with the Voting Rights Act in 1964, a wave of gerrymandering carved out black legislative districts around the nation, making race-based redistricting a legal right. According to Ana Henderson, a former Justice Department lawyer who worked on voting rights issues, the act enabled minority plaintiffs who could cite racist voting patterns to force cities to draw " majority minority" city council districts. "If you can break the city down to districts, and have each councilmember elected out of a district, and you can draw a district that is majority minority, those minority voters are going to be able to elect a candidate of their choice," she says.
From the mid-'60s onward, a coalition of black Democrats and white Republicans began redrawing congressional districts by race. This alliance finally gave black politicians the power that is their natural birthright. In 1966, just six black congressmen held office; today 42 African-Americans sit in the House.
Clearly, African-American empowerment was a critical step in American democracy, and the promise of opportunity for millions of black citizens is hard to overstate. But black power also gave rise to the modern gerrymandering era in which incumbent politicians use computer demographic research to rig the drawing of legislative districts. In the West, gerrymandering coincided with a racial patronage system that allowed bureaucratic incompetence and corruption to fester, sometimes on a vast scale. In the South, the process squeezed out white Democratic leaders, ultimately helping the Republican Party retake Congress in 1994.
Today, gerrymandering poisons politics at every level, as operatives from both parties typically collude to create safe seats for their respective incumbents. In California, this has suppressed emerging immigrant communities, retarding the growth of basic democratic institutions. If Latino or Asian-American leaders can't achieve higher offices such as congressional or state legislative seats, as is often the case in gerrymandered districts in Southern California, they can't mentor a new generation of young leaders to take their place on school districts, city councils, and county boards of supervisors. Nationally, gerrymandering has crippled the possibility of political dialogue and compromise, as extremists from either side no longer have to appeal to those with moderate sentiments in their districts.
At the same time, however, urban patronage machines are showing signs of grinding to a halt. Black politics is maturing beyond the language of grievance and adopting an increasingly middle-class, entrepreneurial character. Between 1997 and 2002, the number of black-owned businesses grew by a staggering 45 percent. More and more black professionals are buying homes in outlying suburbs relatively free from gang violence and urban blight.
As they build middle-class lives, African-Americans are adopting middle-class values: an intolerance of corruption and an expectation of accountability from their political leaders. Having outgrown identity politics, they are forcing black leaders to run on their own merits in racially diverse districts. Throughout the country, they are demanding not just representative diversity but better government.
Nowhere is this more evident than in last month's reelection of New York's Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who received half the black vote and 30 percent of the Latino vote, despite challenger Fernando Ferrer's deliberate campaign as a Latino candidate. In the election's aftermath, reported the New York Times, national Democratic Party leaders said they "needed to shun the racial and ethnic politicking of the past."
The grand era of identity politics was an inevitable and important outgrowth of the civil rights movement. But one need look no further than Oakland to see how racial patronage devolved into corruption and incompetency -- and how the city has since discarded such politics and learned to demand results from their leaders.
Dec 12, 2005 Black power rose in Oakland in the early '80s, as Mayor Lionel Wilson built a slim majority on the City Council, and the Rev. J. Alfred Smith managed a portfolio of untouchable bureaucrats from his pulpit at Allen Temple Baptist Church. Harold Davis, the head of the Oakland Housing Authority, spent more than 20 years running housing projects crippled by blight and patrolled by a criminal gang masquerading as a security service; at one point in 1991, one-quarter of the city's housing police had been found guilty of felony charges in federal court. Joe Samuels, Oakland's police chief in the 1990s, practically slept through his tenure as crack cocaine consumed the city. Every time someone moved to hold those leaders to account, the faithful at Allen Temple would storm City Hall and accuse critics of racism.
Nowhere was this policy of benign neglect more destructive than in the Oakland schools. As students posted dismal grades, stories of petty corruption abounded. A maintenance crew was accused of running a private house-painting business on district time, with maintenance trucks and equipment. One businessman connected to the school district allegedly ran a fitness club with sports equipment from Oakland Technical High School.
As the scandals mounted, attorney Dan Siegel was brought in as part of a team charged with reforming district operations, but the cronies on the school board, he says, fought him every step of the way. "There were employees in the janitors union who flatly refused to work, and they were protected from any kind of punishment by some of the school board members," he recalls. "And it was again in racial terms. If you fired this employee, it was because you were a racist, not because they refused to work."
According to Bruce Cain, the director of UC-Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies, Oakland's patronage regime is hardly unique. Cronyism and political favors, he says, are the hallmarks of any machine that rises out of an impoverished community. Brahmin good-government activists have the luxury of promoting civic ethics because they've already built bourgeois lives for themselves; Buddy Cianci, the former mayor of Providence, R.I., used to call them members of the Lucky Sperm Club. Political machines built by the poor, meanwhile, are run not so much on idealism as on getting a piece of the material action.
"The history of political machines for poor and minorities is that they don't just rely on ideological incentives," Cain says. "What they reveal are the material benefits of politics: What's the bottom line? Are they going to get that community center? Better roads? Are their cousins going to get a better job? It's the material aspect of politics, whether you go back to Tammany Hall or more contemporary machines."
As a member of the state Assembly, Elihu Harris, an African-American, and Oakland's mayor from 1990 to 1998, helped lead the charge to root out district corruption. But he has a certain sympathy for his opponents' point of view. After all, the white establishments they displaced set the gold standard for corruption. The Knowland family, which owned the Oakland Tribune and dominated the city's establishment until the late '60s, handpicked candidates for political office, conducted the City Council's business over dinner at waterfront restaurants, and dispensed favors and patronage like candy. Many black leaders felt that good-government activists discovered ethics just in time to spoil their turn to feed from the trough.
"There had always been a system of favoritism based on who you knew," Harris says. "That's not abnormal. But the difference was, Why are they trying to change the rules now that we're in charge? Principals are always hired based on who they knew. But suddenly everyone noticed what the black folks were doing -- the same thing white folks had been doing."
This resentment underlies what may be the greatest scandal in contemporary urban politics: the slow decay of the Los Angeles Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center.
Opened in 1972 as a response to the Watts riots seven years earlier, the hospital became a powerful symbol of community pride; a majority of its staff has always been African-American. But for 30 years, as the Los Angeles Times has reported, a culture of mismanagement has allowed staff to skip work, falsify time cards, kill patients with neglect, and even get into fistfights over patients on the operating table. Between 1999 and 2003, King/Drew paid out a remarkable $20.1 million in malpractice settlements.
In 2003, a clerk at the hospital pharmacy was arrested for stealing $150,000 in drugs, which he sold from his garage; the pharmacy director didn't know the drugs were missing until three months after the clerk was sentenced. One nurse used to have a janitor's aide mix intravenous medications for trauma patients. The chief of neurosciences earned more than $1 million in 2002-03 while performing 15 surgeries over the course of four years; hospital staff sold pirated DVDs in the hallways.
But whenever the county health department suggests the kind of drastic reform needed to turn the institution around, an army of community activists rally behind claims that a racist conspiracy is out to destroy a symbol of black pride. For the last year, their undisputed leader has been Rep. Maxine Waters, the exemplar of urban machine politics and racially charged rhetoric.
Waters is perhaps best known for leading the calls to investigate the CIA's supposed conspiracy to smuggle crack into black neighborhoods in the 1980s. But that kind of rhetoric was much less likely to resonate with Latinos, her fastest-growing constituency.
By 2000, the proportion of Latinos living in Waters' district had risen to 50 percent, far outstripping the black percentage of 36 percent. Unless the ethnic composition of her district somehow changed, a new generation of Latino leaders could someday challenge Waters for her congressional seat (and, if history is any guide, fall into the trap of patronage politics themselves). But that was before incumbents from both parties sat down to redraw the district lines. By the time they were finished, the Latino percentage in Waters' Los Angeles district had dropped to 43 percent, while the black population remained unchanged.
In another historically black district in Los Angeles, that of Juanita Millender-McDonald, Democrats reduced the Latino presence from 53 percent to 38 percent. According to Douglas Johnson, the author of a recent report on California gerrymandering for Claremont McKenna University, the results were hardly an accident. "In each case, they were looking to reduce the rapidly growing Latino population in their districts, presumably to avoid the threat of a primary challenge," he says.
Waters did not respond to requests for comment. But she was brutally frank in an interview on redistricting in the Los Angeles Times in 2001. "It is a foregone conclusion that the African-American seats are going to be retained," she said.
Not all black urban enclaves have passed through a phase of cronyism and incompetence. Under the leadership of mayors Maynard Jackson and Andrew Young, the city of Atlanta managed not only to spread jobs and contracts to African-Americans, but also to rebuild an urban bourgeoisie at a time when white residents were fleeing to the suburbs. Massive airport and transportation projects in the '80s both enhanced Atlanta's economic potential and gave black residents a share of the contracts, offering a chance for prosperity for everyone. While other black cities were rotting from crack and the flight of manufacturing industries, Atlanta emerged as the center of African-American middle-class life.
Today, there's no guarantee that the rise of a black suburban middle class will stem the destructive patterns of gerrymandering. California voters recently rejected an initiative to take redistricting out of the hands of politicians. But it may well lead to better political leaders. As the black middle class grows in suburbs along the state's urban fringes, leaders will emerge that must play coalition politics with white and Latino constituents.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, the black population of the suburb Tracy grew from 855 in 1990 to 3,117 in 2000, and Antioch's black population rose from 1,626 to 8,824 during the same period. Meanwhile, Oakland's black population dropped from 163,000 in 1990 to 115,000 in 2004. "I went to an In-N-Out Burger in Tracy, and found that there were more blacks there than in Oakland," marvels Elihu Harris.
One new black leader is Federal Glover, a district supervisor in several Northern California suburbs. Although Glover has a small African-American base, he ran not as a black candidate but as a business manager with 23 years of experience at Dow Chemical. He conducts the mundane business of Contra Costa County -- traffic, growth, city planning -- with a burgher's civic-mindedness, because he can't rely on a captive electorate to stay in office regardless of his record. "My political base has grown from the diversity of the community, not just my identification as an African-American," Glover says. "People are really issue driven, and they're looking for leaders who work toward the betterment of their quality of life."
Back in Oakland, African-American residents long ago began to abandon race politics in favor of other values. In part, this is due in part to the slow emigration of black residents. According to the Census Bureau, 32 percent of the city now identifies as white, while 31 percent identifies as black. In fact, for the first time since the Second World War, African-Americans no longer constitute a plurality in Oakland. Aside from state Assembly candidate Sandré Swanson, no African-American leader has emerged with any chance of running the city or aspiring to higher office.
But the shift in Oakland's calculus of power is due also to the sense among black voters, who had lived through a decade of black leadership, that competence matters at least as much as ethnic representation. The trend began in 1989, when Harris ran for mayor on a reform slate and defeated three-term incumbent Lionel Wilson.
In 1998, Jerry Brown became mayor with a substantial majority; one of his first acts was to force the resignation of Police Chief Joe Samuels, a veteran of the city's racial patronage system. White progressive City Councilmember Nancy Nadel has represented the overwhelmingly black neighborhoods of West Oakland for years; the only time an opponent seriously challenged her was in 2000, and his campaign collapsed in disarray after he began publicly denouncing her as "that white woman." The old guard was driven off the school board years ago, and while a different species of machine politics continues to plague Oakland, its polestars are money and power, not race.
In fact, Barbara Lee, who replaced Dellums as Oakland's congressional representative in 1998, thinks that the very middle-class values growing among California's black professionals may be critical to a Democratic resurgence in 2006. All the worst qualities of the old black urban machines -- cronyism, incompetence, gerrymandering -- are the hallmarks of George W. Bush's presidency and his supporters in the House of Representatives.
Just as a black middle class is turning its back on such politics locally, so the American middle class is wondering how long the country can tolerate such ineptitude, arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility. If leaders like Lee can link middle-class desires for good government with the basic aspirations of the urban poor, the great gulf between Reagan Democrats and the identity politics of the civil rights era may finally be resolved.
"The shock and outrage at what we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina was widely felt, and is strong evidence that people believe that we all have a stake in the kind of society we live in," Lee told Salon. "Coalition politics is about expanding opportunity, fostering prosperity, and valuing diversity. And that is a message that the majority of Americans believe in."
Such analysis is exactly why so many Democratic leaders have pinned their hopes for resurgence on Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. In the last two years, the senator has emerged from the South Side of Chicago as an old-fashioned Truman Democrat, a foreign-policy hawk whose liberal domestic politics are focused on protecting and rebuilding the middle class. When he speaks of his vision for America, he doesn't dwell on the country's history of racism or exploitation, and he doesn't flog his personal journey as an African-American. Instead, he speaks of possibility and American exceptionalism.
Standing at the crossroads of history, Obama said during his stirring speech at last year's Democratic National Convention, "I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair."
As the Republican leadership mortgages the country's future on debt, cronyism and religious divisiveness, Barack Obama may well become America's first truly national black politician.
-- By Chris Thompson

Newpapers Also Played Apart Of Slavery

Published on Thursday, July 6, 2000 in the Manchester Guardian UK
Slavery Link Shames NewspaperAmerica's oldest publication makes front-page apology for profiting from trade in lives
by Michael Ellison in New York

As corrections and clarifications go it was late and long, but America's oldest newspaper in continuous publication has apologised for its complicity in the slave trade nearly 180 years ago.
In an 1,800-word article on its (July 4th) front page, the Hartford Courant in Connecticut said it felt obliged to acknowledge that it had profited from advertisements for the sale of slaves and the recapture of runaways until at least 1823.
"We are not proud of that part of our history and apologise for any involvement by our predecessors at the Courant in the terrible practice of buying and selling human beings that took place in previous centuries," said Ken DeLisa, a spokesman for the paper, which sells more than 200,000 copies a day.
The adverts - which cost 25 cents for 10 lines in three issues in the mid-18th century - included detailed descriptions of scars, brandings and amputations.
One read: "To be sold, a likely, healthy, good-natured Negro boy about 15 years old. Inquire of T Green."
This was Thomas Green, who founded the paper in 1764 and who acted, among other things, as a slave broker.
The Courant's role in the trade was raised by Billie Anthony, a teacher whose students found 90 of the adverts while researching African-American history in colonial Connecticut.
She raised the issue after the paper ran a series of pieces earlier this year about an insurance company which apologised for having sold policies to slave owners.
"The stories about Connecticut's slave profiteers had a glaring omission: the Courant itself," said the paper.
"It was accepted practice. Slavery was so woven into the nation's economy and social fabric that such ads were probably less controversial than gun or tobacco marketing would be today."
But Ms Anthony said: "I will never, ever forget the looks of dismay on their [the students'] faces as they were scrolling through all the microfilm and finding these ads and for-sale notices. The complicity of the Courant in the slave trade is evident."
One black student, Andriena Baldwin, said she remembered coming across one listing a young boy, pigs and butter. "We just stood still for, like, five minutes.
"We were just shocked that they would put a person in the same category as food."
Early editors openly embraced racism. Thomas Day, who bought the newspaper in 1855, wrote in one editorial: "We believe the Caucasian variety of the human species superior to the Negro variety; and we would breed the best stock."
Slavery came to Connecticut in 1640 and by 1774 the state had more blacks than any other New England colony: about 6,500, or 3% of the population. As a rule they were treated better than those in the southern states.
But in a 1798 autobiography, Venture Smith, a former slave, wrote of a beating from his master: "I received a most violent stroke on the crown of my head with a club 2ft long and as large around as a chair post . . . the scar of it remains to this day."
Slavery - what the American south called its "peculiar institution" - was banned in Connecticut in 1848, three years before the outbreak of the civil war. Abraham Lincoln declared slaves to be free in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
Richard Newman, a research officer at the WEB DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research at Harvard University, said: "These ads have become extremely useful to scholars because they are one of the few places that describe slaves physically, their appearance, what type of clothes they wore, whether they were literate, what type of talents they had."
? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000
###