Have We Really Overcome?

It’s taken me a while to complete this piece as I wanted to sound rational and not as hyperbolically hysterical as I was initially when I heard and read about the events discussed herein. The Republican debate hosted by Fox News on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday exposed shocking behavior and commentary about the lack of racial sensitivity among the candidates as well as the audience. I refer to Fox News commentator Juan Williams asking Newt Gingrich about some of his recent statements referencing race.


Williams asked Gingrich about his having said that blacks have no work ethic and choose to be on food stamps. He asked the former Speaker about the Gingrich janitorial work plan for black children. Specifically, he asked Gingrich,” Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans but particularly to Black Americans?”

Gingrich shrugged and said, somewhat flippantly, “No, I don’t see that.”


The largely White audience gave him a standing ovation, cheering and whistling as Gingrich went on to underscore his plans for poor Blacks. Juan Williams, in contrast, was booed! Cheers and applause for proud racial insensitivity? Boos for Juan Williams when he asked again if Gingrich’s comments were meant to belittle the poor and racial minorities? Boos. More boos for Williams. Condescension from Newt. I felt that I had been transported back to the pre-Civil Rights Era of my youth and young adulthood.


Gingrich even doubled down and reiterated his “plan” to help poor children in general and black children in particular—who have no work ethic, according to him--and he laid out his plan. He suggested that poor black children work as janitors in their schools. He seemed nonplussed as he ignored long and humanely established Child Labor Laws and asserted that black children grow up without a strong work ethic because they don’t see anyone around them working. (I would urge Mr. Nasty to get up very early one morning, drive to a poor neighborhood, and see all the men and women lined up at the bus stops, waiting to report to work, many of them African-Americans. Or he could watch the night cleaning shifts, for example, who work when he is sleeping.)


The Gingrich plan for impoverished black youths goes something like this: Fire the “union” janitor and let the children clean the school. There, they would develop a work ethic and earn money. “The average salary for a school janitor is $18,000.”* If we use the Gingrich number of 30 children for each janitorial position—“Hire 30 kids for the price of one janitor. They’d be getting money which is a good thing for the poor. Only the elites despise earning money.”—each of those children would net $600 a year and miss getting an education, thereby trapping them into a life of poverty in perpetuity.

School janitors’ jobs are more than sweeping floors and cleaning restrooms. They must know how to use and dispose of dangerous chemicals for stripping floors and cleaning problem areas. They clean up science labs, repair equipment, use heavy machinery for that cleaning and repair, move heavy furniture and equipment, etc. Janitors arrive before the school opens and are there afterward. They have to be certified in several safety and chemical use procedures. These are not jobs suitable for children! For a complete look at requirements and jobs for a school janitor,
consult this website:

http://www.mymajors.com/careers-and-jobs/School-Janitor


Next, note that Gingrich gleefully called President Obama the “Food Stamp President.” He then added that “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” First, I agree that more people are on food stamps. That is a fact. But that has a lot to do with a shrinking middle class as well as disasters like fires, floods, and devastating tornados and storms, most recently in Alabama. Food stamps are just one of the safety nets when disaster strikes. If you want facts, look it up. Here is just one site:

http://www.dailyjobsupdate.com/public/food-stamps-charts


As Gingrich continually attempts to don the Regan mantle, it might be interesting to see what Ronald Regan himself said about food stamps. In this one case, Gingrich is somewhat correct. The usually pleasant demeanor of the former president was not in play when, in 1976, he referred to “welfare queens,” saying these women defrauded the government by applying under multiple names for Medicaid, food stamps, and any other free program. That may have been true in a few cases, but certainly not in all cases.


Extrapolating on his comment that President Obama is the Food Stamp President, Gingrich tied Blacks to food stamps as if they were the only people in need of this aid. This belies facts, facts being something with which Gingrich plays pretty fast and loose. One need for increased numbers of people on food stamps is the increased rate of poverty in this country, something that has been occurring for about 10 years plus. Politifact rated the statement about President Obama’s being responsible for the increased number of people receiving food stamps—food stamps being the term still used although food stamps are actually SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—as half true. Here is their conclusion, but you can read the entire
decision at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/17


“.…One last point: The number of food stamp beneficiaries had started to head upward under President George W. Bush, partly because of more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits, and partly because of changes in the rules that had the effect of broadening
eligibility. The experts we spoke to agreed that both policies began under Bush but were retained by Obama.

“Our ruling

“The number of SNAP beneficiaries is at a record level, and it has risen in most months of the Obama presidency. But Gingrich oversimplifies when he suggests that Obama is the root cause. Much of the reason for the increase was a combination of the economic problems Obama inherited combined with a longstanding upward trend from policy changes. But Obama has supported those policies. On balance, we rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.”



It is impossible for me to overlook the Gingrich comments because I continually hope that race relations in the United States will continue to improve. For decades, I have been teaching young people about the history of race in this country, and what I see and hear from them is so heartening that I become convinced that all is going to be well. I refuse to believe that that is delusional of me, and I continue to believe that the hope lies in this next generation since members of my generation represented on the debate stage seemed not to have evolved very much on the question of racial equality. Much of what Gingrich said about people of color was not just code for the racists in the audience. It was blatant racism. If Gingrich wanted to delve into the issue of food stamps, he could just as easily said that he wanted people—not black people—to demand jobs, not food stamps. His comment was not at all subtle. And yet, not one other candidate on the stage commented that Gingrich was making racist statements or said the GOP should not engage in racial divisive comments. No, they were silent and now Gingrich is
raising money on clips of what he said to Williams at that debate. It should make South Carolinians angry about what Newt Gingrich is saying about them.


To make matters even more clear that we had entered a time warp and fallen back into another era, a white woman in the audience of a Gingrich rally the following day told the former Speaker that she was proud that Gingrich had put Williams “in his place.” I hadn’t heard that kind of openly racist statement in years. Where is the place of a black news commentator in that woman’s estimation? Gingrich just smiled, and the audiencecheered and clapped. Yikes!


This country has made progress since our Constitution counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. Real servitude ended after the Civil War with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made the economic servitude resultant from Jim Crow laws illegal. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made it illegal to keep people of color from the ballot box.


After the Supreme Court finally overturned the “separate but equal” decision of Plessey v. Ferguson, our country witnessed a violent reaction in some parts of the country. Who can forget Alabama Governor Wallace’s proclamation of “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”? After the Brown v. Board of Education decision, we’d watched and read about the murder of Emmett Till in Money, Mississippi. We’dseen the beaten and jailed college students attempting to integrate lunch counters. We’d witnessed beatings and murder of some trying to integrate interstate bus transportation. We’d seen the murder of three Civil Rights workers attempting to register blacks to vote. We must remember those church bombings, those lynchings, the fire hoses and police dogs attacking children, the marches and peaceful demonstrations. We have come far since the march across the Pettus Bridge that led President Johnson to underscore the 15th Amendment with the Voting Rights Act. But when I hear things like the utterances of Gingrich and the responses of some in the South Carolina audiences, I wonder just how far we have come after all.

Yes. We Still Need Black History Month.

February is officially Black History Month; some celebrate, many trivialize and others disparage the need. Why do we need a specific time to remember that ordinary and extraordinary African-Americans have been a part of our history since the beginning?


It is evident that a set-aside Black History Month has not taught us much. Even now, a few politicians use suggestions of secession, literacy tests, interposition, and nullification to gin up their crowds.. These are words freighted with historic pain and should not be made carelessly or deliberately
to score points against an adversary. If they knew anything about the history of race in America, they would never make some of the statements they make.

Secession is not taken lightly by those of us who know anything at all about the Civil War, a war that bloodied our soil with the loss of over 600,000 lives. It supposedly taught us that “all men are created equal” means what it says. After the Civil War, Lincoln’s dream that we would not be a house divided supposedly came true. No one should trivialize the price that far too many paid by tossing out threats of secession to score political points, whether the word secession is meant literally or metaphorically.


Texas' former Governor Rick Perrydid--on several occasions--talk of the secession of Texas to the roaring applause and delight of those at his rallies. Did he mean it? It may have been  a veiled reference to score points with some or a metaphor for get-the-government-our-of-Texas for others. Next time Texans say they want to secede, tell them, “Done. You’re out.” Call their bluff. I’m
surethey’ll think twice before scolding the federal government about its role in state affairs. Where would Texas be without it?


It might be good for the U. S. bottom line if we grant Texas secessionists their  wish. As of 2005, the federal government paid Texas $.96 for every tax dollar Texas paid. We could surely make up the four cents without too much trouble. Whatever could we do with the 23 military bases and installations located in Texas? I’ll bet the other 49 states would be happy to divvy up those installations as they would benefit from the 195,000 jobs no longer manned by people paying taxes in Texas. Another coastal state could snatch up the Houston Space Center. Poor Texas, they are so burdened by paying taxes. Please. Texas ranked third in government procurements, receiving well over $20,639,000,000 in 2005 alone. They like to play cowboy so much. Let them shoulder the cost of border patrol and illegal immigration entering the U. S. through Texas. We could build the border fence above Texas instead of below it if they want out so badly.


And now a note to former Representative Tom Tancredo: What exactly did he imply when suggested a need for literacy tests in order to vote? Tancredo’s remarks at the opening address of the Tea Party Convention received thundering approval. Since he is old enough to know better, I have to assume that he knew exactly what he was saying when he said that voters who couldn’t
even say the word vote elected a committed socialist to the office of the presidency. It is reprehensible to suggest we return to the Jim Crow laws that denied many citizens of color the vote. And, the ugliness aside, may I remind Tancredo just who elected Barack Obama? According to www.carnegieendowment.org, Obama won the college-educated voters by 62-38%. I’m pretty sure that means that they could read and say the word “vote.”


What do the words literacy tests invoke to anyone who knows or lived through that history? Literacy tests were a part of the same Jim Crow laws that came after the Hayes-Tilden election of 1876, a compromise that ended Reconstruction. The real servitude the Civil War had been fought to end was replaced with economic and social servitude that endured until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said, “And we really mean what the 14th Amendment says.” By 1968, with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the 15th Amendment was once again enforced. Many people, perhaps Tancredo himself, would fail some of those literacy tests. Before one could register to vote, a registrar administered a literacy tests to qualify a potential voter. That consisted of an interpretation of a section of a state’s constitution “to the satisfaction of the registrar.” First, those excerpts from the state constitution are awkwardly worded and full of convoluted legalese. Next, the test was scored by a registrar who probably could not have passed himself. Whites always passed. Blacks never did.


After the beatings of peaceful Civil Rights marchers on Bloody Sunday as they crossed the Pettus Bridge in their march from Selma to Miami, President Johnson was able to pass the Voting Rights Act, saying, “And we shall overcome.” But have we conquered over two centuries of racial hatred? If we have, why then would Tom Tancredo suggest that we should return those Jim Crow days? He and those who cheered as he said it obviously don’t know much about Black History
or history of any hue, for that matter.


And then, just when I thought I couldn’t be any more shocked by veiled or purposeful racism, I heard something that catapulted me once again into the Jim Crow Era. Debra Medina, while running for governor of Texas—what is wrong with these people?--suggested that Texas should use interposition and nullification as much as they could to fight federal interference in her state. This harkens back to George Wallace standing at the door of the University of Alabama to block two black students from entering. He had begun that year by proclaiming, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” in his inaugural speech. Who still thinks those were the Good Old Days? If so, grab your hood.


Those who wanted the good old days of the Whites Only policy and segregation now and forever resorted to the claim of States’ Rights, referring to the 10th Amendment. However, the 10th Amendment is quite clear where it stands on the separation of powers between the state and federal government. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Jim
Crow States’ Righters chose to ignore that “the United States” means the federal government or that the amendments after the 10th Amendment created federal law they had to follow, laws that allowed Blacks equal treatment as well as voting rights.

Debra Medina threatened interposition. This doctrine was used by segregationists and was another State’s Rights argument. Interposition, according to www.dictionary.com, notes that states “used this doctrine to say that any individual state of the U. S. could oppose any federal action it believes to encroach on its sovereignty.” The doctrine of nullification was the “refusal of a U. S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.” Both of these doctrines that Debra Medina cited imply that a state can do whatever it wants and federal law be damned. What kind of country would this be if all states could do just that? We resolved that issue after the failure of the Articles of Confederation didn’t we?


Martin Luther King, Jr. in his stirring Dream Speech reminded us of the ugliness of these policies: “….I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right here in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” Study your history, Ms. Medina, Mr. Tancredo, and Rick Perry. Please. You may not be a racist, but why do you want to use words so heavily laden with America’s ugly racist past?

When this country elected Barack Obama by a healthy majority, I naively thought we had turned the page on an issue that had divided us since our nation’s very beginnings. Let us not forget that our Founding Fathers chose to compromise on the slavery issue by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person so that the slave-holding states could have more representatives. The Founders tabled the issue of slavery until later. That “later” led us to a horrific Civil War that nearly destroyed us. Even after that, Jim Crow laws maintained our racist past until late in the 20th century. But 53% of our registered voters elected a man or color whose wife’s ancestors were slaves. I want to believe Dr. King’s dream: One day—today, even—we will come to realize that the freedom of all citizens, citizens of every color, is “inextricably bound to our freedom.” We all need to remember the web of mutuality about which he spoke.


It’s not that I disagree with Morgan Freeman who contends that Black History Month trivializes the contribution of African-Americans in our history and undermines the fact that “black history is American history.” I happen to think that he makes a very good point. However, as long as men and women are willing to throw around words like secession, interposition, nullification and suggest a need for literacy tests or carry placards of Barack Obama in white-face or photo-shopped with a bone through his nose, it is clear that we do need Black History Month. Better yet, we all need to know our history, not just what a blogger—including me—writes or what some pundit or politician claims. Please read the Constitution yourself. It’s a very short document. Know your country’s history. We have the potential to be everything our Founding Fathers dreamed we
could and would be, even if they didn’t always practice it themselves. To paraphrase everyone’s mother: We should act as they said we should act, not as they sometimes did.