Dr. Laura, Meet Omar Thornton

Over the past few days, I have been intrigued by the aftermath of Dr. Laura’s racist rant. What’s been most interesting to me is the way that Dr. Laura and her supporters have transformed her from culprit to victim, claiming that her first amendment rights have been taken away. Apart from demonstrating that she clearly doesn’t understand the first amendment, her claims of censorship were not only ironic but amusing considering that she made her announcement on national television while simultaneously plugging her soon to be released book—sales of which will probably skyrocket thanks to this latest controversy.

Oddly enough, this juxtaposition of victimhood and culpability reminded me of another story which had been in the news just a few days earlier—Omar Thornton’s tragic workplace shooting in Manchester. That story could have led to a useful national conversation about workplace discrimination, but that would have required recognizing that the shooting’s perpetrator, Thornton, may have also been a victim, and that some of the victims of the shooting, while not deserving their fate, may have contributed to what would eventually become a deadly situation. Instead, most media coverage of the story treated Thornton as your typical disgruntled employee with psychological problems. Then, 24-48 hours later, it was out of the news cycle completely as the country moved on to more pressing matters such as renegade flight attendants.

Nevertheless, there were brief moments when it looked like the racism issue might be addressed, but those moments usually ended with someone suggesting that if Thornton really was experiencing racism, it would have been addressed by the appropriate company and/or union representatives. To many observers, the thought that he may have actually raised the issue with someone who did not take his complaints seriously seemed out of the question. Perhaps we should consider for a moment what would have happened if Omar Thornton had shared his frustrations with Dr. Larua Schlessinger.

SCHLESSINGER: Hello, Caller. Welcome to the show.

THORNTON: Hi, Dr. Laura. I'm having an issue with some of my co-workers who make racist comments.

SCHLESSINGER: Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? ‘Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive.

THORNTON: OK. The other day they called me the N-word. They said “we need to get rid of that N-word”.

SCHLESSINGER: So what? Black guys say “ni****” all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a Black comic and all you hear is “ni****, ni****, ni****”.

THORNTON: But these co-workers aren’t comics. They drew pictures of a noose. A noose!

SCHLESSINGER: I’m sure they were just trying to be funny. If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, you shouldn’t get a job at a predominantly white company.

THORNTON: You sound like them.

SCHLESSINGER: Don’t take things out of context. Don’t NAACP me.

THORNTON: Whatever. I’ll just have to figure it out on my own. [Click] [Dial tone]

In spite of all of the attention being paid to Dr. Laura’s use of the N-word, I actually believe that was the least problematic aspect of her rant. What’s more important than the one word that she repeated eleven times is the overall racial perspective that she demonstrates in sentence after sentence; paragraph after paragraph. In Dr. Laura’s world,

· If you complain about racism you are “hypersensitive” and you have a “chip on your shoulder”;
· Racism no longer exists because we have a Black president who was elected by Whites. In fact, Blacks are more racist than Whites, which is the only reason Blacks voted for Barack Obama;
· Ongoing discussion of racism is the result of Black activists seeking to “demonize” Whites.

The sad reality is that there are a lot of folks who agree with Dr. Laura’s racial perspective, and it’s a perspective that is embedded in systems and institutions all around this country. Many Black employees have lost discrimination cases over the past two decades because judges have essentially said that they were being hypersensitive. The election of President Obama has led several cities and states to try to eliminate affirmative action programs. And notions of Black racism and “reverse discrimination” have reached a point where it’s now easier for a White plaintiff to win a discrimination case than it is for a Black plaintiff. Just ask the city of New Haven, which lost a major Supreme Court case last year to White firefighters claiming discrimination.

In short, the beliefs and propaganda expressed in Dr. Laura’s ignorant rant make it increasingly difficult to deal with the realities of structural racism. Instead, we can all criticize her use of the N-word and then pat ourselves on the back as if we’ve dealt with the problem.

Having said that, I must say that Dr. Laura did make an important point with which I agree. At one point at the end of her tirade, after declaring that Black efforts to “demonize Whites” have grown, she concludes, “it’s all about power.” And although her remarks both during her rant and in the days following suggest that she’s in a dreadful state of denial about who actually has power in this society, her observation is relevant nonetheless.

Yes, Dr. Laura, it is all about power, and those who have power will always view those without power as being “hypersensitive”. More importantly, Frederick Douglass’ words from more than 150 years ago still ring true today: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

We who believe in justice must continue to demand a discussion on race that goes beyond the N-word and that fully explores the issue of structural racism. Otherwise, we will continue to see more Dr. Lauras…

…And perhaps more Omar Thorntons as well.

Why Obama's Speech Betrays an Important Legacy

I was actually asleep when a friend called me and told me to turn on President Obama’s acceptance speech the other day. She was troubled by his remarks, and after a few minutes, I understood why. To be sure, it was a well prepared, well delivered speech. Nevertheless, the substance of the speech was troubling to those of us who feel that a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech ought to be an occasion to talk about… what’s the word… peace.

President Obama’s speech, which has been almost universally recognized as a justification for war, has won praise from conservatives such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. I’ve even heard that former Vice President Cheney has declared a one-week verbal truce in honor of Obama’s ode to warfare.

To a large extent, the speech was simply a function of his job description. As he reminded us, he is the Commander in Chief of the United States, and at the end of the day, that position is going to shape his global perspective more than his global perspective is going to shape that position. It’s the same position that Lyndon B. Johnson held when Dr. Martin Luther King stated that America was “the greatest purveyor of violence anywhere in the world.” Nevertheless, was Oslo really the most appropriate venue for a “just war” treatise, and was it really necessary to dedicate two thirds of his speech to it?

Of course, President Obama’s speech was not only about justifying war. He managed to throw in just enough paragraphs to keep at least some progressives happy. For example, he had several lines talking about letting “our faith in human progress” guide us, and about how we should reach for “that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.” You can’t really argue with any of that.

However, a speech that began with justifying war and ended with humanity’s search for peace could have had a meaningful sweet spot in the middle. President Obama could have more adequately acknowledged that in between his concept of a just war and the concept of world peace, there’s a whole lot of space for some very real, very pragmatic alternatives to war. Yes, he briefly addressed alternatives to violence and the need for international development, but does he really feel that such a discussion is only worth two minutes?

By minimizing the very hard and real possibilities of negotiating peace, President Obama betrayed the legacies of two of his more relevant Nobel predecessors: Dr. Ralph Bunche and Dr. King. It was not romantic idealism that guided Ralph Bunche in 1948 as he worked to end the armed conflict in Palestine. After several months, Dr. Bunche was able to negotiate a series of armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors, and his efforts earned him the 1950 Nobel Prize. Like President Obama, Dr. Bunche understood that the world was a complicated place, but that did not stop him from believing that war could be avoided.

Years later, Dr. King would receive the Nobel Prize for a different form of negotiation. The Civil Rights Movement, which obviously was bigger than just Dr. King, and which relied on thousands of unsung heroes and sheroes, was not just about getting beat up and thrown in jail. Fundamentally, it was about using whatever power you have in order to force your enemy to negotiate, even when that power is limited to your faith, your morality and your bodies.

Contrary to the dichotomy that President Obama tried to impose during his speech, the question is not whether non-violent marches and sit-ins are enough to solve all of the conflicts in the world today. After all, President Obama has far more power and far more non-violent options at his disposal than the freedom fighters of the Civil Rights Movement had. Thus, the more appropriate question is whether leaders of the world in general, and President Obama in particular, are as committed to fully exploring non-violent options before embarking on war.

Coincidentally, although he has yet to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, Rev. Jesse Jackson has also demonstrated the power of negotiation globally. Over the years, Jesse has managed to obtain the release of hostages from Syria, Cuba, Iraq and Yugoslavia, and he was able to do so with no weapon other than his legitimate voice as an emissary for peace.

Thus, African-Americans have a history of championing non-violence and negotiation on the world stage. True enough, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice have damaged that legacy in recent years, but in Oslo, President Obama could have done much to help restore order to the universe.

Instead of just reminding us rhetorically that he is “someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work” and that he is a “living testimony to the moral force of non-violence,” Obama could have presented a new vision for incorporating that moral force into today’s complicated matters of international relations. In short, Obama could have elevated diplomacy from the depths of “appeasement” and bureaucratic irrelevance to the heights of being a force for change in today’s real world.

In doing so, not only would Obama have been true to Dr. King’s beliefs, but he would have been true to his own beliefs as well—beliefs that he expressed during the presidential election campaign. Certainly we all remember Candidate Obama’s statements about being willing to talk with world leaders with whom the United States has serious disagreements. And much of his criticism about the Iraq War centered around his belief that diplomacy was not given enough time to work its course.

As a presidential candidate, Obama could only float ideas about what he might do, but now, as President, Obama can actually implement his ideas. And Thursday, as a Nobel Prize winner, the President could have used the world stage he was provided in order to elaborate on those ideas. He could have used his thirty six minutes to outline a new paradigm of diplomacy. Being the student of history that he is, he could have outlined the most important examples of diplomacy that have worked, and then he could have challenged the world’s leaders, friends and foes, to renew their commitment to such efforts. In short, Obama could have raised the bar.

Instead, he used the world’s most respected peace forum as a platform from which to outline an Obama Doctrine that sounds a heck of a lot like the Bush Doctrine. In doing so, he failed to demonstrate much change, and whatever hope he provided has been relegated to idealism. Of course, he still has at least three years to demonstrate with his actions what he was unwilling to express with his words. Hopefully, during that time, the Nobel Prize sitting in his office will be a constant reminder to reject “the ‘isness’ of man’s current nature” and to seek out “the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

On that "note", i'm outta here!


---

Open Letter to Tiger Woods

On a FAR less serious note than my usual, a friend posted this on Facebook...

Dear Tiger:

Over the course of the next few weeks, several women will come forward and accuse you of cheating on your wife with them. While we cannot speak for your spouse, we are willing to forgive you provided that at least one of these women proves to be no less than 75% African-American. That small step is all that is required to gain our trust.

Sincerely:
The Black Community


On that "note", i'm outta here!


---

Will the Senate forget to discuss health care AND race?

Exciting news: just had my most recent article picked up by the Huffington Post (thanks to the crew at the Race-Talk blog)!

An excerpt of the article is below, but please visit the HuffPost for the full piece. And please leave a comment; it will help me and other Race-Talk writers to get extra exposure.


As the battle over health care reform hits the Senate floor for debate, I’m wondering how long it’s going to take for the issue of race to pop up.

Oh, it won’t show itself as blatantly as it has at town hall meetings and conservative rallies. I hardly expect one of the Senators to set up an easel with one of those pictures of President Obama dressed as a witch doctor. No, it will be far more subtle than that. Instead of shouted, race is likely to be whispered and alluded to in the form of comments about “those people” who take advantage of big government and who make it harder for the good, tax paying Americans. You know “those people”—they’re the same ones who hang out with the welfare queens, standing on the corner eating candy bars that they purchased with their fraudulently obtained food stamps.

Possibly, race may show up in a slightly more direct way, perhaps in relationship to health coverage for immigrants. Remember, that’s the same issue that propelled Rep. Joe Wilson into stardom after he called the president a liar.

Honestly, I’m not exactly sure how race will show up, but I promise you, it will. The only question is whether or not we’ll have the courage to actually talk about it. Judging from the reaction to Jimmy Carter’s comments—comments that correctly pointed out the role of race in the vitriolic opposition to health care reform—my guess is we’ll be neither willing nor able to discuss the issue.

Of course, I’ve been saying Carter was correct ever since he made the comments, but until recently I haven’t had any actual data to support that belief, other than the common sense that God gave me. But thanks to professors Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, that’s no longer the case...

Click here for full article.

--

Free Eric Johnson!

Eric Johnson recently graduated from Creekside High School as an honor student and member of the Beta Club. He has been working the past few months in order to help support his mother and had plans of attending Westwood College in January. Ever since his father died three years ago in a tragic house fire accident, Eric has faced adversity and has overcome numerous life obstacles to become a successful young man--at least until now. Eric Johnson has been arrested for a crime he had no part in or knowledge of.

The following are just a few facts related to the case. A more detailed statement of facts can be found in this article.

On Monday night, August 17, 2009, Eric Johnson was asked by Antoine Wimes to give him a ride in exchange for "gas money." Eric picked up Antoine Wimes and another young man that he met for the first time named "Dino." He drove them to a gas station, brought gas and then took them further down South Fulton Parkway and dropped them off. Later that evening, Antoine Wimes and Donavon McCoy are alleged to have shot "Nikki" Neely and seriously injured her 10-month-old baby in a vicious and senseless home invasion. On August 18, 2009, after seeing the news reports of this horrific attack, Eric A. Johnson called 911 and reported to police that he had "given a ride" to the suspects earlier in the evening.

1. Eric Johnson voluntarily contacted the police in order to provide information regarding the murder suspects (it would make absolutely no sense for him to do so if he were involved in the murder);

2. There is an independent witness, Virginia Bonylan, who has confirmed that Eric Johnson was not with the two suspects later in the evening after dropping them off;

3. There are alibi witnesses that Eric Johnson was home well before dark on August 17, 2009; and

4. The lead detective, Jamie Melton, has admitted that he has no evidence that Eric A. Johnson was present at the time of the shooting or that he knew that Antoine Wimes and Donovan McCoy intended on committing any crime.

The video below includes a police officer verifying the undisputed fact that Eric contacted the police in order to help solve the crime.


Nevertheless, Eric Johnson is charged with multiple felonies including: 2 counts of Aggravated Battery, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and Cruelty to Children.

Now I'm not usually one to offer the police advice on how to do their job, but just this one time I'll offer my two cents: If you really want the community to help you stop crime, perhaps it's not such a good idea to arrest them after they help you.

I don't know... I'm just sayin'...

WHAT YOU CAN DO

The family is asking for support in their fight for Eric Johnson's release. Attorney Mawuli ‘Mel' Davis, one of the top criminal defense attorneys in the state of Georgia, believes in Eric's innocence so strongly that he has offered his service for free. Nevertheless, the family still needs $5,000.00 to post bond as well as to pay for transcripts that will be associated with the case. If just 200 people donate $25, they can reach their goal!

Donations are being accepted online at www.justice4ericjohnson.com.

If you're not able to a donation, then please, please visit change.org and sign the online petition. It will only take 2 minutes of your time.

On that "note", i'm outta here!


---