Common Dreams,  November 16, 2009

Biggest State Party to Obama: Get Out of Afghanistan

By Norman Soloman

This week begins with a significant new straw in the political wind for President Obama to consider. The California Democratic Party has just sent him a formal and clear message: Stop making war in Afghanistan.

Overwhelmingly approved on Sunday by the California Democratic Party’s 300-member statewide executive board, the resolution is titled “End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan.”

The resolution supports “a timetable for withdrawal of our military personnel” and calls for “an end to the use of mercenary contractors as well as an end to air strikes that cause heavy civilian casualties.” Advocating multiparty talks inside Afghanistan, the resolution also urges Obama “to oversee a redirection of our funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and developmental aid.”

While Obama weighs Afghanistan policy options, the California Democratic Party’s adoption of the resolution is the most tangible indicator yet that escalation of the U.S. war effort can only fuel opposition within the president’s own party — opposition that has already begun to erode his political base.

Participating in a long-haul struggle for progressive principles inside the party, I co-authored the resolution with savvy longtime activists Karen Bernal of Sacramento and Marcy Winograd of Los Angeles.

Bernal, the chair of the state party’s Progressive Caucus, said on Sunday night: “Today’s vote formalized and amplified what had been, up to now, an unspoken but profoundly understood reality — that there is no military solution in Afghanistan. What’s more, the vote signified an acceptance of what is sure to be a continued and growing culture of resistance to current administration policies on the matter within the party. This is absolutely huge. Now, there can be no disputing the fact that the overwhelming majority of California Democrats are not only saying no to escalation, but no to our continued military presence in Afghanistan, period. The California Democratic Party has spoken, and we want the rest of the country to know.”

Winograd, who is running hard as a grassroots candidate in a primary race against pro-war incumbent Rep. Jane Harman, had this to say: “We need progressives in every state Democratic Party to pass a similar resolution calling for an end to the U.S. occupation and air war in Afghanistan. Bring the veterans to the table, bring our young into the room, and demand an end to this occupation that only destabilizes the region. There is no military solution, only a diplomatic one that requires we cease our role as occupiers if we want our voices to be heard. Yes, this is about Afghanistan — but it’s also about our role in the world at large. Do we want to be global occupiers seizing scarce resources or global partners in shared prosperity? I would argue a partnership is not only the humane choice, but also the choice that grants us the greatest security.”

Speaking to the resolutions committee of the state party on Saturday, former Marine Corporal Rick Reyes movingly described his experiences as a warrior in Afghanistan that led him to question and then oppose what he now considers to be an illegitimate U.S. occupation of that country.

Another voice of disillusionment reached party delegates when Bernal distributed a copy of the recent resignation letter from senior U.S. diplomat Matthew Hoh, sent after five months of work on the ground in Afghanistan. “I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan,” he wrote. “If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons.”

Hoh’s letter added that “I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan.” And he wrote: “Thousands of our men and women have returned home with physical and mental wounds, some that will never heal or will only worsen with time. The dead return only in bodily form to be received by families who must be reassured their dead have sacrificed for a purpose worthy of futures lost, love vanished, and promised dreams unkept. I have lost confidence such assurances can anymore be made.”

From their own vantage points, many of the California Democratic Party leaders who voted to approve the out-of-Afghanistan resolution on Nov. 15 have gone through a similar process. They’ve come to see the touted reasons for the U.S. war effort as specious, the mission as Sisyphean and the consequences as profoundly unacceptable.

Sometime in the next few days, President Obama is likely to learn that the California Democratic Party has approved an official resolution titled “End the U.S. Occupation and Air War in Afghanistan.” But will he really get the message?

Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist. His book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. His most recent book is “Made Love, Got War. ” He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign. In California, he is co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay; www.GreenNewDeal.info .

Huffington Post,  November 23, 2009

Honduran Dictatorship Is A Threat to Democracy In the Hemisphere

A small group of rich people who own most of Honduras and its politicians enlist the military to kidnap the elected president at gunpoint and take him into exile. They then arrest thousands of people opposed to the coup, shut down and intimidate independent media, shoot and kill some demonstrators, torture and beat many others. This goes on for more than four months, including more than two of the three months legally designated for electoral campaigning. Then the dictatorship holds an “election.”

Should other countries recognize the results of such an election, to be held on November 29th? Latin America says absolutely not; the United States is saying, well, “yes we can”- if we can get away with it.

“There has been a sharp rise in police beatings, mass arrests of demonstrators and intimidation of human rights defenders,” since President Zelaya slipped back into Honduras and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy, wrote Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch, the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and human rights groups worldwide have also condemned the violence and repression perpetrated by the Honduran dictatorship.

On November 5, the 25 nations of the Rio Group, which includes virtually all of Latin America, declared that they would not recognize the results of the November 29th elections in Honduras if the elected President Manuel Zelaya were not first restored.

Why is it that Latin American governments can recognize this threat to democracy but Washington cannot? One reason is that many of the governments are run by people who have lived under dictatorships. President Lula da Silva of Brazil was imprisoned by the Brazilian dictatorship in the 1980s. President Michele Bachelet of Chile was tortured in prison under the brutal Pinochet dictatorship that was installed with the help of the Nixon administration. The presidents of Bolivia, Argentina, Guatemala, and others have all lived through the repression of right-wing dictatorships.

Nor is this threat merely a thing of the past. Just two weeks ago the President of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, had to fire most of the military leadership because of credible evidence that they were conspiring with the political opposition. This is one of the consequences of not reversing the Honduran military coup of June 28th.

Here in the United States we have been subjected to a relentless campaign of lies and distortions intended to justify the coup, which have been taken up by Republican supporters of the dictatorship, as well as by hired guns like Lanny Davis, a close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the biggest lie, repeated thousands of times in the news reporting and op-eds of the major media, was that Zelaya was overthrown because he was trying to extend his term of office. In fact, the non-binding referendum that Zelaya proposed had nothing to do with term limits. And even if this poll of the electorate had led eventually to a new constitution, any legal changes would have been far too late for Zelaya to stay in office beyond January 29.

Another surreal part of the whole political discussion has been the attempt to portray Zelaya, who was merely delivering on his campaign promises to the Honduran electorate, as a pawn of some foreign power – conveniently chosen to be the much-demonized Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The anti-communist hysteria of 1950s McCarthyism is still the model for these uncreative political hacks.

What a disgrace it will be to our country if the Obama team follows through on its current strategy and recognizes these “elections!” It’s hard to imagine a stronger statement than that human rights and democracy in this hemisphere count for zero in the political calculations of this administration.

This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on November 18, 2009 and published by the Sacramento Bee and other newspapers.

I saw an interesting BBC documentary about Gypsies in Europe. Since Romania became a member of EU, their large Gypsy minority can move freely between the different countries. As a consequence they show up in large numbers in metropolitan areas to steal and beg.

The way they do it is by training their children to steal for them. That way no one has to go to jail. When the children are caught they are sent to social services that release them after a few hours. The children typically hang around ATMs or follow people with backpacks or shopping bags. They can get pretty aggressive at times, probably because they never get punished.

A well meaning liberal might argue that they do this because of poverty, and that other groups in a similar social situation act just the same. But this argument doesn’t hold up. According to the police a full third of all juvenile delinquents in Madrid are Gypsies while, according to Wikipedia, Gypsies are only 1.6 percent of the population. (It’s also a big problem in Italy where they constitute 0.2 percent of the population.) So if there really are other minorities coaching their children this way they must be completely outcompeted by the Gypsies. And, as the film clearly shows, they are kind of sloppy and get caught all the time.

The film also shows how stealing is integrated in their way of life as well as other unpleasant aspects of their culture. At a marriage one man comments that the bride, aged 13, cost 7000 euro because she is such a good thief as well as being a virgin. The next day the marriage is consummated.

Not all Gypsies are like in the film of course. But the statistics don’t lie; there is something rotten in their culture. The authorities, politicians and public figures of the liberal persuasion are also responsible for this situation. By constantly calling anyone who states the obvious a racist, they enable Gypsies to continue to make their living as thieves. And thus they fuel the conflict between Gypsies and the rest of the community.

As far as I can see there is only one solution to this problem. The law needs to make the parents responsible for what their children do. If a crime doesn’t come with a penalty they will keep doing this indefinitely. If, on the other hand, they are made to pay for their actions, then maybe they’ll realize that their way of living doesn’t work anymore give it up.

The Electronic Intifada, November 10, 2009

Israeli Jews and the one-state solution

Anyone who rejects the two-state solution, won’t bring a one-state solution. They will instead bring one war, not one state. A bloody war with no end. — Israeli President Shimon Peres, 7 November 2009.

One of the most commonly voiced objections to a one-state solution for Palestine/Israel stems from the accurate observation that the vast majority of Israeli Jews reject it, and fear being “swamped” by a Palestinian majority. Across the political spectrum, Israeli Jews insist on maintaining a separate Jewish-majority state.

But with the total collapse of the Obama Administration’s peace efforts, and relentless Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank, the reality is dawning rapidly that the two-state solution is no more than a slogan that has no chance of being implemented or altering the reality of a de facto binational state in Palestine/Israel.

This places an obligation on all who care about the future of Palestine/Israel to seriously consider the democratic alternatives. I have long argued that the systems in post-apartheid South Africa (a unitary democratic state), and Northern Ireland (consociational democracy) — offer hopeful, real-life models.

But does solid Israeli Jewish opposition to a one-state solution mean that a peaceful one-state outcome is so unlikely that Palestinians should not pursue it, and should instead focus only on “pragmatic” solutions that would be less fiercely resisted by Israeli Jews?

The experience in South Africa suggests otherwise. In 1994, white-minority rule — apartheid — came to a peaceful, negotiated end, and was replaced (after a transitional period of power-sharing) with a unitary democratic state with a one person, one vote system. Before this happened, how likely did this outcome look? Was there any significant constituency of whites prepared to contemplate it, and what if the African National Congress (ANC) had only advanced political solutions that whites told pollsters they would accept?

Until close to the end of apartheid, the vast majority of whites, including many of the system’s liberal critics, completely rejected a one person, one vote system, predicting that any attempt to impose it would lead to a bloodbath. As late as 1989, F.W. de Klerk, South Africa’s last apartheid president, described a one person, one vote system as the “death knell” for South Africa.

A 1988 study by political scientist Pierre Hugo documented the widespread fears among South African whites that a transition to majority rule would entail not only a loss of political power and socioeconomic status, but engendered “physical dread” and fear of “violence, total collapse, expulsion and flight.” Successive surveys showed that four out of five whites thought that majority rule would threaten their “physical safety.” Such fears were frequently heightened by common racist tropes of inherently savage and violent Africans, but the departure of more than a million white colons from Algeria and the airlifting of 300,000 whites from Angola during decolonization set terrifying precedents (“Towards darkness and death: racial demonology in South Africa,” The Journal of Modern African Studies, 26(4), 1988).

Throughout the 1980s, polls showed that even as whites increasingly understood that apartheid could not last, only a small minority ever supported majority rule and a one person, one vote system. In a March 1986 survey, for example, 47 percent of whites said they would favor some form of “mixed-race” government, but 83 percent said they would opt for continued white domination of the government if they had the choice (Peter Goodspeed, “Afrikaners cling to their all-white dream,” The Toronto Star, 5 October 1986).

A 1990 nationwide survey of Afrikaner whites (native speakers of Afrikaans, as opposed to English, and who traditionally formed the backbone of the apartheid state), found just 2.2 percent were willing to accept a “universal franchise with majority rule” (Kate Manzo and Pat McGowan, “Afrikaner fears and the politics of despair: Understanding change in South Africa,” International Studies Quarterly, 36, 1992).

Perhaps an enlightened white elite was able to lead the white masses to higher ground? This was not the case either. A 1988 academic survey of more than 400 white politicians, business and media leaders, top civil servants, academics and clergy found that just 4.8 percent were prepared to accept a unitary state with a universal voting franchise and two-thirds considered such an outcome “unacceptable.” According to Manzo and McGowan, white elites reflected the sentiments and biases of the rest of the society and overwhelmingly considered whites inherently more civilized and culturally superior to black Africans. Just more than half of prominent whites were prepared to accept “a federal state in which power is shared between white and non-white groups and areas so that no one group dominates.”

During the 1980s, the white electorate in South Africa moved to the right, as Israel’s Jewish electorate is doing today. Support seeped from the National Party, which had established formal apartheid in 1948, to the even more extreme Conservative Party. Yet, “on the issue of majority rule,” Hugo observed, “supporters of the National Party and the Conservative Party, as well as most white voters to the ‘left’ of these organizations, ha[d] little quarrel with each other.”

The vast majority of whites, wracked with existential fears, were simply unable to contemplate relinquishing effective control, or at least a veto, over political decision-making in South Africa.

Yet, the African National Congress insisted firmly on a one person, one vote system with no white veto. As the township protests and strikes and international pressure mounted, The Economist observed in an extensive 1986 survey of South Africa published on 1 February of that year, that many “enlightened” whites “still fondly argue that a dramatic improvement in the quality of black life may take the revolutionary sting out of the black townships — and persuade ‘responsible’ blacks, led by the emergent black middle class, to accept some power-sharing formula.”

Schemes to stabilize the apartheid system abounded, and bear a strong resemblance to the current Israeli government’s vision of “economic peace” in which a collaborationist Palestinian Authority leadership would manage a still-subjugated Palestinian population anesthetized by consumer goods and shopping malls.

Because of the staunch opposition of whites to a unitary democratic state, the ANC heard no shortage of advice from western liberals that it should seek a “realistic” political accommodation with the apartheid regime, and that no amount of pressure could force whites to succumb to the ANC’s political demands. The ANC was warned that insistence on majority rule would force Afrikaners into the “laager” — they would retreat into a militarized garrison state and siege economy, preferring death before surrender.

Even the late Helen Suzman, one of apartheid’s fiercest liberal critics, predicted in 1987, as quoted by Hugo, “The Zimbabwe conflict took 15 years … and cost 20,000 lives and I can assure you that the South African transfer of power will take a good deal more than that, both in time and I am afraid lives.”

But as The Economist observed, the view that whites would prefer “collective suicide” was something of a caricature. The vast majority of Afrikaners were “no longer bible-thumping boers.” They were “part of a spoilt, affluent suburban society, whose economic pain threshold may prove to be rather low.”

The Economist concluded that if whites would only come so far voluntarily, then it was perfectly reasonable for the anti-apartheid movement to bring them the rest of the way through “coercion” in the form of sanctions and other forms of pressure. “The quicker the white tribe submits,” the magazine wrote, “the better its chance of a bearable future in a black-ruled South Africa.”

Ultimately, as we now know, the combination of internal resistance and international isolation did force whites to abandon political apartheid and accept majority rule. However, it is important to note that the combined strength of the anti-apartheid movement never seriously threatened the physical integrity of the white regime.

Even after the massive township uprisings of 1985-86, the South African regime was secure. “So far there is no real physical threat to white power,” The Economist noted, “so far there is little threat to white lives. … The white state is mighty, and well-equipped. It has the capacity to repress the township revolts far more bloodily. The blacks have virtually no urban or rural guerrilla capacity, practically no guns, few safe havens within South Africa or without.”

This balance never changed, and a similar equation could be written today about the relative power of a massively-armed — and much more ruthless — Israeli state, and lightly armed Palestinian resistance factions.

What did change for South Africa, and what all the weapons in the world were not able to prevent, was the complete loss of legitimacy of the apartheid regime and its practices. Once this legitimacy was gone, whites lost the will to maintain a system that relied on repression and violence and rendered them international pariahs; they negotiated a way out and lived to tell the tale. It all happened much more quickly and with considerably less violence than even the most optimistic predictions of the time. But this outcome could not have been predicted based on what whites said they were willing to accept, and it would not have occurred had the ANC been guided by opinion polls rather than the democratic principles of the Freedom Charter.

Zionism — as many Israelis openly worry — is suffering a similar, terminal loss of legitimacy as Israel is ever more isolated as a result of its actions. Israel’s self-image as a liberal “Jewish and democratic state” is proving impossible to maintain against the reality of a militarized, ultra-nationalist Jewish sectarian settler-colony that must carry out frequent and escalating massacres of “enemy” civilians (Lebanon and Gaza 2006, Gaza 2009) in a losing effort to check the resistance of the region’s indigenous people. Zionism cannot bomb, kidnap, assassinate, expel, demolish, settle and lie its way to legitimacy and acceptance.

Already difficult to disguise, the loss of legitimacy becomes impossible to conceal once Palestinians are a demographic majority ruled by a Jewish minority. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that Palestinians recognize Israel’s “right to exist as a Jewish state” is in effect an acknowledgement of failure: without Palestinian consent, something which is unlikely ever to be granted, the Zionist project of a Jewish ethnocracy in Palestine has grim long-term prospects.

Similarly, South African whites typically attempted to justify their opposition to democracy, not in terms of a desire to preserve their privilege and power, but using liberal arguments about protecting distinctive cultural differences. Hendrik Verwoerd Jr., the son of assassinated Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, apartheid’s founder, expressed the problem in these terms in 1986, as reported by The Toronto Star, stating that, “These two people, the Afrikaner and the black, are not capable of becoming one nation. Our differences are unique, cultural and deep. The only way a man can be happy, can live in peace, is really when he is among his own people, when he shares cultural values.”

The younger Verwoerd was on the far-right of South African politics, leading a quixotic effort to carve out a whites-only homeland in the heart of South Africa. But his reasoning sounds remarkably similar to liberal Zionist defenses of the “two-state solution” today. The Economist clarified the use of such language at the time, stating that “One of the weirder products of apartheid is the crippling of language in a maw of hypocrisy, euphemism and sociologese. You talk about the Afrikaner ‘right to self-determination’ — meaning power over everybody else.”

Zionism’s claim for “Jewish self-determination” amidst an intermixed population, is in effect a demand to preserve and legitimize a status quo in which Israeli Jews exercise power in perpetuity. But there’s little reason to expect that Israeli Jews would abandon this quest voluntarily any more than South African whites did. As in South Africa, coercion is necessary — and the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is one of the most powerful, nonviolent, legitimate and proven tools of coercion that Palestinians possess. Israel’s vulnerabilities may be different from those of apartheid South Africa, but Israel is not invulnerable to pressure.

Coercion is not enough, however; as I have long argued, and sought to do, Palestinians must also put forward a positive vision. Neither can Palestinians advocating a one-state solution simply disregard the views of Israeli Jews. We must recognize that the opposition of Israeli Jews to any solution that threatens their power and privilege stems from at least two sources. One is irrational, racist fears of black and brown hordes (in this case, Arab Muslims) stoked by decades of colonial, racist demonization. The other source — certainly heightened by the former — are normal human concerns about personal and family dislocation, loss of socioeconomic status and community security: change is scary.

But change will come. Without indulging Israeli racism or preserving undue privilege, the legitimate concerns of ordinary Israeli Jews can be addressed directly in any negotiated transition to ensure that the shift to democracy is orderly, and essential redistributive policies are carried out fairly. Inevitably, decolonization will cause some pain as Israeli Jews lose power and privilege, but there are few reasons to believe it cannot be a well-managed process, or that the vast majority of Israeli Jews, like white South Africans, would not be prepared to make the adjustment for the sake of a normality and legitimacy they cannot have any other way.

This is where the wealth of research and real-life experience about the successes, failures, difficulties and opportunities of managing such transitions at the level of national and local politics, neighborhoods, schools and universities, workplaces, state institutions and policing, emerging from South Africa and Northern Ireland, will be of enormous value.

Every situation has unique features, and although there are patterns in history, it never repeats itself exactly. But what we can conclude from studying the pasts and presents of others is that Palestinians and Israelis are no less capable of writing themselves a post-colonial future that gives everyone a chance at a life worth living in a single, democratic state.

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

Jewish Voice for Peace comments:

Ali Abunimah is a prominent defender of a single democratic state in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. In this article he makes the now quite common – though also controversial – comparison with Apartheid South Africa. Usually the question this comparison raises is whether Israeli treatment of Palestinians is really analogous to or as bad as the Apartheid regime’s treatment of its black majority, and the comparison is often used to support the use of tactics of resistance like BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) modeled on the anti-Apartheid campaigns of the 1980s.  But Abunimah instead hones narrowly in on the hostility of the white minority in South Africa to a multi-racial democratic state, a hostility that persisted until surprisingly shortly before change was initiated. It is this that he compares, in a wealth of detail, with Jewish Israeli fears of a single state solution. If change could occur in South Africa in spite of such widespread rejection in the white community, why, Abuminah argues, should change not occur in Israel despite the fears of the Jewish community? It won’t happen, he recognizes without outside pressure (and he supports BDS); but current Jewish Israeli rejection need not make it impossible.

This is surely true, but ‘not necessarily impossible’ is very far from showing that a one-state solution ought to be the aspiration of activist movements, Palestinian, Jewish or otherwise. As his banner quotation from Shimon Peres – a barely veiled threat – makes clear, it remains quite possible that a one-state ‘solution’ will involve no diminution of violence towards or oppression of Palestinians. One state is, after all, what there is now. What might make it important to explore a one state possibility is the fact, clearly motivating Abunimah, that two viable states are now impossible. Certainly he is correct to say that there is presently no political will in the Israeli or US administrations to move in the direction of a viable Palestinian state and reasonable opinions can differ on whether the current ‘facts on the ground’ make it impossible to eke out such a state. But it is also surely true that activist pressure can be brought to bear both on that political
will and even on the facts on the ground and this pressure has a natural point of application in the official commitment of Israel, the US, the PA (and even Hamas) to two states. If change is possible, as Abunimah argues, on the one state solution, then it is certainly possible for two states. But if two states can be achieved, then this removes a big chunk of the motivation for directing one’s energies to one state. Indeed, aiming for two viable states in the medium term is not inconsistent with seeking to build consensus, along the lines Abunimah suggests, for single state in the long term.

The question is by no means an obvious one to resolve, but it is important to consider where activist energies are most likely to have an effect, and avoid directions that absorb energy with little hope of result. Indeed some commentators have suggested that the one state solution has become increasingly acceptable in the mainstream US  media precisely because it is so unlikely to come about that it represents – from the point of view of the status quo – a harmless safety valve through which to discharge otherwise potentially dangerous activist pressure.

Alistair Welchman

US

Director: Spike Lee

135 min

Messy? Unfocused? Incoherent? Grotesque? Yes, Spike Lee’s ‘Bamboozled’ are all these things and more. On the other hand, it’s an angry, biting satire on racism in the visual media since the advent of cinema and television. Always one of the most controversial and confrontational of all American film makers, Lee pulls no punches. What he places on screen over two and a quarter hours will stimulate debate and divide audiences. Some will loathe the film and pick apart its myriad shortcomings. Others will enthusiastically endorse it and applaud his guts. This is what cinema ought to be about.

The basic premise is a meeting of ‘Network’ and ‘The Producers’ but given the historical context of race in America. At the heart of the film is Pierre Delacroix, a pompous Harvard-educated black television writer who speaks with an implausible, presumably affected accent, and boy, doesn’t Wayans wander all over the place with his performance. Lee no doubt sets Delacroix up as the morally confused anti-hero. It’s difficult to sympathise with his actions both before and after his big break. Frustrated at being unable to get any shows off the ground, his ridiculously ‘down with it’ superior, Thomas Dunwitty (Michael Rapaport) challenges him to create something ‘hip’, something ‘fresh’, something ‘black’. The answer? A modern-day black and white minstrel show…..with, get this! Black actors in blackface! Of course this show ought to appal anyone with liberal sensibilities and even those without, but in true farcical style, ‘Mantan: The New Millennium Minstrel Show’ becomes an unlikely, but wildly successful hit.

Critics who’ve been supportive of Lee’s motivations behind making the film have been reluctant to endorse this aspect of his film. The misjudged behaviour of Ted Danson, when he blacked up when dating Whoopi Goldberg probably lingers in the mind. Lee has a serious point to make though and goes to extreme lengths to make it. Think about it for a second. With the exception of ‘Roots’, how often does American television produce serious dramas about the black community? Why are all shows that feature the black community comedies, that usually involve black characters at the butt of any jokes. It’s hardly the place to go into it but try dissecting ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel Air’ for a second and consider the precarious ground it stands on under scrutiny. With the Mantan minstrel show, Lee satirises this depiction of blacks in the visual media, grotesquely exaggerating it by using the single most offensive depiction of blacks ever – the cotton plantations – that nefarious symbol of slavery and oppression. The manner in which audiences, initially bemused, come to accept this nasty set-up is frighteningly plausible. Decades of normalised race relations seem to be paper-thin and wear down easily.

Beyond the initial premise, there is a case that Lee can’t keep a reasonable grip on his material and that the developments in the narrative thereafter seem a bit contrived. Sloan Hopkins (Jada Pinkett-Smith), Delacroix’s assistant, whom Lee establishes as the film’s moral centre, has a pivotal role in events getting out of hand – she romances Manray, AKA Mantan (Savion Glover), whilst her ‘gangsta’ brother, Big Blak Afrika (Mos Def) kidnaps and organises the execution of Manray once he’s fired by the studio for rejecting the racist nature of the show. Although difficult to swallow, these events come to bring Delacroix to his senses, having been consumed by his own success. Lee ends his film with a recording Hopkins made for Delacroix, which remains the film’s strongest and angry segment, and none of it is Lee’s original work. It’s a lengthy montage of racist and demeaning clips from Hollywood and television, including ‘Birth of a Nation’, ‘The Jazz Singer’ and ‘Gone With The Wind’. It’s a powerful statement in its own right, and although Lee’s film wavers in quality, it lends it credibility and authority. ‘Bamboozled’ won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – Lee had to produce it on digital video when studios naturally avoided it like the plague – but one can’t deny it’s one of the most important American films of the decade.

“It’s not about the faces on the stage, but the One who’s truly famous.”

So says the opening promo line on the Passion 2010 website highlighting the speakers for this years conference.  The leaders of the Passion conference say, convincingly I might add, that their aim is to, “see a generation stake their lives on what matters most.”  Praise God for such a vision!  And praise God for the organizers of this event.  Praise God for the godly men (and couple of women) who are listed as “leaders” for the event.  Now, can we just be a little bit more honest about “the generation” and about those “faces on the stage?”

The generation the leaders of Passion are aiming to see stake their lives are suburban, upper middle class, overwhelmingly White evangelical kids.  Everything about the conference and the conference website is geared towards that demographic and though they may tout international credentials, this is far from an international conference.  These same kids will worship in much they same style they would at a secular rock concert though to Christian music.  They will surge and sing.  They will cry and commit.  And they will hear from speakers who look and sound just like them (with the noted exception of Francis Chan — and the word is still out on whether he’s a sellout or not).

The faces on the stage matter.  If they didn’t matter the organizers of Passion would not have rounded up the likes of John Piper, Louis Giglio, or the David Crowder band.  These folks are some of the superstars of the evangelical church world, and if we could be honest, they are the reason why many of the folks signing up for Passion are signing up.

They matter for the same reason the Deadly Viper’s controversy was indeed a real controversy.  It is not without significance that Deadly Vipers was initially introduced during a Catalyst conference (at least I think it was).  The stunning ignorance (and quite ready repentance) of the authors of Deadly Vipers and of Zondervan is not theirs alone.  The evangelical community within the United States over and again continues to demonstrate a tone deaf ignorance bordering on stubborn hard heartedness when it comes to issues of race and ethnicity.

Why is Passion able to say without apparent irony that the faces on the stage don’t matter in a world where the fabric of evangelicalism even within the United States is incredibly diverse?  Why did Zondervan stick their foot in the crap pile again after only a few years ago Lifeway was smacked down for producing other racial insensitive material?  Why is any of this news to the large number of White evangelicals who honestly and with sincerity desire to work to proclaim the gospel effectively to all people?

Because White evangelicals live socially, economically, and indeed theologically in a world untouched by other perspectives and increasingly are seeking to isolate themselves further by developing specialized ministries that cater only to themselves.  Call it FUBU for White people.

The truth is, the faces do matter.  And my White evangelical brothers under the skin had better be aware that it matters more than they think.  Every ethnic minority living under a dominant culture knows that it matters.  Think I’m wrong?  Spend any length of time in a foreign country and you’ll discover quickly just how welcome an American accent can be, or better yet join a church of a very different ethnicity than your own and immerse yourself.  You’ll quickly discover that it matters a lot more than you think to have someone who looks like you, who can at some level identify with your experience, and who can articulate in a culturally relevant way those things that matter most, is very important.  Call it the incarnation experience.  You see, none of us have a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.  That is to see, Jesus knows well what it is to enter fully into the human experience and thus sympathizes with us in our own.

It is time for mistakes such as those embodied in Deadly Vipers and Rickshaw Rally to come to an end, and the Christian community ought to be the leaders in this effort.

derailment [n]: a defensive argument, statement, or question that dismisses or seeks to undermine anti-racist arguments in an effort to preserve privilege or the status quo

When faced with evidence that racism is still alive and well in our society, many white people will try to avoid responsibility for promoting racial justice and reconciliation by attempting to dismiss or undermine the evidence with derailment techniques.

Today’s derailment is a little bit different: it’s about white people who try to defend actions that should be considered overtly racist by appealing to supposedly “similar” actions by people of color.

“But they call each other the n-word, so why can’t we say it?”

“But they call white people ‘cracker’—isn’t that just as bad?”

Just flip the script, the argument suggests, and you’ll see that forbidding white people to use racial slurs is a just a double standard. Like most “flip the script” arguments, which generally require ignoring history and context, it’s wrong.

“But they call each other the n-word, so why can’t we say it?”

First of all, not all people of color do use slurs in reference to people within their own racial group(s). In fact, some are actively opposed to it. To choose but one example, please visit the website I Never Use the Word Nigger.

But when people of color do use slurs in reference to people within their own racial group(s), it’s most often an ironic appropriation: The marginalized group steals a term of oppression from their oppressors and reverses its meaning within the marginalized group, for example by turning it into a term of endearment. Through ironic use within the marginalized group, the term becomes an assertion of humanity and unity against the oppressor’s use of the term to degrade.

In any case, when members of a marginalized group use an oppressor’s slurs in reference to people within the group the term almost inevitably means something different than it does on the lips of oppressors (as above) and/or it is understood to self-apply. Within the group, it is more difficult for the term to coexist with racial stereotypes and dehumanization, and it is not being used to impose or enforce systemic oppression on a racial basis. The only exception I can think of is when it involves self-contempt, adopting the oppressor’s view of oneself.

Because we are not members of the marginalized group and there can be no self-application, ironic co-option of racial slurs directed at people of color is simply not open to white people.

“But they call white people ‘cracker’—isn’t that just as bad?”

Many people of color would never use a slur against white people, just as many white people refuse to use racial and ethnic slurs. But if people of color ever do use such terms and it is wrong for them to do so, that use does not excuse white people to use slurs in return. Two wrongs, as the saying goes, wouldn’t make a right.

That being said, I think it is valuable to point out that no term for white people coined and used in our society actually carries the weight of true racism. People of color do not impose or enforce a system of racial privilege against white people by the use of slurs. Any person, of any race, may harbor racial prejudice, consciously or unconsciously. Any person, of any race, can view or treat people differently based on race, consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or not. All of us do this to some degree, and it can be hurtful no matter who does it. Not all people are capable, however, of racism in the broader, systemic sense. In the United States, racism is something imposed and perpetuated by white people to the advantage of white people. (For more information, please visit the Beginner’s Guide and Do White Americans Experience Racism?)

When I ask white people to tell me about the slurs supposedly used against white people by people of color, I find they rarely come up with many. And the ones they do come up with are not nearly so inflammatory as the slurs used against people of color, partially because they do not carry the weight of true racism (as mentioned above) and partially because of their history, use, and/or meaning.

The most common one I hear from white people is “honky.” I doubt this is frequently thrown at them, since it’s not a term I’ve heard since watching reruns of The Jeffersons. How insulted ought we to be? According to most etymological accounts, white people have only ourselves to blame for this one. It’s probably derived from “bohunk” and “hunky,” ethnic slurs white people used against Bohemian, Hungarian, and Polish immigrants. (The only alternative etymology I’ve uncovered is the suggestion that it comes from the Wolof word honq meaning “red or pink,” colors used to describe white men in Africa.)

The same goes for “cracker.” Most etymologies trace it back to an older English term for a braggart. An 18^th century letter to the Earl of Dartmouth applies it to Scots-Irish settlers in the American South: “I should explain to your Lordship what is meant by Crackers; a name they have got from being great boasters; they are a lawless set of rascalls on the frontiers of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, who often change their places of abode.” As with “honky,” we probably have white folks to thank for this term.

An alternative folk-etymology for “cracker” suggests that it refers to slave overseers cracking whips. If so, it is intended to refer to white people who act as oppressors (often at the service of someone else’s interests, so it can also imply that the “cracker” is a dupe). In this usage, it is primarily used to identify and oppose racism, which is not remotely comparable to use of a term like the n-word. The purpose of slurs like the n-word is to dehumanize, the purpose of a word like “cracker,” according to its folk etymology, is to point out a moral failure.

Regardless, people of color do not and cannot impose or enforce a system of racial privilege against white people in our society through the use of slurs. If people of color ever do use them, and if it is wrong for them to do so, it will not excuse white people doing so in return.

Short version: We’re not going to promote racial justice and reconciliation by calling each other names. We need to develop respect for the people around us.

“As you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.”

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Do you have any thoughts on these topics? Please feel free to share.

The Business Insider, September 30, 2009

U.S. Income Inequality Is Frightening–And Much Worse Than We Thought

Posted using ShareThis

The newest economic inequality numbers, which ran counter to the expectations of almost all experts, are frightening.

The Associated Press released an article titled, US income gap widens as poor take hit in recession. The opening paragraph of the article, based on recent census data, reads:

The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets.

The article, which then discussed the Census statistics that led to this conclusion, failed to mention that the Census Bureau considered the differences between 2007 and 2008, with regard to economic inequality,statistically insignificant.

But, whether the Census Data shows a meaningful increase, or not. is irrelevant. The Census Data reports that, contrary to the almost universal expectations of economists, economic inequality most likely did not decrease in 2008. Experts had anticipated that the declines in income of the rich would lead to a reversal in this groups ever–widening share of our national income. Instead, the Census reported that the 2008 income losses by the top 10% of Americans were offset by larger losses among middle class and poorer Americans.

MIT economist Simon Johnston appears to have been one notable exception to this expectation of a shrinking income gap.

Let’s review what we know about the measurement of income inequality before discussing the disturbing implications of this newest government report.

About two weeks ago, I critiqued a Sept 10, 2009 front page story in the Wall Street Journal titled, Income Gap Shrinks in Slump at the Expense of the Wealthy. My critique had three central points:

First, economists have, with few exceptions, agreed that Census Data is inappropriate for measuring income inequality because it consistently understates the income of the wealthiest families. To protect the privacy of reporting individuals, the Census “top-codes” income, which means that no one is ever recorded as making more than about $1.1 million in a single year. So, oil traders, hedge fund executives and anyone else at the super-high end of the income strata who might earn $100, $50 or $5 million in a single year, always earn $1.1 million or less in this Census Data. In addition, the Census Data does not include capital gains income, which is typically a large source of income for the wealthiest Americans.

Two economists, Professors Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, developed a method for measuring income inequality using IRS data, which avoided the problems inherent in using Census Data. This data was recently updated in response to the IRS release of 2007 information, and found that: Economic inequality in 2006 was, by some measures at the highest levels, ever found in the data available for the past 95 years. In 2007, these same measure showed a further jump further bringing America to it it’s highest levels of economic inequality in recorded history.

As a consequence of Census top-coding and the lack of capital gains data, the Saez-Piketty methodology has consistently shown that the Census substantially understates the extent of economic inequality in the nation. This means that, there is a real possibility that the the new Census Data understated the extent to which income inequality grew in 2008, and that the relative losses of the wealthiest families, versus less fortunate Americans, will be more than statistically insignificant.

It is possible that losses in reported capital income by the wealthiest Americans, if captured by the Saez-Piketty methodology, will be larger than the the incomes above $1.1 million that were not reported and offset the Census findings, leading as economists anticipated to a decline in the share of income going to the rich. However, I view this as unlikely. In considering this possibility, its important to remember that the IRS works on reported income gains, not gains which were never captured as taxable income. For income reporting purposes, the question is not whether the market value of capital assets declined but whether they were sold at an actual loss from their purchase price.

We will not know the answer to this question until July or August 2010, but in weighing the available evidence my working hypothesis is that as demonstrated by this new Census Report, income inequality did not decrease from 2008 to 2007.

Second, the original Journal article expressed a strong expectation that, as a result of the Great Recession, the ongoing growth of income inequality would decline substantially through 201o. My critique indicated that this was “far from clear.” The conventional economic wisdom, based on historical data, is that income inequality decreases, at least temporarily, as the richest Americans lose income faster than less-well-off Americans during a downturn. In contrast, this new data suggests that the dangerous cycle toward increasing income at the top of America has become even more self-reinforcing than previously recognized. We are now at the point where the pure market forces, which many economists told us would eliminate this issue, are no longer effective.

Third, the Journal article implied that the decrease in economic inequality it incorrectly predicted might be the start of a long-term trend. Instead, I demonstrated that, even if income inequality did decline in 2008 and 2009, it would almost certainly be “temporary.” The historical evidence shows that economic inequality frequently declines in a downturn, in the absence of strong government action, but that it will almost inevitably rebound and continue its march forward.

Now, let’s return to our main point:

Early next week, my new book It Could Happen Here will be released by HarperCollins. The book is an in-depth look , based on a historical analysis, of the implications of our historically high levels of economic inequality for the nation’s ultimate, long-term political stability. As economic inequality grows, nations invariably become increasingly politically unstable: Should we complacently believe that America will be different?

A central conclusion of the book is that once economic inequality reaches a self-reinforcing cycle it is halted only by inevitably controversial, hard-fought, bitterly opposed government action. Senator Jim Webb encapsulated this idea, when he wrote in his book, A Time to Fight: Reclaiming A Fair and Just America:

“No aristocracy in history has decided to give up any portion of its power willingly.”

In 1928, economic inequality was near today’s levels. Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in reversing the trend toward the continuing concentration of wealth, but it was a turbulent battle. In 1936, while campaigning for his second term and speaking at Madison Square Garden, FDR told the crowd:

“Never before in all our history have these forces [Organized Money] been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said, wait a minute, I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”

In FDR’s era and in our own, money brings power: both explicitly and implicitly, in hundreds of different ways, both large and small. Today, the wealthiest Americans, together with a number of financial and corporate interests that act on their behalf, protect their ever-increasing influence through activities that include, among others, lobbying, supplying expertise to the councils of government, casual conversation at dinner parties, the potential for jobs after government service, the power to run media advertisements that influence public opinion. Indeed, MIT economist Simon Johnston, writing in The Atlantic asserted that the U.S. is now run by an oligarchy:

The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated [ from 1983 to 2007] gave bankers enormous political weight–a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man) … Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world’s most advanced economy, military, and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.

The new inequality data suggests that the potential problems for the nation associated with the concentration of wealth and power are even more severe than previously recognized. Two weeks ago, Iwrote that “Once income concentration becomes a reinforcing cycle of the kind we are witnessing, it is never stopped by pure market forces.” This mechanism is now in full swing. The market forces associated with the Great Recession, which many economist had expected to stem the growing, corrosive gap between the rich and the poor, appear to have become ineffective.

The great strength of American democracy has always been its capacity for self-correction. However, Robert Dahl, the eminent political scientist, recognized that political power fueled by wealth may ultimately neutralize this central aspect of our democracy. In his 2006 book, On Political Equality, Dahl wrote:

As numerous studies have shown, inequalities in income and wealth are likely to produce other inequalities..

The unequal accumulation of political resources points to an ominous possibility: political inequalities may be ratcheted up, so to speak, to a level from which they cannot be ratcheted down. The cumulative advantages in power, influence, and authority of the more privileged strata may become so great that even if less privileged Americans compose a majority of citizens they are simply unable, and perhaps even unwilling, to make the effort it would require to overcome the forces of inequality arrayed against them.

In the chapter following this quote, Dahl notes “that we should not assume this future is inevitable.” He’s right. But, was clearly concerned. Three years late, we should be even more concerned.

Many current Executive Branch initiatives deserve our support and praise: However, nothing proposed to date will effectively halt growing economic inequality, and its corrosive impact on our economy and the long-term future of the nation. (In a future post, I will explicitly discuss the proposed regulatory reform of the financial sector.)

My analysis in It Could Happen Here concludes that without a vibrant middle class, the the American democracy as we know it, is not sustainable. Before the Great Recession, the middle class was in far worse shape than was generally acknowledged. In an economy with a record number of job seekers for every available job, the potential for nearly one-half of all home mortgages to be underwater, and increasing foreclosures, the collapse of the middle class will accelerate. With each job loss and each foreclosure, another family becomes a member of the former middle class.

America has never been a society sharply divided between have’s and have not’s. Unfortunately, this new data says to me we continue to head in that direction. Economists assumed that the Great Recession would be a circuit breaker that would halt this advance, at least temporarily. It did not.

With no new legislation, it appears we are potentially on course for 13 million foreclosures, almost one in every four mortgages in the nation, from the end of 2008 through 2014. Do we really believe that we can turn such huge numbers of Americans out of their homes with no consequences for the health of our system of governance? Could our democracy survive a transformation into a nation composed principally of a privileged upper class and an underclass which struggles from paycheck to paycheck and lacks basic economic security?

We will only stop the growth of economic inequality if the President and the Congress are ready to fight in the style of Franklin Roosevelt. FDR was a divider not a conciliator. Before World War II, he fought an all-out war at home. Today, “There’s class warfare, all right,” as Warren Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

I fervently hoped that we have not passed the point of no return, described by Professor Dahl. The recent news shows we are one step further on this road. If we continue down it, our nation may be on the path to becoming a House divided against itself, which ultimately cannot stand.

“OK, OK, so you had problems as a teenager and left home like about eleventy billion other kids do, so what”, you say with voice steadily rising…

Well, it’s called “Honor your Father and Mother”.

I know that ultimately we aren’t supposed to take sin all that seriously, everyone does it and the all loving fluffy easter bunny of a God doesn’t really care and we all grow up and then we have our own kids and now we’re on the parent side and that of course equals repentance, right?

Maybe, but maybe not…

What Satan figured out in his Rock and Roll laboratory, is that he could get kids to rebel against authority through pop culture and rock and roll.

Cool, you say, but so what. Then those kids grow up, they have kids, then they are parents and are forgiven for what they did when they were young.

Hmmm, what to do, what to do…

Here’s an idea, get those kids to rebel against their parents and against authority, use innocence and hurt and a dead president and puppy dog Beatlemania to get the whole thing going, then send those same kids off to a war that they don’t want to fight in so that their rebellion has a “nobel” cause…then let them die on a battlefield that way.

Satan + JFK + Beatlemania + Vietnam + “Peace” = Souls in Satan’s pocket.

See, here’s the thing. You can talk all you want about the CIA, or FBI, or Secret Service; Texas Oil or Cubans or the Mob, or even Oswald acting alone and a lot of the theories have bits and pieces that make sense. I do know a bit about the JFK assassination in reality and there’s still plenty of questions that lead to a potential conspiracy, and a definite cover up of relevant information relating to the assassination.

But whether it’s a seedy group in a mahogony shaded room making “power” deals that somehow caused this, or just one guy who was unstable, there was someone behind the scenes that definitely stood to profit from this.

Satan had a legitimate motive to kill JFK…

It’s a plot that didn’t start with JFK, it’s an evolution of one. The same way he used racism to kill off so many on battlefields in the Civil War, and then that president happened to get assassinated afterwards too.

Whenever Satan can cause a conflict that will cost the lives of those that verifiably are separated from God on just one key point, he wins souls.

I will be the first to point the finger at myself and say “well he’s insane”, but I’m telling you beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind that I know Satan operates at this level.

Satan killed JFK…to win souls.

Is there a more racist sport than college football (start with this bit of facts if you don’t believe me)? Give credit to the people who showed up in way more numbers to boo these idiots. In the meantime college football still has a lot of work to do in the diversity department. A lot.

During one of my classes, we were discussing regional identities in the United States (e.g., You’re from the west coast, do you surf to school?; You’re from the South, do you support President Bush/are you republican?) Seldom do I think about the numerous ways in which we categorize people. I’m often caught up in issues of race and ethnicity such that I don’t give enough attention to the fact that there are several other ways to categorize people. Maybe people who believe in the post-race mindset think about these other categories more often. Whatever. I’m pretty much over discussing racism. My life is so permeated by it that I’m exhausted by the topic

“According to cbs3.com, Lincoln University, an HBCU in Pennsylvania, has mandated a fitness course for overweight students in an effort to impact the soaring rates of obesity and diabetes in the African-American community. The mandate requires students to get tested for their BMI. Those in the obese range will be required to take the course that involves walking, weight training, aerobics and other physical activities.”  Is this good news? Is overweight the only problem on campus? What about the drug users are they too going to be outed? Obesity is definately not the only problem on campus, but it is one of the most visible. Will the fitness teachers identify the students that should have their BMI tested? Is this an invasion of privacy. What if the overweight condition has an emotional component? Will there be any therapy involved or will this just be boot camp? Lose weight or else? This is dangerous territory. Will they have the overweight teachers exercising too? There might be good intentions here, but there is something wrong with this approach.

Laraque expresses no remorse over his actions

In Saturday nights game between the Montreal Canadians and Detroit Red Wings, Habs forward Georges Laraque put a questionable hit on Wings defenceman Nicklas Kronwall who is now expected to miss more than a month of hockey.  Rather than appeal to the NHL for a suspension the Red Wings are instead requesting that Laraque be given the ultimate punishment; the death penalty. ”I don’t think there is any doubt that he should be given the death penalty,” said Wings head coach Mike Babcock. “A player like this who has such limited skill and such a limited role has no place in the game, and as far as I’m concerned doesn’t even belong on earth.”

In the second period of Detroit’s 3-2 shootout win, Laraque had a shift to remember. He started out by charging at young forward Darren Helm, carelessly allowing his stick to come up and catch Helm in the face. Seconds later, Laraque clipped the smooth skating Kronwall as he moved across the Montreal blueline. “He’s an animal out there, he always has been,” Wings captain Nick Lidstrom said.  “We lost a very important player at the hands of this thug. If you ask me, he belongs in the jungle…or the gas chamber…or the electric chair.” 

Long time vice president Jim Devellano continued in on the incident saying “I’ve lived in Detroit for a long time and believe me, I’ve seen hundreds of Georges Laraques in my day. They are a menace to the city of Detroit just like Laraque is a menace to the National Hockey League. They can’t get along in society and have no respect for anyone. Fry him. Fry them all.”

On Sunday afternoon in  a Fayetteville, North Carolina church, Manna Church, the world,family and friends said goodbye to Shaniya Davis. Shaniya had captured the heart of the world, after it was discovered that her own mother had sold her into bondage as a sex slave,to Mario McNeill, who brutally raped and murdered the little child.

More than 2000 people were inside the church to support Bradley Lockhart, Shaniyas dad, and the man who made the decision to send Shaniya back to her mother,after having raised the child for the full 5 years of her life,which directly led to her death.

“Don’t let God’s words and don’t let his actions get you down,” Lockhart told the packed congregation. “He did this for a reason.”

Shaniya Davis funeral was open to the public and was standing room only.Lockhart urged the 1,500 crowded into Manna Church and another 500 watching the service from an adjacent building to help the community’s needy, according to press reports.

As mourners filled the church, a photo display of Shaniya Davis was streamed on the overhead projector. Never before released photos of Shaniya were displayed. These photos showed Shaniya with her father, Bradley Lockhart and her siblings.

Lockhart said, “Shaniya, Daddy love you honey. And I know you’re gonna’ be waiting for me … I’ll see you when I get there.”

White doves were released at her graveside as the little child Shaniya was laid to her eternal resting place.

Click on the link below to view a comprehensive sideshow of pictures covering the Shaniya Davis funeral…

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/01/crimesider/entry5356401.shtml

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/farewell_oprah_how_about_a_gif.html

November 23, 2009

By Lloyd Marcus

 have a history with Oprah Winfrey. Back in the eighties, Oprah and I worked at WJZ-TV, an ABC affiliate TV station in Baltimore. Oprah was co-host with Richard Sher of the local morning talk show, “People Are Talking”. I was a Graphic Designer in the Creative Services/Art department.

Here is how Oprah got to Chicago and became, “Oprah”. “People Are Talking” associate producer, Debra DiMaio was seeking a new position at a TV station in Chicago. After reviewing DiMaio’s reel (industry term for resume video) the Chicago producers fell in love with Oprah; and the rest is history.

Upon hearing Oprah acquired a new job in Chicago, we, her fellow employees at WJZ-TV, planned a surprise going away party for Oprah. Barbara Hamm, a producer gathered footage of Oprah on air over her years at the station. I parodied the classic, “You Made Me Love You” to write a song to Oprah. News video editor Commodore Hill used footage gathered by Barbara and my Oprah song to produce a beautiful and emotional tribute farewell music video for Oprah. We played it at her farewell party. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house. It was a huge hit. Oprah wrote me the following thank you letter.

“Dear Lloyd,

As you probably know or maybe don’t know, I am a big Diana Ross fan — when I was a little girl growing up in the ghetto with only dreams for companions — I wanted so much to be Dianna Ross or just somebody’s supreme. But I want you to know had THE Diana Ross sang the “Oprah Song” — it would not have meant as much to me as having you do it. Not only was the song beautiful but — I felt it was also sincere.

I was so moved and will never ever forget it — or you.

Just as I know that it is indeed the master’s Hand that keeps me from falling — and that he has laid his hands on me and that is why I am so blessed. I know Lloyd that you too have been “chosen”.

You’re a very special person. Your light so shines that we all can see. Thank you for your support — I know there is much joy ahead for you.

Love — Oprah”

And why in almost 25 years of broadcasting have we not seen one conservative, “I am not a victim of white America” black guest on the Oprah show? This is a huge disservice to black America. We blacks, I am black, are blessed to be born in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. And yet, liberal icons are still filling the heads of black youths that they are victims of a sexist, racist and homophobic America. Despite Oprah being close to if not the richest woman in America and America electing it’s first black president, the branding of Americans as racist is stronger than ever.