Friday, February 24, 2006

Coretta Scott King

Following Malcolm's assassination, King wired Betty Shabazz, expressing his sadness over "the shocking and tragic assassination of your husband. While we did not always see eye to eye on methods to solve the race problem, I always had a deep affection for Malcolm and felt that he had a great ability to put his finger on the existence and the root of the problem. He was an eloquent spokesman for his point of view and no one can honestly doubt that Malcolm had a great concern for the problems we face as a race."
Knowing these facts today, we need to stop viewing Martin and Malcolm as adversaries, between whom we have to choose, and recognize them as allies who complemented one another and who understood that revolutionary leaders need to keep developing.

I wasn't planning on blogging tonight but I saw the link to Grace Lee Boggs' "Malcolm and Martin: Allies, not adversaries" at The Common Ills a little while ago. She's someone that Liang introduced the community to. Liang's a really sweet person so whenever I see that she highlighted something or when someone highlights Grace Lee Boggs, I always pay attention.

I went to the article at the Michigan Citizen and found something on Coretta Scott King that I wanted to put up here.

George E. Curry has a column called "Tarnishing the King Legacy" and I'm going to show it to Three Cool Old Guys. If you get the gina & krista round-robin, you know they were bothered by Coretta Scott King's funeral. Not by the nonsense of "it's too political!" They felt it wasn't political enough and Curry's got some similar points.

Here's some of Curry's column:

Despite their varied contributions to the civil rights movement, none of the aforementioned was allowed to speak at the funeral. Belafonte had been invited but the invitation was withdrawn when Bush decided to attend the funeral. In January, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" and equated the Department of Homeland Security with Hitler's Gestapo. Evidently, the funeral organizers were more interested in not offending Bush than recognizing the person who had actually supported Dr. King and his work.
Of the 30 speakers who were neither relatives nor participating in musical tributes, only five or six marched regularly with Dr. King. Even more insulting, William Session, a former FBI director, was given time on the program, even though the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, actively sought to discredit Dr. King, taping his private conversations and urging him to commit suicide.


Another thing worth checking out is Phill Wilson's "Coretta Scott King was sensitive to gays and lesbians:"

After her husband's assassination, Mrs. King picked up the pieces, gathered her children to her bosom and assured us that we would get by. And like a good mother, she never played favorites. She was committed to including all of us -- the civil rights one, the peace one, the labor one, the gay and lesbian one, and eventually the HIV/AIDS one. While there were some old guard civil rights leaders who thought "justice" meant "just us," Mrs. King never wavered. When the traditional "civil rights" house defined by the narrow paradigm of racial discrimination became too small, she moved us to a new "human rights" house big enough for all of us.
In 1990, when her son, Martin Luther King III, made disparaging remarks about gay and lesbian people, Mrs. King hosted a Black gay and lesbian summit at the King center. She was also one of the first Black leaders to speak out about HIV/AIDS and the need for Black people to pay attention.
"AIDS is a human crisis, no matter where you live," she said while addressing a gathering of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. "Anyone who sincerely cares about the future of Black America had better be speaking out about AIDS, calling for preventive measures and increased funding for research and treatment."

Coretta Scott King stood up over and over. She was concerned with the humanity landscape and she helped all of us, regardless of color, gender, orientation.

So go check out The Michigan Citizen. They've got a lot worth reading (and a lot worth thinking about).
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Move on when you need to

It's Thursday and Elaine can't blog on Thursday (she runs a group on Thursdays) so I grab Thursdays for her and she grabs Wednesdays (church night) for me. If you've never checked out her site, Like Maria Said Paz, please do so. I got matched with her, Eli, Kara and Brad by C.I. early on when I became a member of The Common Ills. We'd exchange e-mails and it was obvious she should be doing her own site. (So should Eli, Kara and Brad.) When she was filling in for Rebecca this summer while Rebecca was on vacation, she started helping out with The Third Estate Sunday Review and she's really sharp so maybe you know her from there? But check out her site: Like Maria Said Paz.

"How dare they try to end this beauty."

So what's the plan for tonight? An e-mail I wanted to get to awhile back but didn't have time (that'll be on my tombstone: "Didn't have time"). Iwanna e-mailed about her church back then and was kind enough to e-mail again this week or I would've forgotten.

She's got a beef and I'll quote her: "So it's not just donate to the plate that's passed around, we also have a Praise Bucket and they just added another one. I keep waiting to see the Car Note Bucket."

She's got a few beefs actually. She says she goes to church for the message and doesn't know "why we have to cluck like hens for 20 minutes at the start of every service while we're 'getting our praise on.'" Another complaint is that her preacher is always requesting, at the end of the service, that everyone go up to someone and hug. Iwanna goes to church with her adult son and her father and she's fine with hugging them "if I have to hug" but she's getting "real tired" of people coming up to her asking for a hug.

She also told me I could share this story. A year ago, there was a disagreement between two women in the choir at her church during choir practice. The first one wanted the solo and the second one said, "You always get the solo!" When the first one didn't back down, the second one cursed her and said, "I'm going out to my car and getting my gun!" The choir had to hold her back (while she was screaming, "Let me go! Let me go!") and Iwanna told her son they were leaving because it was getting crazy.

She has a ton of stories like that and I'm only sharing the ones she gave me permission to. But she's tired of this church. It was her late mother's church so she's continued to going.

But here's my advice, if your church isn't nourishing you and you've given it time, it's time for a change. I think a church is a long term thing and I expect that there will be bumps and all like any long term relationship. But if it stops working and it gets so bad that, like Iwanna, "all I want to do is go in, hear the sermon, and get out to my car" then it's probably time to consider another church.

When it stops speaking to you, and it continues to not speak to you, you need to move on. I hope that doesn't ever happen with me because I love my church but it does happen and when it does you just need to find another house of the Lord to worship in. That's not saying you failed or the church failed, just that you started out together but ended up taking different paths.

Though I put off writing about this here because I didn't have time, I did tell Iwanna that in an e-mail when she first wrote. Maybe seeing it up here will convince her that I mean it?

If your church isn't working for you, find one that does. I think most preachers or pastors would tell you the same thing -- not in a "get out" kind of way but because the message is more important than one church. Like I said, I hope that day never comes for me because my church means a lot to me and, even if that stopped being the case, I would still have a lot of memories tied up with it. I think that's why Iwanna's reluctant to make the break. But when you're miserable and it goes on and on for years, it's time to find a new house of worship.

Might even mean it was time to take a break and spend some time with yourself. But with Iwanna, she seems to just need to hear that it's okay to switch churches. Her aunt's goes to one that Iwanna's really curious about and she should check it out. Same goes for anyone.

The alternative is to just go through the motions and hate it and that does no one a favor. Doesn't do the congregation a favor, doesn't do your preacher a favor and it doesn't do you a favor.

So we've taken care of old business. Now I want to note something from Democracy Now! because Elaine always does:

Rumsfeld Backtracks on Iraq News Planting Denial
In other news, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has reversed his claim that the Pentagon has stopped planting news stories in the Iraqi media. Rumsfeld had made the claim on two separate occasions Friday. But on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said: "I don't have knowledge as to whether it's been stopped. I do have knowledge it was put under review. I was correctly informed. And I just misstated the facts."

Did you hear about that? Because you should have. This is typical for the administration. They act like a child cornered when caught in a lie -- they just create a new lie to get them out of hot water. To get everyone to back off, they lie and say something's stopped. Then, when things aren't being followed as closely, they turn around and retract their lie while claiming they thought that then.

"I just misstated the facts"? Weasel words for "I lied."

For an administration that can't stop invoking Jesus' name, they don't seem very familiar with the basics of the Bible, do they?

But that's often how it is. The people who make a spectacle of their faith are usually the least likely to actually practice it.

If you think about it, the very fact that they have to make a show of it usually means that they're trying to prove something. Now why does anyone have to prove anything? It's not a competition.

I really wish that politicians would invoke the Constitution more than they do the Lord. I don't look at politicians as the spiritual cheerleaders of the nation. When I hear Bully Boy go on and on about how God stopped his drinking and how God did this or did that, I think, "Well why didn't you go into preaching?" Really, if it's true, why didn't he go into preaching?

I don't think God wants us to kill each other. I don't think God wants to see a people lied into war. So when he speaks about God, it sounds phoney to me. I know some eat it up. I think he's dangerous to the country and think he needs to stop casting his opinions as being based in a faith because there's nothing spiritual about lying a nation into war. There's nothing spiritual about carpet bombing a country. Or bearing false witness.

Wally had a funny thing today that some people may miss. (Maybe not.) He gave me permission to post the whole thing so here it is.

THIS JUST IN! BULLY BOY ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF THE PORTS
BULLY BOY PRESS - DC.

TODAY BULLY BOY HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE TO ADDRESS A CONCERN RAGING THE NATION.

"EVERYONE IS FOCUSED ON THE PORTS. EVERY WHERE I GO IT IS 'THE PORTS' THIS OR 'THE PORTS' THAT. PEOPLE THE PORTS IS ALWAYS WITH US. WHENEVER YOU WANT, YOU CAN DO THEM GOOD. BUT, PAY ATTENTION BILL FRIST, YOU DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE ME."

"LOSING A JOB IS TRAUMATIC," BULLY BOY SAID. "ASK MY FATHER. IT'S DIFFICULT. IT PUTS A STRAIN ON OUR FAMILIES. BUT YOUNGER INDIANS ARE AQUIRING A TASTE FOR PIZZA FROM DOMINO'S. THANK YOU."

"WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS HE TALKING ABOUT?" HELEN THOMAS, DEAN OF THE DC PRESS CORPS, WONDERED.

"SHUT IT, HELEN!" SNAPPED A SOBBING ELIZABETH BUMILLER OF THE NEW YORK TIMES, "HE IS INSPIRATIONAL! SIMPLY INSPIRATIONAL!"


Related: "Other Items"






Wally's put Jesus' words in Bully Boy's mouth and intentionally screwed them us (the way Bully Boy does in real life). The whole section about "the ports" (the poor) always being with us. I always laugh at Wally's stuff but this one made me laugh a little harder because it really did capture the way Bully Boy trots out scripture and screws it up.

For more laughs see Betty's "Thomas Friedman's one moment of public truth."

And that's almost it for me tonight. Almost. Three Cool Old Guys can't stop laughing when they read Ava and C.I.'s "TV Review: Close To Home (and floating in the toilet)." Sunday, when I visited, they were laughing about it. That was day one. They're still laughing about it and keep saying, "You've got to re-read it, it gets funnier each time." I agree it's up there with their best ones and that's a big compliment. So make a point to read it.

By the way, here's the new content from last Sunday's The Third Estate Sunday Review:

A Note to Our Readers
Editorial: No spine on no spying
TV Review: Close To Home (and floating in the toilet)
1 Book, 10 Minutes (Danny Schechter, The Death of Media)
Psst, here come the gatekeepers
Musings on the service economy

Ava and C.I. do the TV reviews themselves. But on the other features the credits are:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.

I point that out because Betty, Kat and me sometimes hear, "You don't blog enough." We probably don't. But we are doing stuff besides what goes up at our own sites. Let me note one more thing because I haven't given Trina enough shout outs. Saturdays, Trina blogs at Trina's Kitchen. I hope you're checking her out. Iwanna, I guess I've added the Shout Out Bucket to this entry.









Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

MALCOLM X: Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you're black. They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim; they attack me 'cause I'm black. They attack all of us for the same reason; all of us catch hell from the same enemy. We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation, all of them from the same enemy. The government has failed us; you can’t deny that. Anytime you live in the twentieth century, and you walkin' around here singing "We Shall Overcome," the government has failed us.
This is part of what’s wrong with you: You do too much singing. Today, it’s time to stop singing and start swinging. You can't sing up on freedom, but you can swing up on some freedom. Cassius Clay can sing, but singing didn’t help him to become the heavy-weight champion of the world. Swinging helped him become the heavy-weight champion. This government has failed us; the government itself has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.
And once we see that all these other sources to which we've turned have failed, we stop turning to them and turn to ourselves. We need a self-help program, a do-it-yourself philosophy, a do-it-right-now philosophy, a it's-already-too- late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with, and the only time -- the only way we are going to solve our problem is with a self-help program. Before we can get a self-help program started, we have to have a self-help philosophy.

That's from Democracy Now! (On the 41st Anniversary of the Assassination of Malcolm X, "The Ballot or the Bullet"). If you missed it, you can listen online or watch online or read the transcript. But think about how little has changed in all this time.

That's my thought for tonight.
Posted by at No comments:

News

In the United Kingdom today, over 200 people gathered at St Nicholas and Writhington Church, in Radstock, Somerset for the funeral of Corporal Gordon Pritchard who died in Basra on January 31, 2005 becoming the 100th British soldier to die in Iraq. 101 British troops have died in Iraq, official count. Gordon Pritchard, who was 31 years-old, is survived by his wife Julie-Ann and his children Stacey, Harrison and Summer.

Alexander Panetta, of the Associated Press, is reporting that Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay maintains that "latest intelligence" indicates that the four memebers of Christian Peacemaker Teams are still alive. The four members, kidnapped in November, were last seen in a January 29th videotape. The four members are:

James Loney, 41, of Toronto; Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32, a former Montreal resident; Tom Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., and Norman Kember, 74, of London [. . .]

Sunday's upsurge in violence continued on Monday. Reuters is reporting that bombings in Mosul and Baghdad today killed "at least 19 people." The Associated Press reports that in Karbala one American soldier was killed in a bombing and that in Mosul, a bomber killed himself in a "restaurant packed with policemen eating breakfast, killing at least five people and wounding 21, including 10 policemen". The Department of Defense has identified Capt. Anthony R. Garcia of Fort Worth, Texas as one of the 34 US military fatalities this month. Garcia died of from gunshot wounds after a February 17th shooting that took place on a military base in Tikrit. Garcia is survived by his wife Doris and his children Kelly and Garrick.

Brian Zimmerman, of Gannet News, is reporting that questions still surround the shooting death of Army Reservist David Douglas who died two weeks after returning to the United States from a one-year stint in Iraq. Commenting on the violent deaths of many returning veterans, National Guardsman Alfonso Williams told Zimmerman:

You have a whole lot of built-up anger from being over there. . . . You can't explain (what it's like) to anybody. And to them, what they may think is screaming and hollering to you is a normal tone.

In 2005, the military reports that 136 active duty personnel committed suicide. No figures are kept for those who are inactive. The current number for US military fatalities in Iraq stands at 2276.

As Jane Mayer reported in The New Yorker, early warnings were ignored by the administration about the environment created for abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo. Noting that "Human rights are under threat," Amnesty International is calling for the closing of Guantanamo. Tuesday, Amnesty International will host a live online discussion:

Live chat with Moazzam Begg, ex Guantánamo detainee, on 21 February, 6-7pm GMT

Moazzam Begg, British citizen, was held for "nearly three years," as noted on Democracy Now!. Amnesty International's call echoes the call of the UN investigation team as well as the prime ministers of Germany, France, England and Malaysia. U.S. Charm Minister Karen Hughes, speaking to Al Jazeera, rejected calls to close Gitmo and reportedly maintained that not only are the people imprisoned in Guantanamo wanting to kill Americans but that some released "have gone back to fighting and killing Americans." If the report is accurate, it is surprising that such an assertion would be made by the Minister of Charm and not Bully Boy himself.

In this country, the Associated Press is reporting that Republican governors George Pataki (New York) and Robert Ehrlich (Maryland) have joined the chorus of voices objecting by administration plans to turn over control of "six major U.S. ports" to Dubai Ports World. Senators Robert Menendez (New Jersey) and Hillary Clinton (New York) are also objecting to the proposed plan. Speaking out against the plan involving the Arab company, Mendendez stated today, "We wouldn't turn over our customs service or our border patrol to a foreign government. We shouldn't turn over the ports of the United States, either."

Feminist Wire Daily is reporting that CWIG (Center for Women in Government and Civil Society) has conducted a study on "the percentage of women in policy-making positions - such as state legislators, elected officials, high court judges, department heads, and top governor's advisors" for the years 1998 to 2005 and found that the rate of growth for women in those positions increased by only 1.6% -- "from 23.1 percent to 24.7 percent." FWD notes:

Slow progress for women in state government has national implications, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers. State and local office serve as a "pipeline" to draw women into national politics. Not to mention, adds Walsh, state legislatures themselves are "making a tremendous amount of policy" –- in 2005, 48 state legislatures considered over 500 anti-choice bills.

On the national level, NOW notes, that although "almost nine million more women voted than men" only fourteen women serve in the United States Senate and only sixty-seven in the House, while of the fifty governors in the United States, only eight are women.

As noted on Sunday's KPFA Evening News, Saturday Feb. 25th, a Counter-Recruiting workshop will be held, open to the public, from 2 to 5pm at the Veterans' Memorial Building, Room 219, 401 Van Ness Ave. March 1st is the National Law Student Day Against the Death Penalty (SDADP).

In other news, Philadelphia Indymedia is reporting that Governor Ed Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania's Voter ID bill. Rendell, who spanked Casey Junior in the 2002 election race, stated, "I see no reason to enact laws that will result in voter confusion and disenfranchise legitimately registered voters." Member of Protect the Vote had successfully fought against the proposed legislation and were on hand for the veto ceremony.

In other civil liberties news, following what BuzzFlash has called "Just Your Average Week of the Bush Administration Betraying America," the ACLU features a snapshot of governmental spying/snooping in the form of Betty Ball who states:

It is true that I have become more motivated to work for justice and social change knowing that the government is abusing its powers like this. But I am worried about how far the government will go to squelch First Amendment rights and silence dissent. Will we all be rounded up and incarcerated? Already so many people have been frightened away from participating in our events, and have asked to have their names removed from our mailing lists, for fear of the consequences of associating with us. I hesitate to call people to discuss plans for rallies or protests because I don’t want them ending up in an FBI file labeled as a "domestic terrorist."

Meanwhile, author and activist Diane Wilson remains in a Victoria County jail in Texas. Wilson was arrested for unfurling a banner that read "Corporate Greed Kills--From Bhopal to Baghdad" at a Dick Cheney attended fundraiser in Houston on December 5, 2005. Wilson's banners are apparently too much for the delicate sensibilities of the foes of democracy. She is currently serving a 150 day sentence for a 2002 action where she climbed a Dow Jones tower and unfurled a banner which read "Justice For Bhopal." CODEPINK is calling for Wilson's release.
In other take action news, MediaChannel.org is asking you to Take Action: Demand Coverage of Able Danger (more info on the Able Danger program can be found at Able Danger Media Monitoring).

Finally, Monday's Democracy Now! featured:

"Readings From Howard Zinn's 'Voices of a People's History of the UnitedStates:'"
Today we spend the hour with readings from a Voices of a People's History of the United States edited by historian Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove. It is the companion volume to Zinn's legendary People's History of the United States ­ which has sold over a million copies.We will hear dramatic readings of speeches, letters, poems, songs, petitions, and manifestos. These are the voices of people throughout U.S.history who struggled against slavery, racism, and war, against oppression and exploitation, and who articulated a vision for a better world. Performances include Danny Glover as Frederick Douglass, Marisa Tomei as Cindy Sheehan, Floyd Red Crow Westerman as Tecumseh and Chief Joseph, Sandra Oh as Emma Goldman and Yuri Kochiyama, and Viggo Mortensen as Bartolomeo de Las Casas and Mark Twain.

This entry was compiled by:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim;
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills);
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix;
Mike of Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz;
and Wally of The Daily Jot.
























Posted by at No comments:

Friday, February 17, 2006

Enjoy Isaiah's comic but, warning, I've got a cold and am doped on cold medicine





I started to blog about four hours ago now. I even had this screen up the whole time. But Kat called and I heard Jill Scott in the background: Who Is Jill Scott? We ended up talking about that CD for about an hour. I didn't even know Kat was a huge Jill Scott fan. I really am too, just something about her voice.

I like a wide variety of music but of people who've come out in the last few years, Scott's probably one of my favorites.

So I got off the phone with Kat, forgot I was online, ended up putting on some Jill Scott and trying to clean the place. I sometimes feel like I must be the last person in my area without a dishwasher. I live in an older complex from the sixties and none of us have dish washers. I liked the place when I was looking at it and always had a dish washer before so it didn't even register that there would be work involved. In case anyone wonders, there's no room to have a dishwasher put in my kitchen (about why I don't buy my own and have it put it in).

There tearing down some of the complexes around and putting up condos. I think sometimes that I should move but I really like the place. It's got a lived in feeling and I'll probably stay until it gets sold and torn down.

But no dish washer . . .

I always worries about bugs, specifically ants & roaches. In college, a group of us decided sophomore year to get an apartment together. It was like living with Lenny Kravitz! (That was a joke and I like Lenny's music.) But you had this one guy who would just leave food lying out for days in his room. He'd do it in the living room but one of the three of us would usually toss it out if we saw pizza sitting on the coffee table. We ended up with this swarm of ants and "swarm" probably isn't the right word. Army?

That's the only time in my life I've ever had bug problems but I'm always paranoid. And with work, church, friends and family, I don't always make it home with a lot of energy. I fix something quick in the microwave and then eat it. I'm usually not up to washing it then and just want to get to bed. So I'll put the dishes in the fridge. This was a busy week so when I remembered I needed to do dishes, there was a pile of stuff in the fridge.

So that was my evening. It's cold out and I've got a cold. Valentine's was great, I've started seeing a woman pretty regularly and we had a pretty good time but she didn't dress for the weather. She looked great, don't get me wrong. She was stylish because we were going to her favorite place which has a pretty strict dress code. But she may have been hurrying or she may not have thought she had a coat that matched or I don't know what. But when we finished eating and left, it was even colder than when we went in, so I gave her my jacket to wear. (And would again.) But I ended up with a cold and was just going to stay in tonight and try to get over it because it's one of those sniffles and light sneezes you carry around all week and can't shake -- the kind that if they continue turns into a really nasty cold which it started to do right before lunch today so I'm doped up on cold medicine and feeling lightheaded.

Probably not the best time to blog but I try to blog twice a week. Usually Tuesdays and Thursdays. But with V-Day falling on Tuesday, no offense to anyone, blogging could wait.
Betty had a funny comment. She said that she, Kat and me are kind of like the characters on a soap opera on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The audience likes them and enjoys them but Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, they're focused on the heavy hitters. That would be people like Mike, Elaine, Rebecca and Wally. C.I.? Betty goes, "That would be the soap star because C.I.'s got a minimum of three posts a day at The Common Ills." True that.

I wish I had that kind of . . . I can't call it time because I've probably got more time than C.I. does. So I'll call it focus. C.I. can juggle and focus. (And go without sleep.)

And like Elaine pointed out recently at her site:

I always assume every reader who reads this site is coming here via one of the community sites and that we're all on the same page. However, a reader wondered why I take Saturday and Sunday off?I don't know that I truly do. Most Saturday nights/early Sunday mornings, I'm am helping out with The Third Estate Sunday Review. I see that site as an online magazine, if you're new to it.

That's really true. Because we all do work on those things. And we get credit for it. But I think sometimes people just visit our sites and think something like, "Oh Betty didn't do much this week." When the truth is we put in between 10 and 16 hours at The Third Estate Sunday Review.

But maybe we don't do enough to point that out? Betty can't because she has to write in character at her site. But for me, this was supposed to be like Trina's Kitchen in that Trina's doing one entry a week. This was never supposed to be a daily site.

But I'm a member of The Common Ills community and a lot of times members are nervous about sharing -- sometimes for good reasons. Billie e-mailed me to follow up on our phone conversation and asked me if I was aware that Trash had mentioned members at her site?
Nope. I didn't go there really. Like I said, it took too long for that site to load and usually you got an error message when it did try to load.

But like C.I. would always tell me when I was nervous about sharing there, "If you mispell a word, make a typo, leave out a word, whatever, it's not the end of the world. You live. Life goes on." Sometimes I think C.I. makes typos intentionally sometimes just to foster the DYI spirit.
(Rebecca suspects that too.) The whole point of The Common Ills, besides being a resource/review, was to encourage people to use their voices. And C.I.'s fostered that and done a great job of it. Most members won't hesitate to do something for the gina & krista round-robin when Gina, Krista or C.I. ask. But they're still hesitant about doing entries at The Common Ills. If nothing else, I've proved at my site that anyone can put stuff out there.

You live. You may see a name mispelled and think, "How did I get that wrong?" but you live. I'm the only member whose name C.I. has mispelled, by the way. This was like a year ago. C.I. put a "k" at the end of my name and didn't notice it until a member e-mailed on it. I told C.I. to leave it. It's just a typo and correcting it goes against the whole feel, in my opinion.

Plus we'd just gone through the nightmare corrections/additions. Some members were offended by C.I.'s note thinking, "Why talk about members like that?" But C.I. wasn't talking about members. It was an entry on our favorite books. Besides including members, C.I. had also invited some sites that members like to participate. One blogger did a huge list, I found out about this from Rebecca, and the blogger didn't have the titles right. C.I. tried to provide links for every book mentioned and it was a pain in the butt to try to find out these obscure books. But C.I. did it. The list finally goes up. And?

This is where we see the note a day or two later. Where C.I. says, "If you e-mail your choices, that's your choices" or something similar. And if you looked at the entry, you saw that blogger had a huge list of books by the name. That blogger had read the entry when it went up and because one member had given a children's book, the blogger wanted to add seven favorite children's books as well as five other books. A lot of them did get added, though not all. Titles were wrong again.

But that was a headache and a half. I wouldn't have done it. I have little time to blog as it is and I don't need to be going into old entries and fixing typos or adding something someone forgot to pick.

It's weird to think of how large the community is. When I started reading The Common Ills it was right after Thanksgiving of 2004 and it was already starting to grow. I think I started blogging around the time West got attacked and C.I. and Rebecca stood up for West (which cost C.I. a link). [If you're not a community member, West is under 18. He blogged at a site and got nasty e-mails saying he better apologize and take back his criticism or the sites he'd plugged in his link -- two in the community, two outside of it -- would never be mentioned again. In addition, the site was trying to get dirt on him by sending out e-mails asking for dirt.]

Like any other member, I'm impressed with what C.I. does and what the community stands for. The fact that C.I. was willing to give up a big link because it was more important to stand up for a kid was just . . . so C.I. I mean, really, it's just so social justice, so "I will not be silent while someone is attacked." And the kid wasn't even a member of the community. He'd never e-mailed The Common Ills or Rebecca before all this happened. But you know C.I. always sticking up for the underdog/little guy. So I thought, "Damn, that's the kind of thing I should be showing my support for." So I thought, "Okay, I create a site and that replaces the link lost."

So I did that. That was my only point. I figured I'd do a community blog report and show you some stuff from the other sites but not really write about stuff on my own.

But when I started out as a member, there was one site and look how large the community is. You've got ten sites, you've got the weekly round-robin, the biweekly newsletter from the UK Gurus.

That's pretty amazing. And I just remembered Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts so let me put his comic from Sunday up at the top of this post.

Isaiah added another element to the community because he lets all of us use his visuals anytime we want to. He says, "You don't have to ask."

A lot of sites post comics from newspapers and I enjoy seeing that. But if anyone ever wants to crack down, they might use that as a reason. So the community has their own cartoonist. And if you think about it, even with Isaiah taking a vacation and needing time off sometimes, he's easily done 52 illustrations and comics by now. He's really talented. Sometimes he doesn't have time and sometimes he's blocked for something to draw. But hasn't he created some amazing stuff?
I love his work. It has an edge that really makes me laugh. Anytime he does something for the round-robins, he'll do a little write up explaining it, and saying that if anyone else wants to do some illustrations as well, that's cool with him, but we're all kind of awe of him.

He's had some great ones, not just make you laugh ones, but some really great ones. If you ask him, he'll tell you those are the worst because he ends up blocked after out of intimidation and a feeling of, "I can't top that." He marvels at the fact that C.I.'s never taken a day off. (We're all hoping C.I. will take a day off. No one deserves it more.) He says he couldn't do that, day after day, the way C.I. does. But C.I. will say you just accept that everything's not going to be perfect, give it the best that you have at that time and move on to the next day.

The one at the top is one of my favorites. It's hard to chose "the" favorite because they're so many great ones. But that's funny and makes a point about signing statements. I'm going to end this because the cold medicine is really making drowsy but somewhere in this entry I wrote that the community has ten sites now. That's wrong. It's eleven.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 16, 2006

You drop the Trash at the curb and let it go

Do people "get it"? Nope.

I got a number of e-mails on "the Scold." I think, "Good riddance to bad trash." You're talking about someone who has this image of herself as "inclusive" but she's not. Trust me, as an African-American, the few times I've gone to her site I've seen White world, White world, White world.

She's jerking off with lame topics every entry.

It's her loss, not the community.

I avoided talking to C.I. about this because judging from the tone of the e-mails I've received a number of you are calling for some sort of statement. I didn't want C.I. to think I was one more person saying, "So what are you going to write?"

There's no need to write anything. She's a White woman (girl?) living in a White world that wants to get on her soapbox about what people aren't writing about (important stuff) and then can't even follow her own scolding advice the next time she blogs.

She's nothing. She's trash. The first time my grandmother ever said that, I was shocked. I was probably about seven or eight and I said, "Grandma, God made all of us equal." She agreed with me but she said when someone wants to hold back others, they're "trash."

There are a lot of ways to hold back others. The most popular way is silence. She practices silence with regards to race. She won't note an African-American, she won't blog about an issue that has to do with the African-American community.

I'm looking at two forwarded e-mails. The first one basically says, "I felt like you just pulled the welcome mat" and it's to the Scold. Then the Scold writes back, basically, "I didn't pull the welcome mat!" She did exactly that and she did it a long time ago.

Who cares what her problem is? Who cares if she's pissed off that C.I. linked to Joan Mellen's
"HOW THE FAILURE TO IDENTIFY, PROSECUTE AND CONVICT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ASSASSINS HAS LED TO TODAY'S CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY"? Who cares if she's pissed off because the sun was shining on on her empty inbox at the start of the week or because she woke up with a boil on her butt?

That's what my grandmother means by "trash." Someone's poor, they're not trash. They're homeless, they're not trash. Someone's trying to hold others back, they are trash. That woman is trash. Forget the rest of the world for a second, in this country things aren't that great. They're not great for African-Americans, they're not great for gays and lesbians, they're not great for single-parent families. They really aren't great for anyone.

Now if someone's sole concern is herself and in whining day after day about herself, that should tell you something. If, in all her whinings or false claims (I especially laughed at her claim to be 'the one' promoting media from outside of the United States -- I think we all know which site dedicates Sundays to that) she can't write about the reality beyond her own comfort zone, she's trash because there are people fighting for survivial, forget their rights, just fighting for survival.
And she's not interested in that. As she promotes herself as some sort of 'progressive' or whatever the popular term is, she's playing the same handbook that always gets played.

At the risk of being rude to the community, this nonsense destroyed a great entry. You've got a taste of it in "Other Items" this morning. If you read the tail end of that entry, you know what we missed out on. I know very well because it actually happened in the book discussion before last. Jim said, "That's too strong to go up here, it belongs at The Common Ills." Because it's C.I.'s point to make and C.I. should get the credit for making it.

So the whole thing got pulled and those of us in the discussion have waited and waited for that to go up. It should have gone up last night. That was the plan last weekend. Instead C.I.'s dealing with "nonsense" (I agree with that word choice) that has nothing to do with The Common Ills. Trash wants to do something "attention-seeking" (as Elaine pointed out) and we're supposed to stop everything to address that?

Mike angry and I understand that and understand why others are too. But I asked Mike to take Nina out, have some fun tonight and then, when he gets back, read my entry before he posts. I'm not angry. The word that describes what I feel is "relief." Why?

I don't think she was worth being linked to and now she's not. Good riddance. Trash was taken to the curb and it no longer pollutes the community.

There was never a welcome mat put out to the community. That was obvious when she attacked C.I. and Ava for highlighting an important front page story from the New York Times.
Now they highlighted it on Sunday, when it ran in the paper. On Monday, the paper's article was the talk of the net. Trash had already trashed Ava and C.I. on Sunday with some distorted reasoning of how it didn't matter (the story). Well the article did matter. But did you see her scream at anyone else that week for noting that story? No. She shut up on that.

The few times I'd read her (which were honestly in copy & paste e-mails, her site had huge troubles loading), she was obviously pulling that nonsense again. Like when she was screaming about the "free speech rights" of military recruiters - after C.I. had written repeatedly that recruiters do not have free speech rights. She was just trying to stir things up all along. She's a bitter person and we're all better off now that we don't have to worry about her.

Elaine told me that C.I.'s biggest concern was Billie and Wally. Billie because she did her Black History Month highlight the night before The Common Ills was pulled. I talked to Billie and she told me, "If my writing's that bad, so sorry, kiss my ass." I agree. If Billie's writing was a problem for the woman, and it more than likely was because she's one of those 'I am color blind!' types, then get gone. Don't let the screen door hit you where the good Lord slit you, but get gone.

I talked to Wally and he said C.I. had spoken to him in the same way Billie's phone call went. 1) Are you okay? 2) Would it help you if I posted something about this or would it make it worse for you? 3) Read _'s writing and think about the lack of quality before you question your own.

We're better off without linking to her. The woman is just evil. She's trash. In one entry a week, Ruth does more than that woman does in a month. Trash drags you down. You can try to make peace with it or to be tolerant but what's the point?

If someone's a racist, they're a racist. You're better off not associating with them.

So we're better off and she never resulted in anyone e-mailing The Common Ills (according to
Jess and Ava). The Common Ills didn't grow because of links. It grew because of the passion of the members. Now that passion is being misdirected. It's being directed to a "You must comment" movement. Why?

Why does C.I. have to comment on everything? Older members will remember we went through nonsense with Frank in Orlando. We'd have to constantly put everything on hold because he'd be ticked off and whining. And people were getting sick of it.

I think the energy is wrongly directed again. Trash is gone, rejoice.

Don't get bogged down in nonsense.

Did you read KeShawn's entry last night? It's funny and it makes some strong points. KeShawn almost pulled it because of this nonsense. He was worried what Trash might write. Guess what, Trash and all her Trashy brothers and sisters, will write whatever. It doesn't have a thing to do with what we're doing or what we're emphasizing.

If past experiences are any indication, C.I. could care less about Trash. But when everyone tries to draw C.I. into something, it is draining. When there's a community issue, C.I. goes through every darn e-mail. A few people who e-mailed today were noting C.I.'s comments in the replies that got sent out last night. Did you not get the point? Trash doesn't matter.

We do what we do in this community and we're not obligated to anyone. If someone delinks, too damn bad for them. It was a different issue when Kat was attacked. That was someone actively sticking their claws out. Trash isn't even a worthy opponent.

Her nonsense was as weak ass as everything else she does. So let's rejoice that we never have to hear anymore of her dithering thoughts about the White race (because that's all she could write about) and stay focused on what's important.

Today, Margaret Kimberly wrote about "Haliburton Detention Centers" and, if you think about it, the only other place you probably remember focusing on that was The Common Ills. That's what the really important voices do. They catch what could fall through the cracks otherwise. But C.I. won't be able to catch anything if everyone's screaming, "You must respond!"

Everyone needs to speak in their own voices online. And if they do, and they're honest, you'll realize quickly whether you're welcome there or not of if the person has anything worth saying.
Trash had a long list of topics that people should be writing about but Trash never wrote about them. Didn't we just go over this on Sunday at The Third Estate Sunday Review with "Cowardly Journalism Review (Parody)"? Those people make themselves useless.

I mean look at Trash's book reviews and you'll note that her idea of politics is Al Franken. That says a lot about her level. She has to read commentary because she can't handle actual ideas. For all her soap boxing, she can't go beyond Baby's First Political Reader. Ask her who Bayard Rustin was and she'll probably have to do a Google search before she can answer. And she fancies herself an "intellectual" while she reads those dumb-downed books (all by White males).
Where does she steer you? To a newspaper story. You seeing a big suport for indymedia there because I'm not.

She thinks NPR is alternative media obviously. She's another pampered, White woman who thinks she gets the news she needs from NPR's canned programming. A few minutes is about all the attention she can give to an issue and she needs the calming, White voice of NPR to serve her up the news. Her apartment probably smells like patchouli oil and is covered with cat hair. Are you starting to get the picture? She's sipping her latte from Starbucks and headed to the big-box book store where she will relate only with Whites except possibly for some African-American child that she'll feel is cute so she'll smile to the parent of the child, pay for her watered-down books and leave feeling she's really 'progressive.'

The thought of listening to Pacifica probably strikes her as "radical." She's more comfortable looking up her horiscope in Town & Country while NPR drones on in the background with all the voices droning on in that NPR sound as they play the usual lean right coverage.

That's your snapshot of Trash. She's not about promoting anything but what's acceptable to the mainstream. She doesn't challenge and she certainly doesn't support independent voices. (Do you ever see Trash promote RadioNation with Laura Flanders? No, that's too 'out there' for her delicate NPR sensibilities.) If you're lost, read "It's all White" because it addresses more reality than Trash ever could.






Posted by at No comments:

Friday, February 10, 2006

Random thoughts

Did the New York Times ever do an editorial or column devoted to Coretta Scott King? Nope. Never. She wasn't "important" enough. Her life wasn't "important" enough. Her actions weren't "important" enough. It would be interesting to know exactly what qualifies for "important" in their limited minds.

Betty's got two great chapters on this at her site. One was up when I wrote last and I meant to note it but there just wasn't time. If you've missed them, please read "The Pig Is Racism, The Pig Is The New York Times" and "Thomas Friedman plays the woman scorned." I really have nothing to add to that. I think that Betty and C.I. have covered it very well. Another thing you may have missed (and I helped with this) is The Third Estate Sunday Review's "Editorial: Does The New York Times editorial board not know that Coretta Scott King died or do they just not care?" which went up last Sunday.

So what can I add? Three Cool Old Guys told me that the paper of record's treatment of Coretta Scott King demonstrated to them that there's nothing an African-American can do to be honored by the paper. They say that if, after all of Coretta Scott King's work, she can't get as much as a playwright most people have never heard of (or know the plays), then that pretty much tells you where we are in terms of civil rights.

They can't believe that the paper of record got away with this nonsense but feel that African-Americans have been losing ground for some time. But no one would have expected that we'd lost so much ground that the New York Times op-ed pages could get away without honoring the life of Coretta Scott King.

And, they also pointed out, that this is during Black History Month.

It goes back to learning who really wants to be inclusive and who doesn't. It's the same as when the Bully Boy speaks in code and signals to his base. The paper signaled to their base not to worry because even a historically important woman can be ignored, they will remain a White paper for a White audience.

It'll be interesting to note which death the paper chooses to editorialize on next. And, it should be remembered, that the paper didn't root for MLK in life, only in death when they could reduce him to "I have a dream" and not focus on his speaking out against the war, speaking out against poverty, speaking out against racism in the north. They were comfortable as long as civil rights meant the south was the focus of the efforts.

60 Minutes, a year or so ago, did a story on African-Americans choosing to move from the north to the south and had a panel of people living in and around Atlanta. It was supposed to be a fish out of water story -- one of those, "How strange" stories. But what was strange about it? Do reporters really think that racism is confined to the south?

That seems to be the impression. It's not reality. Talk to any African-American living in the north and you'll learn that racism isn't absent from that geographic zone.

But it's one of those pleasing tales we tell ourselves. Encouraged to do so by the media.

Did you know I was an identiy-politics type guy? I didn't. I hadn't heard of that until we were working last weekend on The Third Estate Sunday Review's "State of the web: NARAL as the new Ralph Nader." See, according to critics, someone like me focuses too much on race. Now the Whites presenting that "identity-politics" argument are focusing on race as well. They can lie and say they aren't. But when they want to argue that the Democratic Party is too identified with racial minorities, women, etc., who do you think is mainly making that argument?

I know it's not African-Americans who are getting pretty tired of the Democrats showing up every election cycle (at churches) to promise the moon and then failing to deliver even the dirt on the ground.

It's interesting that this "movement," led by White males mainly, isn't called on their nonsense. As the gatekeepers deciding what gets attention and what doesn't, they're awfully lucky that no one else gets to be the bouncer. Otherwise, they might find themselves on the other side of the rope, trying to get in.

But when you're the gatekeeper, you can define what's "important" and what's not. And the fact that groups traditionally discriminated against aren't "important" has nothing to do with racism, sexism or homophobia, to hear them tell it. It has to do with what we can all agree upon. "We" of course is the group that looks like them.

The gatekeepers might want to worry because they could easily become cryptkeepers if they aren't careful. If that happens, what happens to the Democratic Party?

It goes the way of the Whigs Party. Maybe something to think about?
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Gail Collins and the New York Times can't have it both ways

I don't usually blog on Wednesday nights because it's a church night and Elaine's kind enough to grab the night for me by blogging at Like Maria Said Paz. (Thank you, Elaine.) But I wanted my last post about the racism of the New York Times' editorial board and Gail Collins up until the day after Coretta Scott King's funeral. I didn't think they'd bother to note her the day after since they've kept their White lips sealed all this time.

If you read C.I.'s "The New York Times and the Coretta Scott King coverage (not a pretty picture)" you know they didn't have a thing to say about her on their editorial pages today. If you read C.I.'s "The New York Times and the Coretta Scott King coverage (not a pretty picture)" and "Democracy Now: Priest Gerad Jean Juste, tributes to Coretta Scott King; Robert Parry, CCR ..." you know that they not only mocked Reverend Joseph Lowery but they took his joke and gave old Poppy Bush credit for it. Imagine that, an African-American does something and a White guy gets the credit for it. Didn't we all think we'd moved past those days?

Well not at the New WHITE Times apparently. Gail Collins can blather on about her friend who passed away and how, busy career gals, they had to schedule time to meet up. Rush, rush, rush.
How very Sex in the City, we're supposed to think. But the thing was the women on that show made time for their friends (even if they worked a "few blocks" away or whatever Collins whined in her supposed editorial on her friend that read "Look how busy I am! I am busy! I am important!"). You also knew that Carrie Bradshaw, Samantha, Miranda and the other one had a life. Get the feeling "I'm Busy!" Gail Collins has a life?

I think she's too busy being "important" to have a life. So I'll say she fell into a racist trap and wasn't herself racist. I'll give her that much credit. She's "Busy!" so she didn't stop to think, "Coretta Scott King might actually mean something to people, might actually be worth noting and editorializing on." But when you are "Busy!" it can be real hard to see anything that's not in your own world. So Gail Collins couldn't see how important Coretta Scott King was because in the "I'm Busy!" world, there's not time to think. There's no time to talk about things that really matter when you're so "Busy!" and trying to convince yourself that you have a life even if you have to pretend like your a character on Sex in the City to do that.

While Collins was so "Busy!" celebrating herself and how "Busy!" she is, she missed the fact that a historic figure died. She missed the fact that she, Collins, wrote a dopey book (on an important topic) about how women deserve a place in history. She was so "Busy!" that she didn't realize that here was a woman, Coretta Scott King, that had a place in history and that if her dopey book meant anything to her, which I assume it did, here was a chance for her to put her money where her is mouth is.

So I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she herself isn't racist, she just fell into a racist trap because she was so "Busy!"

If that's not the case, then there are two more options.

One, she's racist.

Two, she's a first ("First woman to be the editor of the editorial page! I'm busy!") so she's scared to rock the boat. She's scared to actually use the power of her position. And all the other saps on the editorial board reflected years of conditioning from the paper that spit on MLK when he was alive. She didn't want to go out on limb.

Regardless of which of the three it is is, and it may be something else completely, by not covering Coretta Scott King's passing with an editorial or op-ed (not one that mentioned her, one that was about her), Gail Collins made herself the biggest huckster in the world. She wants to write about women in her books, about how they are important. But when it was time to put her money where her mouth was, she had nothing to say. That's pretty sad if you ask me. Gail Collins is pretty sad if you ask me.

So maybe the next time she writes (badly writes) another book about how women have a place in history, an interviewer can ask her, "If you really believe that, why did you fail to note Coretta Scott King when she passed away?" She can't have it both ways.





Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 02, 2006

About the New York Times's racist silence on Coretta Scott King

I want to give a shout and a thanks to C.I. Now there's any number of reasons on any number of days for me to do that. But this is specifically regarding this:

From the war to Coretta Scott King. We have a a highlight but before we get to that . . . Does the New York Times believe that Coretta Scott King's passing didn't matter?
This week Wendy Wasserstein passed away and it was a tragedy. On the day the New York Times front paged their article on Wasserstein, they also featured a lengthy editorial (signed by Gail Collins). One would assume, with Coretta Scott King's historical significance (a level few ever reach but she did), that at the minimum she would receive the same level of coverage as a playwright. That still hasn't happened. The Times editorial board either doesn't appear to know King died or they just don't care. In addition to refusing to run an editorial on King's passing, there have been no op-eds on her passing. It's not Bob Herbert's job (as the only African-American columnist on the op-ed pages of the Times) to cover every 'Black' issue so the Times doesn't have to be bothered. Coretta Scott King is historical for every race in this country. And let's not pretend Herbert covers Coretta Scott King today. He doesn't. He opens with a quote by her and she's not mentioned again until the second to last paragraph of a 21 paragraph column. The Times can't pretend that was a column about Coretta Scott King. (Check my math and I'm including the quote that opens the column as a paragraph.)
Exactly when will the New York Times get around to noting that Coretta Scott King passed away. Was she not friends with Gail Collins? Is that the criteria for getting an editorial on your passing written? At present, they have noted her death with only one article (which they did front page) and her passing is mentioned in a column today by Herbert (a column that's not about her life or her passing -- it's a state of the world column).
Now maybe some people missed it, but they want the King Center to be turned over to the government, the paper does. No surprise there, we noted that here before the editorial made it into the paper (ahead of the editorial by many days, I believe five or six days ahead of the editorial being printed). What to do with property, on that they have something to say. With regards to Coretta Scott King, they're strangely silent.

I asked Mike about it and he said C.I. and him were talking about this yesterday and C.I. thought, "Okay, they're in love with the official talk, so day after the State of the Union, that's all their editorials will be about." So C.I. waited to see what happened the day after that day.

Still nothing. Mike said when he called C.I. today, C.I. was especially furious that the paper found the time to editorialize today on the Oscars but not on Coretta Scott King.

I've talked about this before (at my old site) and Betty and I've talked about it in roundtables at The Third Estate Sunday Review (probably Ty weighed in as well) but whether it's online or in print, African-Americans do look to see if we're included. Are our stories covered? Are our historic moments noted?

If they aren't, we know it's really not an inclusive paper or TV show or website. We can take a hint and we don't use those resources in large numbers as a result of the hints dropped.

It's 2006 and C.I. has to remind the New York Times of Coretta Scott King's historical importance. That's really shameful on the part of the paper. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else bothers to pick up the drumbeat or if they all act like, "Oh, that's not really important." You can tell who really is inclusive by what they determine is "important."

If really are all in this together, then our actions need to demonstrate that. And doing an editorial on a playwright, any playwright, dying but then ignoring the death of Coretta Scott King doesn't say much about you. The New York Times should be embarrassed and ashamed that they still haven't devoted an editorial or an op-ed to Coretta Scott King's death.

They may feel it's not racism but what is racism but ignorance?

They can editorialize about the King Center but they don't have a word for Coretta Scott King?

I was disappointed in Bob Herbert's op-ed (no link since you have to pay to read their op-eds) but just because he's African-American doesn't mean it's his job to write about Mrs. King. I know Betty's going to pick up on this topic and Mike will too but this is racist. A historical figure dies and the paper's editorials and op-eds don't bother to cover it. A playwright who was friends with Gail Collins (the editor of the paper's editorial pages) dies and she gets a lengthy editorial penned by Collins. It goes without saying that the playwright was White.


This happened with John H. Johnson's death as well. And I'm getting real tired of having to depend on The Common Ills to be the one calling out racism. Don't get me wrong, I love C.I. for it. But I really don't think this is something that only one person in the world can notice. Time and again, it falls on C.I. to speak about what no one notices or doesn't want to talk about.

On the plus side, that's why the community has such a large number of African-American members. Probably why the community has such a large number of people of color to begin with. The Common Ills never winked "Whites Only," it's always been a site that's been welcoming.

I'll give you an example. In April, C.I. asked members who spoke Spanish to find a periodical they could endorse and a committee of members was set up for that. They've yet to find a periodical they could all agree on. They've come close but so far, they're still looking. As they've looked, Democracy Now! has begun offering their headlines in Spanish. As soon as that happened, the committee decided that might be a weekly entry (and it has been). So three members of the committe (Maria, Francisco or Miguel) take responsibility for compiling headlines in Spanish and English once a week. That may be all the committee can ever come up with. A periodical should be of the left and it should represent all equally (from Honduras to Mexico, from Spain to Puerto Rico, go down the list) and they've examined a number of them but always found the suggestion lacking. (So much so that they're even floating the idea, which C.I. says is fine, of just picking a mainstream periodical that's in Spanish.) But that's the sort of thing that C.I. thinks about and doesn't wait for it to become an issue.

It's why if you send in something to highlight, C.I. always asks that if it's important to you (and not just something you found "interesting") that you say that in your e-mail. C.I. doesn't pretend to know everything, every issue or every person, and sometimes the people that the majority know the least about are the people we really should know about.







Thanks to Elaine who called me earlier this evening and advised me to save this entry before attempting to publish it. She and Mike had huge problems with Blogger and Rebecca couldn't even log in. I was able to save it, I wasn't able to publish it. Hopefully, I can publish it now. Like Rebecca, Betty's been unable to log in. I called C.I. and no problems on that end but C.I.'s immersed in the Church Committee entry and redoing whole sections on the advice of friends the entry was shown to today. Look for that at The Common Ills (hopefully tonight) because the section C.I. read me over the phone was pretty powerful.
Posted by at 3 comments:

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006

Civil Rights Icon Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006
The Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Joseph Lowery and Herb Boyd reflect on the legacy of freedom fighter Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr.

That's from today's Democracy Now! and they did a strong job organizing it basically while they were on the air. Juan Gonzalez filled in for Amy Goodman who's somewhere overseas. They announced where but it's been a daze day due to the news of the passing of Mrs. King.

1927 seems so long ago and that may be due to the fact Mrs. King aged well. My cousin pointed out that Jack Nicholson and Jane Fonda are only a decade younger. (He pointed that out when someone trying to be silly on a sad day said, "Black don't crack!" No one was in the mood for yucks and ha-has today.)

It is so strange and distant to think of Mrs. King not being in this world with us any longer. I grew up hearing about her, reading about her and, honestly, kind of feeling her. There's a sadness that sort of falls today and it's really sad.

Dr. King was taken from us before people my age were even born but we had Mrs. King and she just always seemed like this smiling, kind giant, so strong and so comforting. They killed her husband and she still found her way to love the world. Growing up, I got angry and mad about Dr. King being assassinated and I'm sure she did as well. But she was just this ocean of gentleness.

You knew she could stand up to anyone and would do it. But she just radiated sweetness and kindness. I can't believe she's gone.

I looked at The Third Estate Sunday Review today because I knew she'd been brought up in discussions there and I found these two things in November.

First, "Five Books, Five Minutes:"

Rebecca: C.I., Elaine and I have all been joking back and forth with each other at our sites about books we give to each other. One book that C.I. gave me that I've always meant to read but never gotten around to was Alice Walker's In Search Of Our Mother's Gardens.
Ty: This was a great book. These are essays, the subtitle to the book is "womanist prose," and they are some outstanding essays. Like most people, I knew Walker's fiction. And we've read some of her poetry for discussions here. But this was my first time reading any of her essays.With a lot of writers, you read one genre and that's their solid footing. Walker's really able to work in various genres and do strong work throughout. My favorite was "The Unglamorous but Worthwhile Duties of the Black Revolutionary Artist, or of the Black Writer Who Simply Works and Writes."
Cedric: I'd agree that's a good one but for me the one that stood out was "Coretta King Revisted" due to Coretta Scott King's recent health problems.
Betty: I actually skipped that one because her stroke still saddens me. She's someone who's always been larger than life to me, someone to look up to and, since her stroke, the tears well up too easily so I took a pass on that essay. Her essay on Buchi Emecheta's Second Class Citizen was the one that had me thinking the most.


Second, a later "Five Books, Five Minutes:"

Cedric: One thing that puzzled me was why the host of the discussion between Malcolm X and Rustin wasn't identified except as "HOST"? I'm also wondering who you found yourself siding with in the discussion?
Jess: For me, it was Malcolm. I know his writing and his story, so I may have been filling in details that I wasn't able to with Rustin but I got the impression that Rustin grew more cautious with age.
Betty: I'd agree with that except for the issue of sexuality. That reads cautious today but for the time period, that is a big deal. And I'll add that he was known within the civil rights movment as gay and, in fact, within the nation since an arrest was used by a White senator to force Rustin out of the movement. But in terms of discussing his sexuality publicly, that's in the eighties. And it was a big deal.
Cedric: And you can say it still is a big deal because Rustin is one of the civil rights pioneer, very essential to the movement, and he's not someone that is stressed when you hear of the civil rights movement.
Betty: I'd agree with that. I'd add that it's part of our community's, I'm speaking of the Black community and directing the "our" to Cedric, refusal or reluctance to address the issue of sexuality and orientation. I think it's embarrassing. Of course some do address it. But we've allowed it to be a something that can turn against each other. Bully Boy's been able to use it with some Black churches, sexual orientation, to turn them against their own interests. In my church we had to deal with it, we had too many members and families of members who were dealing with AIDS. It's one of the healthiest things we've done. With the empahis on family in the Black community, I look skeptical at any Black person that tells me they've never met a gay or lesbian. They are in our families, they are in our churches and it distresses that a White Bully Boy has been allowed by some "Black leaders" to turn us against each other. There's some idiot. and I use that term by choice, Cedric's also heard him, his "sermons" get passed around in e-mails. And for someone so supposedly opposed to gays and lesbians, he sure knows a lot about gay sex and he sure seems to enjoy talking about it in terms that I can't imagine sex being talked about in my church.
Cedric: Yeah, that guy is an idiot. And every month or so, it'll pop up in an e-mail forward to someone in the office and they'll be giggling at it. They say, if you ask them, they're laughing at how stupid he is. Well that doesn't help the race either, flaunting ignorance. I really do not have respect for people who pass that around, either out of their own beliefs or to giggle over.Ty: And this goes to what erases Rustin for history and how a race whose leaders want to fuss and fret over language don't want to address serious issues. I mean, where is Bill Cosby on this issue? Where his speech on the need for us to embrace one another?
Betty: Exactly, you can list the leaders who've addressed this topic in any form and it's a small list. Coretta Scott King and Julian Bond would be on the list but a lot of other so-called "brave" voices wouldn't be. I like Jesse Jackson but I don't respect his opinions on this issue.Rebecca: Which is interesting that you cite him when Rustin cites him as one of the people working to turn MLK against him.
Ty: And it's forty years later and he still hasn't changed his tune.
Cedric: I don't know if Dona wants to call time or not, I know we've got Betty's pick still to do.
Dona: No, this has been an interesting discussion and we can extend. We actually have two more books.
Cedric: Well I'll make my comment and try to be brief about it. Some African-Americans are offended when sexual orientation is likened to race. And it's not just that. You heard some nonsense about "Cindy Sheehan is no Rosa Parks!" As though allowing someone else to build on a very powerful movement will erase Ms. Parks. It won't. It will only extend her reach and future generations' knowlege of her. I hear, everyone hears, modern day comparisons to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or whomever. They become points of reference. I can understand the fear here because any minority group risks being stripped of whatever place in history they've earned. But while realizing that, we should realize that part of what makes Whites such a point of history, besides who got to draw it up, is that it is a short hand. Most people couldn't tell you where Thomas Jefferson was born. But they can use him as a point of reference. When the civil rights movement is used as a point of reference, I think it extends the movement, keeps it alive in history and increases knowledge. Otherwise it's going to be confined to one time, one period, one group and it will be ghetto-ized in terms of how history is taught. I'm thrilled that we have our African-American heroes but I want to see them be heroes for all. They fought as hard as anyone else and they are a part of American history. I was thrilled to hear some people calling Cindy Sheehan the Rosa Parks of the peace movement. I see it as a huge improvement over years of someone being "the Black __" who ever. We have heroic figures and their struggles are heroic. If they inspire people that's a great thing, regardless of race. The point of teaching Black History is to get it back into our understanding of history. It's a part of American history and hopefully it will be worked into American history more and more with each generation. I'm done.
Ty: I'll add that I agree with Cedric. I've attended predominately African-American schools and predominatley White ones. And I've seen a "Oh, it's Black history" type collective groan at some of the White schools. In standing up for her race, Rosa Parks stood up for a better nation.I didn't always hear that point in made in school.

If you were talking about civil rights then or now (and civil rights is still a battle to be fought today), you couldn't have much of a conversation without mentioning Mrs. King. She really was something special and that's going to have be it because this is upsetting to write about.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)