The following is from a 1951 petition to the United Nations entitled "We Charge Genocide" edited by William L. Patterson for The Civil Rights Congress, New York.
There was a time when Wall Street governed by pressure and influence. It now governs directly. Wall Street and the United States Government are identical as to personnel as far as the Government's most powerful offices are concerned. This is proved by the following list, prepared by the Labor Research Association, of Wall Street officers in key government positions: Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization: Charles E. Wilson, formerly president of General Electric Co. and director of Guaranty Trust Co., a Morgan bank. Wilson has retired from GE on a pension of $62,000 a year. He has powers greater than any official except the President in time of peace—and some conservative commentators claim his powers are even greater. Secretary of the Navy: Francis P. Matthews, chairman of board of Securities Acceptance Corp., Omaha; former director Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.; director Central National Insurance Co. of Omaha. Secretary of Defense: General George C. Marshall, director of Pan-American World Airways, a Morgan company, since replaced by: Under-Secretary of Defense: Robert A. Lovett, partner in Brown Brothers,Harriman & Co., leading New York investment house; director Union Pacific and other railroads, and New York Life Insurance Co. Secretary of the Air Force: Thomas K. Finletter, partner in Coudert Bros.,a law firm which has represented Franco Spain in the U.S.; director American Machine & Metals, Inc.; long advocate of a huge expansion in military and naval aircraft construction. Co-ordinator of Economic Mobilization (preceding Wilson): W. Stuart Symington, later chairman of National Security Resources Board, now chair man Reconstruction Finance Corporation which finances private plant exparision. Symington had previously been president of Colonial Radio Corp., president of Rustless Iron & Steel Co., and president and chairman of Emerson Electric Mfg. Co. Secretary of Commerce: Charles Sawyer, corporation lawyer of Cincinnati, formerly of the law firm representing Procter & Gamble Co.; director of American Thermos Bottle Co., Union Central Life Insurance Co., and the Crosley Co. Chairman Defense Production Administration: William Henry Harrison, former president, International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., a Morgan monopoly. Harrison was also chairman of the Federal Telephone & Radio Corp. and of International Standard Electric Corp., I.T.&T. subsidiaries. Special Assistant to C. E. Wilson in Office of Defense Mobilization: Sidney J. Weinberg, senior partner in Goldman, Sachs & Co., one of Wall Street's leading firms; director of General Electric Co., B. F. Goodrich Co., General Foods Corp., Continental Can Co., General Cigar Co., McKesson & Robbins, Sears Roebuck & Co., National Dairy Products Corp., and other corporations. Weinberg has been one of the chief Wall Streeters engaged in recruiting big businessmen to take government posts; many are from corporations of which he is a director. (Recently resigned after finishing his recruiting.) Assistant to C. E. Wilson in Office of Defense Mobilization: General Lucius D. Clay, chairman of Continental Can Co., director Lehman Corp. and Newmont Mining Corp. (Morgan), largest copper-mining investment company with large holdings in African mines as well as in Phelps-Dodge Corp. and Kennecott Copper Corp. (Clay resigned on March 30 to return to the Continental Can Co., but he will still act as a "consultant.") Adviser on Public Relations in Office of Defense Mobilization: W. Howard Chase, director of public relations of General Foods Corp. Assistant to Director for Materials, ODM: Fred Searls, Jr., president Newmont Mining Co. (Although Searls resigned recently, his influence exerted rhrough others still dominates policy relating to copper and other metals.) Deputy Administrator for Staff Services: Edwin T. Gibson, vice-president and director, General Foods Corp. Handles the job of certifying tax amortizations for corporate expansion, huge governmental donations to private companies. Director, Chemical Division, NPA: John S. Bates, president, Ciba Pharmaceutical Products, subsidiary of one of world's major chemical cartels. Director, Machinery Division, NPA: Marshall M. Smith, vice-president, E. W. Bliss Co., allocates machine tools, the basic equipment for all war production. Director, Rubber Division, NPA: Leland E. Spencer, vice-president, Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., subsidiary of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., chief rubber products manufacturing company in U.S. Director, Iron and Steel Division, NPA: Melvin W. Cole, assistant general manager, Western Sales Division of Bethlehem Steel Corp., second largest steel company in the country. Deputy Administrator, Petroleum Adm. for Defense: Bruce K. Brown, president, Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co., controlled by Standard Oil of Indiana. Administrator, Defense Electric Power Orm.: Clifford B. McManus, president Georgia Power Co., second largest subsidiary of Commonwealth & Southern, giant Morgan utility holding company. Administrator, Defense Solid Fuels Adm.: Charles W. Connor, formerly in charge of coal mine operations of Armco Steel Corp. Administrator of Economic Stabilization Agency: Eric A. Johnston, formerly president, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.; director, Seattle First National Bank, United Air Lines and Bank of America, and president of Motion Picture Association of America. In the latter position he was known as czar of the film industry. Director, Transportation, Public Utilities, Fuel and Services Division, OPS: Richard L. Bowditch, director Boston & Maine R.R., Sprague Steamship Co., First National Bank of Boston and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Chairman, Munitions Board: John D. Small, president, Maxson Food Systems, chairman of the mercantile section of the New York Board of Trade; formerly vice-president, Emerson Radio & Phonograph Corp. Vice-Chairman of Munitions Board: William T. Van Etten, vice-president, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., former chairman, New York Board of Trade. Vice-Chairman, Munitions Board: Cornelius W. Middleton, director, Babcock and Wilcox Co., one of the largest metal manufacturers closely linked to U.S. Steel, Republic Steel and General Electric. Vice-Chairman, Munitions Board: Roscoe Seybold, former vice-president, Wesunghouse Electric Supply Co. Deputy Chief of U.S. Delegation to United Nations: John Foster Dulles, director, International Nickel Co. of Canada, American Agricultural Chemical Co., Babcock & Wilcox Corp., American Bank Note Co., trustee of Bank of New York and Fifth Ave. Bank, partner in Sullivan & Cromwell, Wall Street law firm representing Morgan, Rockefeller and other leading financial interests; associated with banking circles which backed Hitler in Germany such as J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. and I. G. Farben, clients of Sullivan & Cromwell. Presidential Assistant and White House Coordinator on Foreign Policy: W. Averell Harriman, partner of Brown Bros., Harriman & Co.; former vice-president, Union Pacific Railroad, director at one time or another of Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (a Morgan Bank), Illinois Central RR, Western Union Telegraph Co. and many other railroad and shipping companies. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs: William L. Thorp, director, General Public Utilities Corp., formerly trustee, Associated Gas and Electric Corp., director Associated Electric Co. and United Coach Co. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs: George V. Perkins, vicepresident, Merck & Co., chemical company related to Nazi firm of same name; formerly director, City Bank Farmers Trust Co., leading Wall Street bank. Director of Policy Planning Staff of State Department: Paul H. Nitze, former vice-president, Dillon Read & Co., vice-president and director, U.S. Commercial Co., director, Rubber Development Co.; through his family and Dillon Read, closely connected with German cartelists and with North German Lloyd interests. Ambassador to Great Britain: Walter S. Gifford (replacing Lewis W. Douglas, chairman of Mutual Life Insurance Co. and director of American Cyanamid Co., who resigned in September, 1950), former chairman, American Telephone and Telegraph Co., director, U.S. Steel Corp., First National Bank of New York, main bank in the Morgan-First National financial interest group. This past summer I had the opportunity to take the class Police and Society at a Catholic university. My professor was a local, white police officer. My class consisted of myself, another Black female and two white guys. Our ages fell in the 20-50 range.
Professor informed us at the beginning of the class that we would be covering current events as well as the book. He told us that we represent society. I got to relive the shooting of Samuel Dubose in Cincinnati. I got to relive the death of Tamir Rice. I got to relive the Arizona officer who hit a Hispanic man with a gun and send him flying 30 or so feet. I learned that Black Lives Matter is considered a terrorist group. I learned that a person has no right to resist arrest. When arrested, one is supposed to submit and let the system do the work. Sure no problem. I learned that the police’s authority is primarily based on ‘use of force,’ either in the form of presence, tone of voice or even physical, up to and including deadly force. Police are the ‘use of force’ authority who protect and serve. This is where I first learned of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. I heard from him almost every week this summer. I didn’t know the man prior to this class, and I would have been perfectly fine if I could have remained ignorant of him. The controversy in this class was obvious from the start and the professor wanted us to debate our issues. I first thought that he was trying to learn something from us, and perhaps he did, it just wasn’t what he wanted. July was the turning point for me. I had kept quiet mostly because I don’t debate, I argue. That’s usually unacceptable in a college classroom. However, Philando Castille and Alton Sterling were shot in the same week, both having videos. Both garnering national attention. I had to relive those too. On the Thursday of that week, professor decided we should convene a grand jury on whether the officer who shot Castille should be indicted based on the facts that we know. Those facts: Castille was driving a car. The officer was looking for a suspect who had just robbed a store at gun point. The officer told Castille that he was being pulled over for a broken tail light. Castille informed the officer that he had a conceal carry permit and that the gun was in the car. Castille’s girlfriend and 4 year old child were in the car. When the live stream video opens, Castille has already been shot. When the girlfriend asks the officer why he shot, the officer says “I don’t know. I told him not to reach for it.” The officer claimed that Castille fit the description of the robbery suspect. Castille’s wallet was next to him, wedged between the seat and the arm rest. Castille’s arm, when reaching for the wallet was behind (or under) the seatbelt. Those are the facts known at the time of this “grand jury.” Did we indict? Of course not. It was split, two Black girls calling for indictment, two white guys saying no. Is anyone surprised? But wait this gets better. After the “grand jury,” we had further class discussions and I called the shootings of Sterling and Castille State sponsored murder. Professor was offended. I didn’t have the words to explain myself at that time (a common problem) and we moved on. Later that day, when I got off of work, I thought I should e-mail professor to at least clarify my statement. Seems a reasonable thing to do when you’ve offended someone. So I did. I attached a piece I wrote called “The Social Sin of Injustice” dealing with the killings of unarmed Black men and Black Lives Matter; I also included a Frederick Douglass quote in the body of the email: “If an unarmed colored man is shot down and dies in his tracks, a jury, under the influence of [prejudice], does not hesitate to find the murdered man the real criminal, and the murderer innocent” –1881. I woke up the next morning to the news that 5 officers in Texas officers had been gunned down in a sniper attack. Knowing the professor had a soft spot for fallen officers (he had been showing us a website dedicated to them), I immediately regretted sending that email. Six o’clock that evening, I received his reply: “If you want clarification, meet me before class next Thursday.” Instant fear. I called my fiancé and asked him to read it and asked how I should interpret it. “If you need me to go to class with you, I’ll be more than happy to go with you,” he said. The hairs on my neck raised. This is a local cop. I have to drive through his jurisdiction almost daily. He’s my professor! The following week, on Tuesday, I’m driving to work. I stop at a red light right behind an officer (not my professor’s jurisdiction). The light turns green and as soon as the cop pulls off, his lights and sirens come on. I hit my brakes, thinking What the fuck did I do? I’m paralyzed. The cop makes a u-turn and races up the road the other direction. My shoulders sag; I sigh and grab a cigarette. It’s not my turn I thought. The horn blowing made me realize that still hadn’t moved. As I traveled down the street, seeing a cop made me check my rear view mirror. I kept a close watch on my speed. I was scared. It turned out my fear was over exaggerated; professor just wanted me to know that using such language incites anger. But was it justified? Our last class before the final answered that question. On the board, professor wrote $400,000,000 and asked what its significance was. It was the amount of money the US paid to Iraq in exchange for hostages (of course the White House claimed it was an unpaid debt paid at an inconvenient time). From here he asks the class what the word ‘demands’ bring to mind. I said ‘terrorists.’ (Wouldn’t you, based on the context?) With that answer (that’s what he was looking for) he proceeded to bring up the Movement for Black Lives and the platform that they had recently released. I had read some of the platform, had even downloaded the provided brochures for parts I was highly interested in. It took me a while, but when he decided to take particular bullet points from one platform, I realized he was calling them terrorists! The sickening feeling that came to me that day was among the worst things I’ve ever experienced. Here I am, a supporter of Black Lives Matter and I’m being called a goddam terrorist! My fear was and is justified! Professor also went against protocol (police and college) and openly declared his support for Donald Trump. What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO!? Me, I got the A to keep up my GPA. I write to spread the word. I learn and get to teach as I go along. That’s what I do. It may not seem like much, but revolutions don’t start out as a revolution. At the end of the summer, professor had the occasion to visit me at my job while he was on duty. It was a weird experience. He appeared extremely uncomfortable, almost nervous. “Hey professor,” I greeted him. “Hi, got a special order.” “Sure, no problem. What do you need?” “Could you put the Old Bay in the middle and on top please?” “Of course. By the way, our grades aren’t posted yet.” “I just posted them today, so they should be up soon.” “Cool. That was a crazy class and I’m so glad it’s over…no offense, of course.” “No, you’re right. Next time I’ll ask Frank to make it a block class, that way the classes are a little shorter. This last class got me rethinking my future career choices.” “I guess so. Police and Society this summer bought out the true controversy.” Red faced and nodding, he went on his way. I haven’t seen him since. It was December cold. The air crisp and dry. Friendly clouds hung in the sky, blotting out the sun. No snow on the ground; no snow in the forecast. Oh, how she had wished for snow on this day! In hindsight, she reflected that the weather had tried to warn her in its cold silence. But the eyes of love see no such forebodings. It was her wedding day. Every kind of excitement crossed her mind. His smile. His jokes. His laughter. His eyes, big, round, dark and glassy. Sometimes the eyes were thoughtful, but mostly full of mischief, smiling with childlike glee at Christmas. Every worry crossed her mind. Is this real? What if I go into labor? Will he say I do, or make some joke of it? Can we look at each other without bursting into laughter? Without tears? Does this happen to everyone on this day?
The ceremony went without a hitch. No laughing outbursts. No tears. All smiles and “I do.” And they lived happily ever after… The reception was well done, though the lack of alcohol made the bride a bit uncomfortable. It wasn’t that everyone knew she was pregnant, it was those self-righteous church folk who made it so. They didn’t stare, but it seemed everywhere she turned, people were whispering. Was she imagining things? And then it was time to cut the cake. There they were, the newlyweds, cake in hand. Unknown to the Bride, this being her first wedding, the couple was supposed to feed each other. The Groom was standing in an odd way, like he’s ready to throw the cake instead of offering it to her. “Smash it in his face,” someone yelled. Confused, but smiling the Bride looked out and said, “Nooo. Now why would I do that?” Her voice full of ignorant innocence. Smiling still, she gently feeds him his piece of cake, when all of a sudden, he’s smashing cake into her face! She couldn’t hide her surprise nor the rage welling up inside her so she bent over and put her hands over her face. The crowd laughed; no they howled with laughter. They cheered. The Bride had to recover quickly, lest it be known that she neither knew of this “tradition” nor was she happy about it. She stood and allowed the Groom to wipe her face. She searched his eyes. She found that childish mischief she thought she loved so much. She could feel the tears welling, but managed to keep them at bay. He finished and handed her a napkin to clean her glasses. “Try it again.” Someone from the crowd was looking for more. The Bride looked out the window. The friendly clouds looked darker. Maybe it’ll snow after all. This brought her back. Her smile returned. She didn’t speak, only shook her head and moved to sit down, feigning fatigue. Then came time for the toasting. Mother of the Bride went first. The microphone wasn’t working and it frustrated her. “Congratulations,” was all anyone heard as her shoulders sagged in disappointment. Father of the Bride came next. Of course the mic worked fine for him. “I’m so proud of you.” The Bride looked up in surprise and amazement. It was the first time he’d ever uttered those words. She beamed at this. This was even better than getting married! Daddy’s proud of me! She could not stop smiling. Daddy’s proud of me. The words echoed throughout the day. The words changed everything. Even the cake smashing was forgot. Nothing could breach the good of what she felt. Kanye West had to be hospitalized “for his own good.” When I heard that, I was like, yep, the man is crazy. My partner, Kevin was like, “yeah, that’s what happens when you marry one them Kardashian girls.” Then I saw a post on Facebook saying that Kanye lost his mother in the month of November and still blames himself for her death. I suddenly felt bad.
As Access Hollywood repeated the story tonight, Kevin, remaining unsympathetic said “he needs to be put away. He’s crazy.” I told him that this is the month Kanye lost his mother. “I lost my mother too, and I ain’t acting like that.” “Not everybody grieves the same way.” As soon as these words left my lips, I was reminded of Britany Spears and the disastrous display she put on when her marriage fell apart. Back then it was Kevin telling me to have some understanding because she’s grieving her break up AND she has to do it publicly. My very next thoughts were whether or not the two of us were sexist or simply just more sympathetic to the opposite sex. It’s a somewhat sad and funny inquiry on my part. I was somewhat of a tomboy growing up. I played football (tackle) with my brothers and their friends. I say somewhat because football was the only game I played with them. I was also raised by my father who taught me more man shit than female. I have a general saying when people inquire about my views—I was a boy scout before I was a girl scout. No I’m not a transgender; I was born female. My dad just happened to be a single father who was also a Boy Scout cabin leader. My sister and I had no choice but to attend the meetings, paper drives and dinners. The only thing we couldn’t do was go to Florida with the boys…Grandmom got to keep us for a week. dad was also a little league coach. We attended every game and every end of season party. I even had to keep score for the games at a time when EVERYTHING was handwritten. By the time I joined the Girl Scouts, I was severely jaded and biased. Nothing about me wanted to be around a bunch of girls. But dad’s word was law and there I was among my girl peers having no clue how to interact with them. I was probably in 6th grade at the time I joined—a late comer to boot. The girls in the troop had grown up playing with and loving Barbie dolls. I read books. The only interest I had in dolls was their hair (which did not help me later in life). My time with the Scouts didn’t last very long. I hated the meetings. I hated the songs they sung and I absolutely HATED selling those damn cookies! The uniform did not help. I still, to this day, have a hard time putting on a dress. Surely this one of those childhood things that affected my parenting of my only girl. She never played with Barbie dolls. She had (and still does) plenty of stuffed animals and thought stimulating games. Sports were not her thing, though I did try to teach her how to play Hacki Sack. I remember a time when I worked with my brother and his friends in the Ujima Collective, a non-profit that issued quarterly newsletters promoting unity (the meaning of Ujima). At one of the meetings, my brother asked me to give them a summary of the female perspective. You can imagine the raised eyebrows when I said “Well, I’m probably not the one to ask that question because I don’t know what it is” (this was the mid-90s). I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain that mine wasn’t a “normal” female experience but I didn’t have the words or even the understanding to explain that. The only thing they understood was “I’m not gay.” We left it at that. After that, they only asked questions about my research which suited me just fine. But as time goes, you grow and learn. It is only over the last several years that I’ve discovered my own feminist bent. Now, surely it had been growing. In ’96, I remember dad giving me a six month lecture saying that I can’t make decisions based on feelings alone. My counter was that was the same as asking me not to be female. Though I still didn’t have much of an understanding of what that meant per se, I had the fact that I’m female. Much of my life had been spent suppressing feelings, so the fact that I had them was occasionally a relief. Most of the time, though, it felt like I was trying to pour water into a vat of oil that had been sitting and congealing for some 30 years (does oil congeal?) with the intent of loosening it up. Of course, it did give me something to counter dad with even if he could win the war of words. He would no longer tell me how to feel or that what I was feeling was invalid. Over the years, I’ve adopted such sayings as ‘A woman can do anything a man can, but why would she want to.’ And I’ve always believed that a woman can do anything a man, sometimes she can do it better. It was dad who taught me how to change a tire, change the oil, replace spark plugs, starter, alternator and water pump. I can change brakes if need be. I can hit a baseball, throw a football, shoot foul shots. I can talk sports with the men. I can talk cars with men. I can go to any bar and curse like a sailor with men. Growing up, I was one of the guys. As a young adult and well into my late 20s, I was one of the guys…well sort of. There was that sex thing that I just could not escape. Some believe that it is impossible for men and women to simply be friends. I do not share this belief. It’s entirely possible when one chooses to do so. It does not mean that a sexual attraction does not exist. It simply means you choose not to act on it. I made that choice occasionally. Today, I’m much different than the me of yesterday (aren’t we all?). Reflecting on it now, is an interesting journey. Without any transgender ideations, I have been a female, with a strong male bent that I have had to deal with as a female. And that without much direction. My favorite female author is Taylor Caldwell who shares the same male understanding I do without having to be a man. It doesn’t make her less feminine, nor does she deny her womanhood. She, like me, simply embraces her understanding of both worlds with the understanding that she understands neither completely. So am I sexist or simply more sympathetic to the opposite sex? Wednesday, November 9, 2016. Waking to the news that Donald Trump is the president elect.
“Fuck.” On the news, a Hilary supporter is saying “I can see that glass ceiling…” So can I. I can see it and it’s shattered. Not because Hillary ran for president or that she lost. Not because anything is going to change for women generally. It’s shattered because, with trump’s win, America’s fear of women in charge just came crashing through, reining shards of glass upon us all. Some of us are bleeding and it hurts. As I sit here watching the raindrops fall into the puddle outside my window, I’m thinking how gloomily appropriate the rain is today. I watch as little bubbles form and travel down the short stream of water, some going further than others, but each ending up bursting somewhere along the line. Their end is the same. It seems the same for women today. Our end is the bubble bursting wide open with nothing left to show for the traveling. We’ve engaged. We’ve raised awareness. We’ve raised children. We’ve buried parents. We’ve buried husbands. Some of us have buried children. We’ve held jobs; some rising to levels of authority. We’ve faced obstacles too numerous to mention. Our sex is put on display and taken advantage of to sell everything, even the manly sport of football. Our sex has been deemed not our own. Sexy women are put down. Women who like to have sex and say so are called derogatory names. Our wombs are the object of much controversy. Our wombs are where we’ve had to launch our battle to make choices for ourselves. Our personhood revolves around our ability to produce persons or not. So what really happened to the glass ceiling in this presidential election? Most would contend that it’s still there keeping women down. And why would I say it’s shattered when nothing will change? Because something has changed. Something in me and I suspect I’m not the only one. Way back in 2008, Hillary lost the primary to Barack Obama. America would rather have a Black man as president over a woman. John McCain offered up Sara Palin for VP and he lost because of it, which ushered in the Obama era. In 2012, women helped to defeat Mitt Romney based on his stance on abortion among other things. But that same base of women couldn’t defeat a man with the same stance on abortion because he was up against a woman in 2016. America would rather have a racist, sexist, pro-lifer man than a woman. And this is what has shattered the glass ceiling for me. Women want rights. Men want to be in charge. A man losing to a woman still has the same effect as it does on any field of play where men play the dominant role. It spells weakness. And whether any of us believe it or not, social conditioning has allowed us, even required us to embrace this idea of strength and weakness of the sexes. Women who dare challenge a man are challenging his strength as a man. And what strength of woman can match that of a man? Her womb. The womb of the woman is where her fight is. Her womb carries her strength. The womb carries the weight of women’s rights. And where the is a womb in charge…well we don’t yet know generally because we, both men and women, have never allowed ourselves to see it on a national scale. But the glass ceiling has been shattered by our own fear of ourselves and what we as women are capable of. Our wombs are the key to the future. Our wombs hold the promise of that future. Our wombs are the fear of men. Our wombs have been our fighting ground. President elect Trump is a reminder to us all that it is not only men who create the glass ceiling, but it is also women who help to keep it in place. So today, at least for me, the glass ceiling is shattered on the fear and strength of the womb. In the style and tradition of American history, Wheaton College is giving us a grave lesson on how institutionalized discrimination begins. In a society where personal, religious beliefs are protected by law, Muslims have faced serious persecution and Larycia Hawkins, a Christian professor, made a bold move to stand in solidarity with them. Despite their assertion for the need of “theological clarity,” Wheaton College has cloaked their Islamophobia behind a theological veil claiming that Larycia Hawkins violated their statement of faith. Wheaton College takes a fundamental stance asserting that not only do Larycia’s statements fail to uphold the College’s beliefs, but are also blasphemous in both the Islamic and Christian sense. While Wheaton College has found support in this stance, it is clear that the only misperception here is the College’s camouflaged stance against Islam. However, in taking this stance, Wheaton has opened itself to criticism while generating much support for Larycia who, like others say her statements contribute to the reconciliation of different faiths.
In a letter addressing the College’s concerns, Provost Stanton Jones asks Larycia to clarify her conviction that “‘We worship the same God’ and ‘I stand in religious solidarity with Muslims because they, like me, a Christian, are people of the book.’” Clarification of this, however, is clearly not what is sought here as Jones, after quoting two of the twelve Statements of Faith, refers Larycia to the Quran’s Surah 4:171 whose first words are “People of the Book.” It is hard to believe that Jones was unaware of this as he explains the contents of the verse. It is equally hard to believe that Jones is unaware of the Quran’s Surah 4:163 when he asks Larycia to “clarify how it is that we worship the same God if Muslims cannot affirm that God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?” Surah 4:163, which reads, in part “…We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the offspring of Jacob, and Jesus…” is only eight verses before the first verse Jones referenced and six verses after Jones’ second Quranic reference (Surah 4:157) later in his letter. Jones’ knowledge notwithstanding however, Professor Denny Burke, of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is quoted in the Chicago Tribune saying “We’re people of the book, but our books are very different.” Wheaton has even found support among some students. In this same article, David Burnham, a 21 year old college junior asserts “By placing her on leave, the school says it doesn’t believe Muslims and Christians worship the same God…The college had no choice.” An opponent of this view, Dan Wheeler, writing an opinion for CNN asserts that “Many theologians hold the view that the three Abrahamic faiths worship the same God.” He goes on to ask “Why couldn’t Wheaton take this opportunity to explain to the public its unique view…? It’s in the education business, so why not educate people?” It is well known that Islam and Christianity are two different religions and that they worship God differently; however, I do not believe that Larycia’s statements about the similarities shared by the religions rise to the level of possible loss of tenure and dismissal nor be classified as blasphemy. Dean Obeidallah, another CNN opinion writer agrees declaring “This [suspension and possible termination] is especially offensive when one considers that Hawkins’ sentiments were theologically correct and her action, in standing up for the persecuted, exemplified the teachings of Jesus.” In standing up for Muslims, Larycia “[dared] to call fellow humans who happen to be Muslims [her] brothers and sisters,” and again Wheaton College took issue stating that “It is on the basis of [the] resurrection power that we become children of God—brothers and sisters in Chris Jesus,” even though one of the Statements of Faith reads “WE BELIEVE that God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race…” Dan Wheeler, whose opinion for CNN is titled Do Christian Colleges Practice What They Preach,” asks “What about listening to the actual words of Jesus…what about 1 John 4:18: ‘There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear’?” Wheeler finishes his opinion with an admonition against this type of discrimination saying, “At a time when we need to see more tolerance and understanding from evangelical leaders, we’re instead seeing fear. Christians can do better than that.” Larycia Hawkins herself decries this institutionalized discrimination stating “Wheaton College will never induce me to kowtow to their doublespeak concerning the Statement of Faith…” Bob Smietana, writing for Christianity Today sums it up saying “I wonder if people who say that [Muslims worship a different God] would make the same charge against Jews…” Wheaton’s challenges to Larycia’s statements are truly what confuses the issue with their “doublespeak,” as Larycia calls it. In the face of terrorists claiming to be acting in the name of Islam, Wheaton College has chosen to set itself apart from all things Islam thereby joining in the same Islamophobia Larycia has chosen to stand against. Instead of commending and standing with Larycia, they chose to use her and hold her up as the example not to follow. It has never been more clear to me that this type of collegiate stance against doing what is right is what has allowed discrimination to keep its foothold on society. Truly we are witnessing a new birth of an old American tradition that should have died with slavery’s end. The only way for this birth to be aborted, however, is for Wheaton College to admit they are wrong, apologize to and reinstate Larycia Hawkins and begin the public dialogue which is necessary to bridge the gap between peoples of different faiths. Unfortunately, we Christians do not believe in abortion. But there is still hope. Dan Wheeler observes that Larycia’s action “seems to have bridged a religious divide that no amount of lecturing or finger-waving could ever achieve.” I have to agree. More than fifty years after Frederick Douglass wrote the Narrative, W.E.B. DuBois, in “The Souls of Black Folk (1994),” wrote that Blacks are “born with a veil and gifted with second-sight in this American world—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world” (p.2). More than one hundred years later, the revelations of that other world are still the standard by which we see and attempt to understand Black people. In this instance, Frederick Douglass’s Narrative falls awkwardly into two American literary genres-Captivity and Autobiography. As a slave narrative, this work exceeds the limitations of Captivity, as slavery and captivity have only one thing in common—they both share a lack of freedom. The work also exceeds the limits of autobiography. African-American philosopher Lewis Gordon (2000) says that personal experience becomes relevant only when it can transcend the individual (Kindle Edition location 476, 484). The Narrative, unlike most autobiographies, does just that and gives us a picture of the American system of slavery. The Narrative exposes many of the myriad trials and troubles of slavery, as well as the ugliness that most of us would rather forget or not know; however, the Narrative offers up two prominent themes held near and dear in America—that of freedom and literacy. Freedom to the slave means much more than it does to one held captive. Literacy for the slave is different as well. An autobiography which details one’s learning serves the purpose of showing one’s authority to write about one’s self. Douglass, on the other hand, writes of his learning in autobiographical form to show how literacy relates to freedom. There rests a heavy burden on the slave who becomes literate and understands freedom. No such burden exists for the captive or autobiographer.
Captivity, as John Williams (1976) told of it, began with a kidnapping from a home in a peaceful town. “The enemy immediately broke into the room” says Williams, and after his gun jammed “was seized…disarmed and bound” (p.444). Slavery, on the other hand, as Douglass tells it, started with “the blood-stained gate, the entrance to the hell of slavery, through which [he had] to pass” (p. 4). Unlike Williams’ capture, Douglass’ entry into slavery came as a result of his birth. Where Williams knew freedom prior to his kidnapping, Douglass only knew the freedom of a very short childhood, his entry into slavery being a forgone conclusion. Autobiographical writings involve a certain amount of vanity as one is speaking of one’s self. Ben Franklin (1771), in his autobiography says he “gives [vanity] fair Quarter wherever [he] meet[s] with it” (p. 753). Where Franklin acknowledges and embraces vanity, Douglass does not, nor can he. Writing reluctantly, believing “that he was not adequate to the performance of so great a task” (p. ix), Douglass humbly “hope[s] that [his] little book may do something toward throwing light on the American slave system” (p. 76). The light Douglass throws in the Narrative reflects freedom gained through literacy. In order to understand this, it is necessary to shed the confining cloak of American literary genres and engage the perspective as given. In “Existentia Africana”, Lewis Gordon (2000) states that “a slave’s situation can only be understood…through recognizing the fact that a slave experiences it; it is to regard the slave as a perspective in the world” (Kindle Edition, location 163, 171). It is from this perspective that any literacy analysis must come. The perspective of the American slave cannot be seen without slavery. Douglass’s hope to shed light on the system with his Narrative makes this all too clear. The telling of his life as a slave is the same as telling of slavery itself. The slave and slavery must reside together if one is to understand the slave perspective. To do less would be to reduce the Narrative to the subhuman status with which slavers regarded their slaves. This we must not do. The slave barely has enough to eat; only one set of clothing per year; works from sunup to sundown without pay; gets little or no sleep and that on the ground; and any sign of disobedience draws the whip. There is no end to this. A slave is so for life. From this perspective, freedom and literacy take on a meaning that transcends both captivity and autobiography. In captivity and autobiography, freedom and literacy are a hope and a given. In slavery, neither is available even as a hope, unless that Providence should shine upon the slave. In Douglass’s case, Providence did indeed shine. A lengthy quote is here required as Douglass explains that his Baltimore Mistress, Mrs. Auld had begun teaching him letters. Upon learning of this, Mr. Auld unconditionally forbade it saying If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master—to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world…if you teach that nigger…how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy. (p.20, emphasis in original) Upon hearing this, Douglass knew that this was “the pathway from slavery to freedom” (p.20). For the slave, there is no freedom without literacy and no literacy without freedom. To forbid literacy in slavery is to forbid freedom from slavery. To be a slaveholder means to forbid freedom and literacy. Acquiring literacy for a slave was too dangerous and far more burdensome for most slaves and there was no guarantee that learning would lead to freedom. Patricia McKissack, African-American researcher and author of children’s books, paints a dramatic picture of both the dangers and burdens in her Dear America series dramatization titled “A Picture of Freedom: The Diary of Clotee, A Slave Girl” (1997). Clotee, has learned to read and write. Unlike Douglass, whose mistress began the lessons, Clotee was the slave in charge of fanning while her mistress taught. Where Douglass learned that learning was the path to freedom, Clotee had little understanding writing “Wonder why the white folks is so determined to keep us from knowin’ things? What are they scared of?” (p.4). However, Clotee knows that learning is against the law and sees the irony of her learning as she writes “Cain’t help but laugh a little bit when I think of what Mas’ Henley would think if he knew I could read better than his boy—and that it was his own wife that had teached me!” (p.4). In “A Picture of Freedom” Clotee writes words that give her a picture. Every word that is except Freedom. For that Clotee has no picture. For Clotee, learning happened by accident, but she couldn’t leave her learning alone. Just as Douglass was motivated to learn because it was the path to freedom, so too did Clotee continue learning in search of freedom. Both Douglass and Clotee found freedom in slavery, though in very different forms and ways. Douglass gives us a dramatic account of his fight with slave-breaker Covey in Chapter ten calling it “the turning-point in my career as slave” (p.43). It should be noted that Douglass, writing in hindsight, calls his term of slavery a “career,” a rather clear indication that his career has since changed. In fact, this turning-point was when Douglass knew he would not be a slave for a life. “It was a glorious resurrection, from the tomb of slavery, to the heaven of freedom” he declares. “I now resolved that, however long I might remain a slave in form, the day had passed forever when I could be a slave in fact” (p.43). By contrast, Clotee found her freedom by becoming a conductor on the Underground Railroad and she writes “There’s time to write a few words. I have decided to begin with F-R-E-E-D-O-M. Freedom. I let the memory pictures take shape in my mind…I remembered the little girl I’d helped the night before and I smiled…For the first time freedom showed me a clear picture. A picture of me” (p.169). As slavery is unique to the slave and slave owner, so too is freedom and literacy. For the slave it is never either or. It is not if then. For the slave, literacy is freedom for it is knowledge that separates mankind from the beast. For the slave owner, freedom and literacy of the slave would be to the owner’s disgrace for it is knowledge that separates mankind from the beast. Douglass’s Narrative paints a clear picture of this struggle. And while Douglass narrates his slavery career with 20/20 hindsight, giving voice to the mysteries of childhood, he also lets us know, in no uncertain terms, that even though slaves were denied freedom and literacy, slaves were, and are, people, regardless of how they were treated. This is why it is important to treat the slave perspective as a genre all its own. The Narrative is the narration of the life of a slave. While it is American Literature, it cannot be classified as anything that is categorized as American literature. American literature’s classifications do not classify Black literature as American. Black American literature is set apart from American literature in the same way American history is separated from Black American history, even though both happened simultaneously and in conjunction with each other. Placing the Narrative into the Captivity and Autobiography genres only serves to perpetuate the duality of Black people in America. The duality is only overcome when we finally recognize that the American slave system ceased its African origins and created, through the system, the Black American. This is the race whose writings are steeped in the Black American tradition passed down from American slavery and the very reason that American literary genres find no place to classify it. There comes, on occasion, a time when you begin to question the validity of your existence. It’s not a question of ‘why am I here?’ but a question of whether or not I belong here. It is said that life needs purpose. It is said that existence is the reason to be (or did I just make that up?). Purposeful existence is an oxymoron of the greatest proportion. I exist, therefore I must be.
But what is it ‘to be?’ Science, aka knowledge, has deemed me human, a human being. Lewis Gordon states that European philosophy has taken the ‘human’ and replaced it with ‘white.’ I disagree. I believe that ‘science, aka knowledge’ has replaced Being with human. I exist, therefore I must Be. In Being, I have suffered. My personal suffering has been deemed by ‘science, aka knowledge’ as an individual thing attributable to the shortcomings of my ‘human’ existence. But if I take that suffering as a ‘human’ and transrelate it to Being, then it can no longer be individual. Being is not a human faculty, and it cannot be understood as ‘human’ for ‘human’ cannot create Being. You can be human in the scientific sense but you cannot ‘human being.’ Being is an act. ‘Human’ is a science created in the thought of Being. In science, you can be human; however, Being is not human for it is not of man. Suffering in Being is as universal as the air we breathe. Individual suffering is something we can ignore, explain and/or correct with counseling, drugs, hypnosis, withdrawal in the form alienation and seclusion. But suffering in Being means collective responsibility. For in Being, we all share in that. We are all Being. And in so doing, our Being is connected to that of others’ Being. But this is the primary source and reason of ‘science, aka knowledge.’ For if we deny Being, then we can also deny the collective suffering and make it individual. In denying the collective suffering of Being, we can pursue our individualistic ‘human’ drives. Deadly force. The justifiable taking of a life by officer of the law while in the line of duty.
How is it justified when a person is unarmed? And why aren’t all Americans equally appalled and outraged when such an incident occurs? Do we not all live under the same Constitution that guarantees certain inalienable rights, one of which is that of life? Why is deadly force an acceptable action even without a threat? These are some of the questions that the Black Lives Matter Movement asks. Are the actions of individual police officers who shoot unarmed persons a personal sin on their part? If we look at the sum total of unarmed persons killed by police, will it indicate a larger, social sin that we may or may not be aware of? Michael Brown’s death sparked the Black Lives Matter Movement. Since his death, many more unarmed Black men have died at the hands of police. To what can we attribute these nationwide atrocities and abuses of power? And why is “All lives matter” the response to the Black Lives Matter Movement? And what do these things say about us as a society? Is this a social sin of American society? I believe it is. First, shooting unarmed men of any color by any police officer is a serious matter, though only a scant few have been charged with crimes. Of those charge, even fewer are found guilty by a jury of their peers. In order to understand this as a social sin we must understand it in terms of sufficient reflection and full consent of the will. Gula states that to meet the requirement for sufficient reflection, one must reach that state of knowledge that is evaluative; that is, it must be known in the heart. What does this mean for society? Is there a heart of society and can it reach the evaluative knowledge? Most certainly it can. We need look no further than our own history to see the truth of this. In the case of Black Lives Matter, American society, at its heart, has been set against Black people since its founding. Thomas Jefferson did not believe his own words of the Declaration of Independence applied to Black people (see letter from Jefferson to Benjamin Banneker http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h72t.html). For political purposes, Blacks were counted as three fifths of a person giving slave states a population advantage thus increasing their representation in Congress (even though Blacks were barred from voting). During slavery, a man named Dread Scott bought his case for freedom to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled against him saying a Black man has no rights that a white man must respect (Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 393 (1856)). The case has never been overturned. After slavery ended, former slave states took advantage of the Thirteenth Amendment clause which allows slavery and involuntary servitude if one is convicted of a crime. Along with Jim Crow segregation laws, former slave states passed laws that criminalized Black life (Blackmon, D. Slavery By Another Name. 2008). For some eighty years, Blacks were arrested for the most minor offenses (vagrancy being among the most popular) and set to labor on the former slave plantations. Blacks fought in both world wars and in Vietnam, yet could not get lunch at the local diner, nor could they vote. Then came the Civil Rights Movement. This changed everything. The status quo was no longer being accepted. Black people had had enough. Laws changed. Hearts did not. Because the law could not change hearts, those unchanged hearts decided to re-write American history and chose to exclude Blacks. Black history in America is as old as America and yet few know the true history of Blacks in America. This truly is a sin of the heart of society. When Blacks come together in solidarity to say “We will NOT stand for this anymore,” we are labeled as rebels. During the 60s, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were both assassinated. But did you know that the FBI organized a Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) whose sole purpose was to seek out, suppress and take down anything or anyone who could bring about Black solidarity? Names on their list included King and X, but also targeted were leaders and members of the Black Panther Party. Fred Hampton was one such leader in Chicago. On December 4, 1969, Fred Hampton, at the age of 21, was assassinated in his bed by the Chicago Police Department with the aid of the FBI (Haas, J., The Assassination of Fred Hampton, 2010). And we cannot forget the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan. They lynched thousands of blacks. Crowds gathered for the lynchings. Postcards were made picturing some lynchings. Yes postcards. Keepsakes of a person lynched (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/profile2.html). This is the heart of society in America. Keeping this history in mind, for we cannot see today clearly without it, an unarmed man is shot by a police officer and Black people are outraged. Society has most certainly reached that stage of evaluative knowledge required for sufficient reflection, but has society acted with full consent of the will? That is, has society acted with moral freedom? For this we must turn to the fundamental option theory. What is the fundamental option of American society? That is, what choices do we as a society make that have the capacity to direct the moral character of the people? Relying on Bernard Häring’s Free and Faithful in Christ, Gula tells us that theory of fundamental option “finds biblical roots…in the notions of covenant and heart” (p. 78), and that a fundamental stance “expresses the sort of person (or society in this case) we have chosen to be” (p.79). Taking a look at history again and with the opposition to the Black Lives Matter Movement, we can clearly see a social fundamental stance. The opposition mounted against slavery’s end culminated in a war between the states. Many people died in that war, each side fighting for what it believed in. At the war’s end, there was no form of reconciliation; however, the Black vote was granted; Blacks were elected to public office locally and federally; Blacks entered contracted, negotiated business deals, purchased land, produced goods, began schools, and educated themselves. All in an effort to participate in American society (see Reconstruction era history). Unfortunately the heart of society saw this as a threat and began passing laws that came to be known as Jim Crow. Segregation, by Supreme Court rule, became the law of the land. The Black vote ceased. This fundamental stance directed society for more than 100 years. This fundamental stance perpetuated the belief in the inferiority of the Black race. Then the Civil Rights movement happened. The status quo was no longer accepted. Black people had had enough. Laws changed. Hearts did not. That is, the fundamental stance of society did not change. Now keeping this history in mind, for we cannot see today without it, an unarmed man is shot by a police officer. Black people are outraged. And what is the fundamental stance of society today? All lives matter. It is not outrage at the fact that police officers across the nation are vigilante. It is not an abuse of power that an officer can shoot a man eight times in the back. It’s not an abuse of power when officers shoot 137 bullets into a car while one officer mounts the hood of the car and unloads 34 shots pointblank into the windshield. It is not an abuse of power, nor vigilantism for an officer to assess as a threat a 12 year old with a toy gun at a playground. It is this fundamental stance of society that has acted with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will that makes this a serious matter where we MUST stand and say to all who will hear and listen: BLACK LIVES MATTER. About a year ago, a video went viral that showed a Black woman in a hotel with some 10 children and the woman was angry, pitiful, saying someone needs to help her. The comments ranged from “get off welfare” to questions about the father’s whereabouts. There was little that I saw about actually trying to help the woman. Granted, she came off as ignorant, like the world was to blame for her problems and they owed her. I was disturbed by her rant. As it turned out, though, her husband had been arrested and sent to prison. I do not believe the story mentioned the charges. Prior to his arrest, they had lived together and he was the primary bread winner and she a stay-at-home mother. With his income gone, she and her children were evicted. The video showed how their furniture was thrown outside in the front of the apartment. The children and youth agency of her state stepped in to help out and I do believe they helped her find a place to live. Now I do not recall why the woman was in court, perhaps it was family court, but she was held in contempt because she would not answer the question about whether or not she was pregnant saying that it was none of the court’s business. Absentee fathers have always been seen primarily as a problem of the Black community. Black women who have many children are, more often than not, thought to be welfare moms. I had to watch the entire video several times to be sure, but the woman was not, at the time of the video nor when her husband was home, on welfare. But the video went viral because this woman was “a disgrace to the Black community.” People ranted about how disgraceful it was to have so many kids and no ability to take care of them. They ranted about how they should not have to pay for “mistakes.” Most people assumed she was on welfare, had to be promiscuous with so many kids and her current predicament was “probably” drug related. While I didn’t read every comment, I didn’t find any that assumed she had been a stay-at-home mother who lost her husband and simply did not know what to do. She really did need help. She really was extremely angry. The situation was so far beyond her control and she had no one to turn to. I remember making several comments to the effect that she wasn’t on welfare and that she had depended on her husband for 10+ years and his absence caused a complete breakdown in her family life. I didn’t get any responses or likes that I recall. During the conference this past weekend, I was reminded of this video and suddenly I could make sense of what I felt was so wrong. In her presentation, “The Missing,” Danielle M. Wallacetold us about how the rate of incarceration of Black men affected the Black family and that the rate of arrest for Black women has been rising for at least a decade. The draconian drug laws, mandatory sentencing and other laws target Black and poor communities. In another presentation, I learned how property seizure in drug cases has become a kind of golden goose for police stations across the nation. Another presentation reinforced my knowledge of how the Black woman has been sexually exploited while at the same time accused of being promiscuous. In yet another presentation, I learned that prison education is almost non-existent but has been shown to dramatically decrease recidivism. The video of this woman with 10 children, no man around, the threat of losing her children hanging over her, the court wanting to know if she’s pregnant coupled with all the information I learned at the conference, I suddenly see how the system of slavery is still alive. Slaves, more often than not, did not raise their own children beyond a certain age. Most were sold off, never to be seen again. Women bearing children were profitable, calling the potential children “their increase” in wills. Educating slaves was against the law. The Criminal Justice System is a system designed to perpetuate slavery. And it is working as it was intended. Here is the video of a poem and thoughts I call by the same name
|
AuthorJust being me. Archives
December 2016
Categories
All
|