The conversation had wandered to World War II.  A later arrival was of the opinion that the US had lost the war. He said that the world tricked us into rebuilding them, and protecting them, but that we had tricked them, making them our puppets.  There was much debate and spicy language.  The old goats had awakened.  The “hippie” as he was now called, was a rather young man.    He spoke in broad statements at how evil the American system has been.  But when he said that Harry Truman was a war criminal for dropping the bomb, and should have been hanged, I came unglued.  I had listened to the entire debate trading very few barbs.  I had been polite.  At this point, I no longer was.

               I spoke for five straight minutes, giving this man something to think about.  I concluded by pointing out how many American lives and Japanese women and children were actually saved by the bomb.  Before he could respond, a chorus of claps rang out.  I looked around at the faces of these old men, those who were there, those who saw it all.  They had just told me how correct my speech had been.  The “hippie Kid” decided to scoot.  As time wore on, the counter crew all talked about what their war experiences had been.  Most were vets of Vietnam and WWII.  The crowd dwindled one by one, but not without hearing some stories, learning some lessons.

               When I was almost the last one at the counter, I realized it was 2am.  On my way out, I saw a really worn old fellow in the corner eyeing me up.  I said hello, he called me “son” and said he would tell me something about the war.  My ears were tired, but I got some more coffee, and listened for two hours.  “Mickey” told me how and when he became a POW.  The Japanese had been very cruel to him and others; peeled skin, carved parts, burns, psychological terror.  Until he was finished, Mickey had tears running down his cheeks on several occasions.  There were many times, I really had to strain to hear him, over the emotion in his voice.  It was amazing to see the face of a dignified man, grimaced in emotional pain, with tears welling.  Mickey said he had told the whole story to his wife.  And until now, he had told no one else.  The story was full of horror.  Movies look tame when compared to mans’ inhumanity.  But in the end, what mattered most to Mickey?  That people remember history, so as to avoid a repeat of his pain.  He said if he could get that, he could go in peace.  He did just that at age 92.  His pain died with him, but will it be remembered?

The Emancipation Proclamation signed into law in by President Abraham Lincoln was a political maneuver. It listed the states that it would apply to while exempting several slave holding states. The proclamation did not include the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware, all slave-holding states, because they did not declare secession from the Union. Tennessee having come back under Union control, Virginia was listed but, exemptions were specified for the 48 counties that were in the process of forming West Virginia. Also given specific exemption were New Orleans and thirteen parishes in Louisiana. So The Emancipation Proclamation it did not free all slaves. It was Lincoln’s attempt to hold the Union together and keep slavery from expanding. In addition, Lincoln was afraid of France and Brittan coming to the aide of the session Southern states which could cause the Union to loose the war. He believed that the proclamation made the War Between the States all about slavery so by signing it, he could ensure that Britain and France would not enter the war because citizens of Britain and France would not support a cause that supported slavery even though France once practiced brutal slavery in the Caribbean, the French First Republic voted for the abolition of slavery in all French colonies. Lincoln may have not be a fan of slavery but his motives were not about freeing men women and children from a brutal amoral institution that denigrated people, destroyed cultures and families and still affects this country today. No, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union.

During World War I African Americans joined the military in an effort to be fully recognized as equal American citizens. And while Black soldiers served in segregated units they were also involved in protest against racial injustice at home and abroad. The NAACP fought against discrimination and segregation in the United States military during WWI and WWII.
During the Korean War, the all-black 24th Infantry Regiment, which served during the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II and the beginning of the Korean War, was disbanded as a political gesture to end segregation in the U.S. Army.  During the Vietnam War the highest proportion of blacks ever to serve in an American war were assigned to serve in the infantry. The percentage of black combat fatalities in Vietnam was 14.9 percent. Rather high don’t you think?
African American soldiers have willingly gone to war to “defend” this country and protect the freedoms or White America during and since the slave era. They did so mistakenly believing that they were proving their patriotism and winning freedoms they were denied at home simply because of the color of their skin. So please, Mr. Gray, please do not shout “Emancipation Proclamation” at me. I understand better that you what it meant then and what it means now.

Attitudes may be changing, true, but, the fact remains that discrimination and segregation part of this nation. Tiger Woods’ victories exposed the still segregated country clubs. The military has a few African American in the top command but not in proportion to the number serving in combat or in the kitchen. When an elected official can callously publicly used racial slurs to defame the president and political opponents have depicted President Obama with racially insulting caricatures then I worry about the morale of the American African children who dream of being President the United Sates of American one day.

So while you and others are concerned about the morale of our troops I’m concerned about the morale of the single mothers who can’t properly feed and clothe their children I’m concerned about the morale of families who are losing their homes to foreclosure and the teachers who are being laid off and the low level state and federal employees who are being forced to take unpaid furloughs. I’m concerned about the morale of the students and the people who just lost their unemployment benefits while high paid law makers with health insurance go on vacation. I’m concerned about the morale of the Americans who can not afford health insurance and for American women who are denied health insurance because they have a preexisting condition called being female.

I do feel for the families with loved ones engaged in these wars. I do feel for the young men and women fighting these wars. I have friends who have children serving. I have family members serving and they do so by choice. I don’t mean to be callous it is just how I see it.
When all, not some, of America’s freedoms are fully available to me and people like me then I can share your sentiments. When people like me no longer hear buzz statement like, “You have great job experience but we can’t hire you because you are over qualified” or until banks and lending institutions no longer discriminate against people like me trying to get a home loan at a decent rate. Or predatory lending no longer disproportionately affect people like me and people who want to work can find decent paying jobs then maybe I too can share your sentiments on troop morale. Until then, I’m sorry I just can’t.

Twenty-seven little words packed with so much meaning, and causing so much debate.  The recent McDonald v. Chicago decision seems to put to rest nearly fifty years of debate; especially when teamed with District of Columbia v. Heller.  These two decisions hold that the Constitution of the United States extends the individual right to arms and that the Second Amendment is applicable to every city and state.  Did they make the right decision?

To determine the answer to this question, a review of the history of the amendment and its meaning is required. One way the King reduced the colonists’ liberties, was by quartering the Redcoats in individual homes. These troops also took over the buildings of governance in the colonies.  Further, the game laws were written in such a way as to disarm most “subjects”.  The Redcoats also confiscated many arms in the colonies.  With this history, the colonists feared a strong military ruled by a powerful central government.  The Second Amendment was codified as a pre-existing right.  The very text of the amendment says so implicitly in the declaration “shall not be infringed”.  The Federalist papers and contemporary writings of the late 18^th century show that people feared a powerful central government.  The anti-federalists, including Patrick Henry, James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson, insisted that a Bill of Rights be created to protect individuals from a strong federal government.   They advocated clearly defined and enumerated rights providing explicit constraints on government.  They believed that the peoples’ power should stay close to the people, and that allowing a strong army to be controlled by the executive, would be used to intimidate and subvert the liberty of the people.  While traditional local militias would be a safeguard against national military power, the right of citizens to bear arms would be the best safeguard against a strong central government.  Being the final arbiter of what is necessary and reasonable, the people would prevent the federal government from overstepping its’ bounds.  They also understood that any attempts to subvert liberty would have to be done over time and gradually.  The delegates to the Constitutional convention had understanding of the need not to overstep their authority.  As such, the powers delegated to the federal government were specific and very limited.

            The discussions of the Second Amendment and its functions centered on the rights of self-defense, to deter undemocratic government, and to repel invasion.  Text of the discussion included… “it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are insufficient to restrain the violence of repression”.  A proposal to add the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was soundly defeated.  The Second Amendment was adopted December 15, 1791.

The first century of the amendment drew little controversy or argument over its meaning.  The link between the US and English Bills of Rights, and the codification of existing rights, not creation of new rights, has been acknowledged by the US Supreme Court.   Further historical examination supports this theory.  North Carolina and Rhode Island agreed to ratify the Constitution, only after the Bill of Rights was added.  Federalist Noah Webster stated “an armed populace will have no trouble resisting a threat to liberty”.  The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution confers the right, “the people have a right to bear arms in defence of themselves and their state”.  The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution states, “non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression is….destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”.  Published in 1803, St George Tucker’s legal reference said the amendment was without qualification, condition or degree, and expressed hope that we “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of liberty”.  In 1825 William Rawle declared:  “No clause could, by any rule, be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people…this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint”; a general prohibition against abuse of government power.  Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist, stated that the object of all of the Bill of Rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government.  Nunn v. Georgia, 1846, concluded that any law precluding the open carrying of arms was in violation of the Constitution, and thereby void.  It further reasoned that the prefix of the Second Amendment showed that it originated from fear that the governments’ power was not sufficiently limited.  Even Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1856, states that slaves who become citizens have the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they want”. 

In recent years, there has been much discussion of the phrases “well regulated militia” and “bear arms”, and their purported meaning of military applications.  However, early constitutional provisions in ten of the states speak of the right of the citizens or people to bear arms in defense of themselves.  Further, it was the militia which was to be regulated, not the people.  The citizens were the governor on the militia.  The evidence, proofs and discussions of this meaning are too numerous for a column.  Suffice it to say, both phrases were regularly applied in the individual context.  The right to have arms for ones defense was described in the philosophical writings of Cicero and Aristotle as natural rights (rights by Nature).  The term “regulated”, in the 18^th century and today, means ‘subject to rules and regulations’.  It becomes clear that it was the militia who was to be “well-regulated”.  The Constitution goes further to state that the Congress will vote as needed, to create a standing army, limiting such army to a period of two years.  Then there is discussion of the word “militia”.  It is true that a militia has meaning in a military application.  However, numerous Federalist Papers and discussions of the Continental Congress noted the intent of having a national militia (Army, Navy), a local militia (National Guard), and a citizenry with arms.  This is yet another system of checks and balances put in place by our founders.

Having presented substantive evidence, it is without question that our republic was founded with an individual right to be armed.  Therefore DC v. Heller was the correct decision.  Justice Breyer, even in his dissent wrote that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that the amendment protects an individual right, separately possessed.

In the US Constitution, the phrase “supreme law of the land” denotes that a federal law is superior and applicable to all states laws if it is directly constitutional, and is not supreme if disallowed by the same; in fact it would be void.  Further, the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that the Bill of Rights applies to local and state governments.  It would seem clear then, that McDonald v. Chicago is correct.  Opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, it is settled law that the right of the citizen to be armed is individual and applicable in any jurisdiction in the United States and its’ territories.

The courts have held many things legal with considerably less support in law, and considerably more unsettled issues remaining.  The issue to watch is how the courts will deviate from the settled law regarding the Second Amendment, or the Bill of Rights in general.  Upon watching the Elena Kagan hearings, it was notable that she was unable or unwilling to rule it unconstitutional for Congress to regulate under the interstate commerce clause, what foods we are required to eat daily.  While the premise of the question was certainly laughable, the lack of an easy answer was not.  Incrementalism and factionalism were the –isms which most worried the founders.  At this point we have a right to keep and bear arms, to maintain a well regulated militia.  As Thomas Jefferson said “That government is best, which governs least”.

In high school, I was required to take American History.  The instructor covered from 1492 to the then current day.  Much understanding was to be gained by an immersion in the world of the time.  The events prior to our formation as a Republic were most instructive as to human nature, needs, desires, difficulties and the overarching roles of freedom, serfdom and slavery.  Having already spent time dealing with world history, the pieces of the human puzzle started to fall into place.

The early colonists left their homeland in search of freedom and opportunity, to escape the clutches of those who would control their destiny and their way of life.  Over two hundred years the colonists sought to establish themselves as a free people in a rugged land.  Many who came to early America were viewed as rabble by the Europeans.  As time drove on and success was a reality, the king and the power structures in Europe attempted to exert greater control over what the colonists had wrought.   After many attempts at redress of grievance, a small group of colonists decided to declare independence from England.  This was not a majority position at the time.  A strong minority lead most of the colonists to this conclusion over time.  The words of the Declaration of Independence were crafted carefully to say exactly what they meant.  A Constitution was similarly created with great thought over a good deal of time.  There were many divergent viewpoints to take into account.  The Federalist Papers were a series of arguments in favor or against certain points of view.  Notwithstanding the events of war leading to independence being gained, the founders had felt it necessary to amend the Constitution to contain a Bill of Rights to protect the people against government power and tyranny.  The concept that as human beings we are “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights”, equal in station to which the “laws of Nature and Natures god” would entitle them.  This concept was unique in governance.  The first ten amendments were adopted from a series of those proposed.  The arguments can be found in the Federalist papers, the intent of each made clear.  The history of humanity and the events of history and its’ repeated injuries and usurpations had created the need and desire for specifics, to throw off such government, to prevent the establishment of absolute tyranny. 

The first issue was the free exercise of religion, the right to speak your mind, the right to assemble and protest the right to your day in court.  The framers wanted a nation where the government did not dictate what you should believe, or what you should say, or what you should think for that matter.  They did not intend a nation of freedom from religion, or a nation where speech was to be correct. 

The next issue was how to maintain a free nation.  In the past, armies were prone to changing loyalties based on the power structure, respecting no one but whoever held the power at the moment.  The founders decided that an armed citizenry would be able to overthrow a despot should he take power in these “united States of America”.  You will notice that the u in united is not capitalized in the Declaration.  The Japanese resisted invasion here in WWII as they were worried that a gun would await them behind every door.  The founders were upset also that England tended to have soldiers take over ones home and use a families’ resources as their own.

Another issue was undo search or seizure.  An individual must be free in their person, papers, home, and effects.  The founders sought to establish a probable cause procedure, before an invasion was to occur.  The Fourth Amendment was as close to the establishment of “privacy” as the Constitution would go.

The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments were created to lay out the ground rules for criminal prosecutions.  This is where the right to face your accuser, trial by jury, the right against double jeopardy and unusual punishment, the right of speedy public trial, and the right to a positive defense are derived from.  The concept of private property is also denoted here.  Your property shall not be taken for the public good, unless you go through a proper procedure and are justly and properly compensated.

The Ninth Amendments denotes that just because the Constitution specifies or enumerates these particular rights, it in no way says that they are the only rights.  It notes that other rights are retained.  It appears before the Tenth Amendment on purpose.  The Tenth regards the enumerated powers of the federal government.  It limits the power of the central government.  Anything not specified in the Constitution is to be reserved to the people and the states.

Article I Section 8 enumerates the powers of the federal government, vested with the peoples’ representatives.  The rest of the Constitution sets up the checks and balances, denoting which parts of federal authority reside in which branch and giving full faith and credit to all of the States and its’ citizens.

The Congress and Executive branches have incrementally usurped powers not enumerated.  Not satisfied with those authorities given, they have boot-strapped all manner of “authority” to the interstate commerce clause, among others.  The exponential growth of government has finally caused a circumstance where more people work in government than privately.  The Congress debates the finer points of major league baseball, song lyrics and all manner of personal decisions.  The Fed is taking over corporations, stealing our children’s money to bail out banks and companies, making laws on what ways we are required to spend our money (think Obamacare), and taxing us beyond belief.   They are also ceding our Constitutional rights to the UN through international treaty.  They are spending money we don’t have for periods considerably longer than two years.  They have now learned how to extort billions of dollars from corporations.  As a republic, we are broke and broken.  The central government has dramatically overstepped its’ authorities.  It is comical to read in the Constitution that “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December….”

The Constitution is not a “living document”.  It was intended to say what it meant.  There is a process in it for change.  It is onerous and prevents any but the largest of majorities to effect such change.  This too is purposeful.  The problem is, we have opened Pandora’s box and allowed the giant to become.  It will be nearly impossible to close the lid on the box.  The Giant is escaping, and it may be mighty painful to remove the boot quickly approaching our necks!

Back in the early 1800′s, the country was still divided over the question of slavery, primarily along sectional lines, north versus south. As the young country began to expand in a westerly direction, both sides grew concerned over losing power in Congress through the annexation of new states on either side of the slavery issue. If one side gained more votes than the other, it was conceivable they could implement policies and laws detrimental to the other side. Although there was initially balance between the states, a flash point erupted when the citizens of Missouri applied for statehood as a slave state. This led to an impasse in both houses of Congress as the discourse heated up. The debates were so passionate they began to draw large audiences in the galleries. Both sides were adamant in their position and settlement of the issue seemed impossible.

After several attempts, the Missouri Compromise was finally drafted whereby Missouri would be allowed to join the country as a slave state, and Maine, which had been a part of northeastern Massachusetts, was admitted as a free state, thereby maintaining parity over Congress. Further, an amendment was added whereby slavery would be excluded in all territories and future states north of the parallel 36°30′ north (the southern boundary of Missouri).

The compromise was a clumsy document and only delayed the inevitable dispute over slavery. Former President Thomas Jefferson believed it would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union. He summed up the sentiments of the day in a letter to his friend, John Holmes on April 22, 1820; Jefferson wrote:

“…But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence, a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.”

For the next thirty years, both sides carefully watched the balance of power. In 1836 when Michigan was admitted as a free state, Arkansas was admitted as a slave state. The Compromise of 1850 dealt with the admittance of Texas and consideration for states in the southwest, including California.

It wasn’t until the passage of the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854, drafted by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, that the Missouri Compromise was finally made obsolete. Under the Act, the voters of each state would determine the issue of slavery internally, not by the Congress, thereby negating the intent of the Missouri Compromise. Although the Act was intended to appease both sides, it was ultimately perceived as supporting the slave powers of the South.

The debate over the Act went on for four months and featured the political luminaries of the day, including Douglas, Salmon P. Chase (OH), William Seward (NY), and Charles Sumner (MA). The New York Tribune wrote on March 2nd that, “The unanimous sentiment of the North is indignant resistance,” which sounds remarkably like Republicans in Congress today.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act eventually passed but set the country on a course towards Civil War. In the process, it caused chaos among the political parties which were split up and redefined. For example, it gave rise to the Republican Party in 1856 which primarily consisted of northerners who were antislavery.

PARALLEL

Both disputes, then and now, are cultural in nature. Whereas slavery was the issue driving the disagreements of the early 1800′s, today it is socioeconomics. Both issues were extremely divisive and incongruous to the point of being irreconcilable. Today’s discourse is every bit as bitter and reminiscent of the period preceding the Civil War, and the void between the two sides is just as large and insurmountable. Again, it is all about control over the Congress and which side will force their way of life on the other.

If the Missouri Compromise and Civil War has taught us anything, the only way such sharp disputes can be resolved is through armed conflict. This is not only a scary proposition for the country internally, but it would have far reaching effects on the world at large, as it would finally present the opportunities our enemies have been waiting for in order to dismantle the free world.

I sincerely hope nobody truly wants armed conflict as we should have learned this lesson through our first Civil War, but the divisiveness of the country makes you wonder how we can possibly avoid it. Let us not forget, the period leading up to the Civil War spawned zealots like abolitionist John Brown who advocated and practiced armed insurrection. You have to wonder who will be the zealot of our time.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

COMING IN JULY: “Tin Heads” – where transportation merges with communications. What is Bryce up to now?

Photos, nothing but photos. But strange ones the likes of which I had never seen. Black people hanging and burning and white people laughing. I knew these were not for my young eyes but I looked at every one before I closed the box and wondered would God punish me for seeing such evil. Years later when I heard Billy Holiday’s song “Strange Fruit” the pictures came to mind as a young woman said to me that she was tired of talking about race. “A lot of the things they talk about probably didn’t even happen.” Had I not seen those photos I would not have been able to say lynchings were document. Documented so that down the line no one could say it didn’t happen.

There is a lot of denial in this world, and some take it as the truth. People have been known to say things didn’t happen because they didn’t see them or they didn’t know anyone who saw the events. They deny that these moments in history occurred and when they can’t find them in source they like or a source that is popular with them the wage a campaign to stop the spreading of vicious lies to degrade the perpetrators of the crimes.

 There are those tired of talking about race, the Holocaust, slavery, the mistreatment of Native Americans and the children abused by religious leaders in several different cultures and religions. Just because you are tired of hearing about does not mean it didn’t happen. It means people are trying to remind you of these atrocities so that history won’t repeat itself. People keep letters, pictures, diaries, photos, and even momentos of the bad times to share with their progeny and those who were not there. They write songs about it, like ‘Strange Fruit” and they pass stories on by word of mouth from generation to generation. Somewhere along the way these is hope that someone documents these events and writes them down. There is a hope that someone takes a picture and spreads it across the universe. There is a need to make those in denial see the reality. Just because you and yours weren’t there doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. There were other witnesses to history.

So I found a box of photos of lynchings under my parents’ bed.  For years I dreamed about them. They took root in my memory and when I drove through Smithfield, North Carolina, in 1971 they became even more realistic. Outside the town was a larger than life billboard with a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan on horseback painted on it. The sign read something to this effect: “Welcome to Smithfield, NC, Home of the Klan. Niggers, Jews and Catholics stay in your place.” This is not a direct quote from the sign but it was scary enough. The sign didn’t come down until the late 70′s but it was there. I saw it. And friends who had to travel through that area saw it every trip to and from college. There are still Klan signs around North Carolina encouraging people to join. There are photos and articles and. . . Well the whole point is things must be documented so that there is proof it happened. We must not become our past if we long for a brighter future.

During the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt Attorney General Francis Biddle created a list to track down Nazi, Fascist and even Soviet controlled ‘subversive’ organizations. The original list consisted of 11 groups including the League of American Writers and the National Negro Congress.  The Attorney General’s list become known as the Biddle List. When Harry S. Truman was president he promulgated an Executive Order directing Attorney Generals to furnish the Loyalty Review Board with “the name of each foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons which the Attorney General, after appropriate investigation and determinations, designates as totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive. . .” (part of Executive Order 9835 from March 21,1947).

By 1948 the Biddle list had grown to  200 groups or more. These were organizations thought to threaten the freedom of American citizens by trying to shift the nation to Communism. The aforementioned writing groups probably consisted of people who wanted to create, to write. Perhaps those who lured them to the group were trying to convert them to Communism but at that time many people of color had no where to turn to discuss and practice their art. These subversive groups, not seen as subversive by a struggling actor or writer, were the only acceptance many had into the artistic world.

Some of the groups on the 1948 list do not seem that they should fall on any list such as the American Jewish Labor Council, George Washington Carver High School in New York City and the Abraham Lincoln School in Chicago.  The government feared infiltration so much that one persons association with the ‘wrong’ group caused everything he or she touched to be the wrong group.

On that 1948 list was the Committee for the Negro in the Arts. There isn’t much said about it but from different biographies it is noted that several black performers and writers joined groups affiliated with this so that they could have an association of like minded people. One actress who performed opposite the great Paul Robeson quite frequently help found a society of Negro actors. The purpose of the group was to associate with fellow actors and create more work. But the association with Robeson often got her black listed from certain projects.

In a country so phobic about being taken over by another dominant power one of the reasons so many people of color flocked to these groups was racism. Communism preached equality of the workers, I said preached not always practiced. In  any society in the world their is a hierarchy whether we want to admit it or not. But the groups that came out of the Committee for the Negro in the Arts were not political groups but groups of artists. The funding for N.I.A. dried up and four writers got together and continued to hold workshops in their apartments in Harlem. John O. Killens, John Henrick Clarke, Rosa Guy and Walter Christmas continued their writing classes and workshops and adopted a new name:  the Harlem Writers Guild. They never made the Biddle list. In fact the 1959 Biddle List was a fourth of the 1948 one.

It’s just a little piece of history but it is important to note that at one time to be an artist of color meant most of your resources were organizations that were considered subversive by the American government or against the American Dream. Then again if the American Dream was one of complete segregation anyone trying to make a change would have been considered guilty of being dis-loyal to this country.

Fortunately times have changed and most of us can still feel the power of the pen instead of the government when we create. But there will always be censors to the creative dream and process. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has to do with government tolerance. It always has.

Today we have our own buttons to leaking news with computers, instant news and messaging and cell phones that will alert you when a celebrity has a baby or when a celebrity takes a drink. It is news faster than the old AP machines could peck out. It’s too much news that brings us so much information. And a lot of that information is about war.

My husband is a news junkie and thinks that we all should be better informed. He likes to know what is happening in the world and will set the television on CNN and program it to go off in a hour while he drifts into sleep with that latest headlines floating into his dreams. You can tell where he has been in the house by the blasting of news reports. Sometimes I get him by saying I just heard or read something that he didn’t know about. He then makes an excuse that he was doing something to take him away from the important news of the day. When I complain that it is too much he responds with “It’s technology, baby.” Perhaps, but it feels like a punishment each time I see, hear or read about another war, another death another loss of life.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not naive in thinking that war and the horrors mankind creates don’t exist. I grew up in a place where some men decided that their fear of other men being equal to them allowed them to hang them from trees for no reason other than the politeness of a smile to a pretty, be it, fair skinned lady. I know of things that were never printed in papers, never said on news reports. But we live in a world so open I have friends who don’t watch the news at all. They say it is depressing. There will be reports on murder after murder and then the report on the murder rate. There are reports on the amount of money spent for wars this nation  is in and the amount of money it gives to nations in other wars. There are the crimes against man and the crimes against nature. Then there are reports on reports about reports. Most news stations know that there is so much bad news to report they come up daily with something good to talk about. A bunch of baby ducks rescued when they fell in a drain, a dying child meeting their favorite star, a person actually getting to live out their dreams. It is no longer all the news that’s fit to print. It’s all the news period.

Sometimes I wish that headlines would take a real holiday, like the old movie “Death Takes a Holiday.” What would happen if there was a universal cease-fire? What if for 24 hours rapists did not feel the urge, warriors did not want to kill, the poor had enough to eat and racism was put on a back burner. What if there was nothing to report about teen suicide or drunk drivers or people so sad and depressed they took over entire universities and shot everyone who didn’t smile at them?

What if for 24 hours there was no news but good news?

It is a fantasy, true. But it would also be the end of the world as we know it. Our earthly universe subsists on creating things to ease the pressure of misery. With no murders, rapes, robberies or any crime we would need less police control. With no war we would need less weapons, ammunition and soldiers. Less depression would mean less drugs, few hospitals and facilities for those in need. If people cared about others AIDS would not get passed, food would cost less and sometimes be free and there would be so separation of the classes. In fact, there would be no different classes or race except the human race. There would be fewer jobs, fewer businesses and few expense. Twenty four hours of this kind of earthly perfection would lead to chaos on a massive level. We don’t know how to live with peace and happiness. We have learned to live with war and suffering on many, many levels. It is an art form and a way of existing.

And that’s why there will always be too much news for people like me. I want real peace, something we on this earth have yet to acheive. Sadly I don’t know how to go about getting it for anyplace but the village that surrounds me so I am guilty of creating more angst for the universe by complaining. What I can do is pick one day a week when I refuse to be enlightened by the news. Will that work for me? Of course not. My husband will find me and let me know the world is ending at three o’clock because I need to be informed.

If the world is coming to an end do I need to know in advance? I don’t think so unless I have been the worst sinner. But right now I just want a break from the news and the wars and the pain. Perhaps I need a reality check but I am tired of all this death that I must know about.

It is not lewd behavior. It is the dance of the tribe of the young these days. But in looking back at the history of racism dances that require women and often men to move to something other than a waltz have been looked upon as nasty. While Dick Clark was trying to integrate American Bandstand whites in the North and South were calling the dancing that young ‘colored’ people did disgusting. In fact, they said it was jungle dancing to jungle music and was uncultured. Of course that is not altogether true or false. It was not part of the white culture but it was part of the black culture. It was part of a history that many wanted suppressed.

Saying that this dance is partly seductive is also not wrong. All dance has a bit of seduction in it otherwise who would want to watch or participate. I have been to a few Carribbean countries where young children mimic their parents in dances move provocative than this. They move their bodies in such fashion as to embarrass those with overzealous Puritanical backgrounds. But they are doing the movements of their ancestors. That so called jungle dancing is a pure part of African culture. Bodies move to tell stories that words cannot. And for slaves that only had the drums for a while this was a way to carry on their history, to pass it down from generation to generation. from body to body. There were dances to lure mates and dances to celebrate the harvest. There are and were dances for everything. I am not saying that Beyonce’s popular song or video will be around in the next thousand years or so. I am saying that the dance is nasty only when we think of what we know now in this century.

In the United States we now have Amber Alerts when children go missing. We also have sexual predators that use the Internet to get what they want or to look at the pictures that they want to satisfy some awful behavior that people didn’t talk about hundreds of years ago. We can post pictures of these perverts on websites and send out pictures of them to the neighborhood. they can even be found guilty of their crimes against children. Years ago women wouldn’t report rapes for fear of how others would act around them. Children assaulted by priests sent to care for them did not start protesting until recently. Modern conveniences have made it easier to be a predator and to be captured. That does not mean that children should stop dancing because someone might, MIGHT, look at their picture and get the wrong idea. Ancient Romans and Greeks all got the ‘wrong’ idea. In the courts of medieval Italy and France they got the wrong ideas. Children were mistreated and often died of their injuries.

That does not mean their singing or dancing or being painted in gold as one little boy had done in the court of the Medicis (he died from the paint seeping into his skin) should be stopped. They are not the crazy ones. They are the ones that need to be protected.

Protection does not come from cancelling their creativity, however. The parents of the young girls in question say they were just in a dance competition. People have complained about the skimpy costumes. Most of the other dancers probably had the same type of outfit. If we are going to stop children from these kind of events because they might became victims of sexual nutcases we need to stop children’s beauty contests, and baby contests. We need to take commercials with children off the air, we don’t need to let children act at all. In fact the only way to protect them against everything in the world is not to have them. And we know that doesn’t work.

No I wouldn’t want my four year old granddaughter dancing to Beyonce’s song. She is not a very goo dancer yet. But if she was in a group I would hope her parents would tailor the costumes to be more childlike and to let her have fun instead of making her think she had to win all the time. But the predators don’t need that video or that song to do their damage. Some of the creeps just stand at a bus stop and smell the essence of a child before getting their jollies. We can’t stop them with hiding a few things that children enjoy for the pleasure or the history or the culture of it like dancing.

Remember this song lyric from “Oklahoma”: “Everything’s up to date in Kansas City. They’ve gone about as fer as they can go.” Well, we really haven’t. More and more technical stuff comes to light each day. The problem is the more we create in this world the more we know and learn about the strange behavior of others. and the more frightened we become.

So many things have played into this controversy that it will be talked about for a while. All I have to say is let the children dance but watch those watching them. That’s all we can do.

¿Qué hay en verdad de fondo tras la promulgación de la ley SB1070?

Un inmigrante se columpiaba

sobre la tela de una araña

como veía qué resistía

fue a llamar a otro inmigrante…

Más que una clave archivonómica se trata de un distintivo. La ley aprobada y por entrar en vigor dentro de unas semanas en el estado de Arizona, Estados Unidos, ¿qué es? Como lo veo yo, es una llamada de atención tanto para el gobierno y la sociedad estadounidenses como para los mexicanos; y aún más, para el resto del mundo.

Estados Unidos y cada uno de sus estados son libres y soberanos para hacer dentro de sus fronteras cualquier cosa que les plazca, y que sirva para la mejor convivencia. El respeto a la ley es prioritario en Arizona como en China, pero cuando las leyes son usadas como ariete, cuando se emplean como un pretexto para otros fines, es cuando resultan sospechosas, por decir lo menos.

En México, la reacción a esta tan cacareada y polémica ley ha causado gran disgusto, incomodidad y revuelo. Ya no se diga en Estados Unidos, donde las multitudinarias y variadas manifestaciones no se han hecho esperar. Se hacen a diestra y siniestra acusaciones a la gobernadora Brewer, empleando un sinnúmero de calificativos hacia su persona y su gobierno. El despropósito está instalándose en la opinión pública. ¿En verdad se trata de una imposición “racista”? ¿Cuál es el trasfondo de una decisión de esta envergadura? ¿Se trata de la versión real de aquella película “La segunda guerra civil” protagonizada por Beau Bridges? También podría pensarse que se trata de una artimaña concertada para forzar al congreso estadounidense a tomar medidas definitivas y, de una vez por todas, votar una reforma migratoria más que suficiente, más bien moderna y ajustada a las necesidades reales tanto del país como de la gigantesca población migrante que año con año determina el dinamismo de la todavía principal economía del mundo.

Pero también puede pensarse que es una forma de acicate al gobierno y la sociedad de México, toda vez que, entrapado el país en una guerra sin cuartel contra el narcotráfico y otras linduras como la crisis económica, la influenza, etcétera, está arrinconado en la definición de soluciones concretas, viables y factibles que resuelvan el problema de la migración dentro y hacia fuera del propio México.

MIGRACIÓN ES MOVIMIENTO

De México se va la gente no por falta de oportunidades, ofertas de trabajo hay y muchas, pero pocas satisfacen las necesidades y expectativas de la población. El campo ha sido abandonado a su suerte y la población rural ha optado por ceder a las “bondades” de la vida urbana. Sueldos bajísimos combinados con costos altísimos de diversa índole obligan a las clases bajas y media (lo que queda de ella) a hacer malabares, recurriendo a desempeñarse en más de una actividad para llevar el sustento a casa y cumplir medianamente con sus obligaciones más elementales. La concentración de poder político y económico en unas cuantas familias y empresas (sin hacer hincapié en las trasnacionales, muchas de ellas estadounidenses) ha hecho de México un laberinto cuyo centro no puede ser hallado si no como reliquia del pasado, y la salida, la mejor que puede ofrecerse, generalmente es la fácil y a contra pelo de las normas y los ordenamientos: piratería, comercio informal, narcomenudeo, entre otras.

De México y hacia el sur el problema es similar, claro que con matices según el país y la región. Hoy, México junto con el resto de Latinoamérica, ha decidido “dar la espalda” a Estados Unidos y formar un bloque común, con fundamento en lo que les es común, la cultura, el idioma. Latinoamérica en su conjunto es mayoría en población comparada con Estados Unidos y Canadá; pero, en otros factores por supuesto que son el contrapeso justo del continente estos otros dos. Por eso también México y el resto de Latinoamérica caminan de la mano de Estados Unidos. Pura conveniencia mutua. La división norte-sur, por maniquea, es parte de lo que está generando la mecánica del continente. Estados Unidos y Canadá, por su nivel de vida, son objetivo aspiracional para muchos latinoamericanos. Estos, al llegar a la “tierra prometida” ven, en la mayoría de los casos, que sus “sueños” se convierten en pesadillas, máxime cuando terminan siendo explotados, ninguneados, desprovistos de los derechos más elementales.

Está mal México, sí, porque no hace lo que debería para retener a su población. Pero también está mal Estados Unidos, porque está haciendo todo lo posible porque no entre en su territorio la materia prima humana que históricamente ha definido al país como lo que es, uno formado desde la raíz por inmigrantes (y, recordemos, no siempre de la mejor estofa, como muchos de los primeros colonizadores).

AL DEMONIO LAS FRONTERAS

En una época cuando las fronteras cada vez están más desdibujadas, la migración, sea por causas de turismo o por búsqueda de la supervivencia, acentúa y complica los conceptos añejos que teníamos de soberanía y nacionalismo, por mencionar dos. Al amparo de la “seguridad nacional” y el miedo irracional al “terrorismo” (también a los rebeldes que defienden sus causas nobles se les llama ahora de ese modo), países como Estados Unidos hacen lo que China hace dos siglos: cerrarse. Mientras, China hace lo contrario y ¡miren cómo está y a dónde va!

Entender los tiempos no es algo que a los gobiernos estadounidenses se les haya dado con cierta facilidad históricamente. En México, en cambio, seguimos viviendo de los rencores no asimilados.

Un genetista estadounidense ya demostró con sus investigaciones que el concepto de “raza” es no sólo una estupidez, sino el más imbécil pretexto para la discriminación. Todos tenemos de todos en nuestros genes. Pero no es más grave la discriminación por esta causa. La verdaderamente grave es la que obedece a prejuicios infundados, al odio irracional.

En una de mis primeras colaboraciones a SWI afirmé, y lo sostengo, que yo sí discrimino. Es natural la discriminación, es parte del proceso adaptativo de todas las especies. Discrimino cuando tengo que elegir entre comerme una manzana o una naranja, para ello aquilato sus propiedades, mi gusto, mi necesidad del momento. Pero entre este concepto en su acepción lógica, incluso ecológica y antropológica, y el uso que se le da cotidianamente al tratar con el otro sólo distan la grosería, la obsecación, la egolatría.

Los seres humanos nos debemos mucho a cada cual, y sería muy sano empezar a imaginar un mundo sin más fronteras. Ya estamos tan revueltos, que las líneas divisorias están de más. Estados Unidos (pero no únicamente) se ha dedicado a imponer su voluntad a otras naciones mediante recursos transfronterizos y pretextando mil y una razones, muchas de ellas bastante ridículas cuando no enojosas. Entonces, quieren o no quieren fronteras. Quieren mandar en el mundo, pero que el mundo no rebase el límite de… ¿de qué? Quieren ser el policía del mundo, pero en vez de admiración, como el policía de la película muda ganan animadversión y recelo de parte de los demás.

HABLANDO DE NACIONES Y TRAICIONES

Cuando un estadounidense muere fuera de su territorio, el mundo es el territorio estadounidense y hay que mover cielo, mar y tierra para dar con la justicia. Es un país que de suyo ha promovido la acción mercenaria. En México, nuestra Constitución pena al ciudadano que pelea en las filas de un ejército extranjero por causas ajenas a México, son traidores a la patria. Eso son muchos mexicanos enrolados para pelear como carne de cañón en Irak, Afganistán… Son traidores a México. Pero con en México somos muy románticos, además de ignorantes de nuestras propias leyes, cuando muere un mexicano “heróicamente” en esas tierras tan lejanas, en vez de señalarlo ensalzamos su memoria como la de “alguien que luchó por la libertad y la democracia”. ¡Pamplinas! Nos merecen respeto los familiares perdidos en algún enclave de la Sierra Madre, es humanitario allegarles el cuerpo para darle cristiana sepultura y consuelo. Es comprensible la actitud, pero entonces ¿a qué estamos jugando? ¿Somos o no somos?

¿Es para enorgullecerse pelear guerras ajenas para países que, aun cuando sus ideales son nobles, su fundamento es contrario a los intereses más básicos? El soldado mexicano en el ejército estadounidense, ese que come tacos y hamburguesas, ese que llegó de mojado y ya como recluta porta su green card, mastica a medias su lengua materna y escupe la adoptada, no es más que un mercenario. Un inmigrante y mercenario; mientras tenga papeles es tolerado, de lo contrario…

Contradicciones tenemos todos. Preocupante es que las contradicciones nos lleven a definiciones y decisiones contrarias a nuestra naturaleza. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza y el espíritu de la ley SB1070?

To counter this “benign ruler” point of view, some people in the early 1900s began to organize the working poor. Those most effective and trustworthy came from that background and took action. The work of Camus and Orwell springs from a real knowledge of poverty (Camus) or being an outsider among the privileged (Orwell). It must be pointed out that Camus took a dim view of Marx, and Orwell was horrified by Stalin’s Communism. But these two writers have held the greatest influence in the minds of Western thinkers who call themselves liberal. Camus went so far as to coin the term “libertarian socialist.”

The rise to political and economic power of the European workers had a parallel in the United States. While Communism was a hothouse flower that died quickly and Socialism remains a mystery to most Americans, the societal changes that occurred here were spurred by two forces basic to this country: a distrust of concentrated power and a belief in individual freedom. In this, both conservatives, liberals and those in the middle (that is, almost everybody – to paraphrase Camus) share common ground. Unionization helped, and so did “top-down” changes.

The liberal reluctance to classify people, either in groups or as individuals, comes from the concern that this leads to elevating one group or individual above others. But liberals in their rush toward equality in the 1960s and early 1970s overran the boundaries, and began to exalt those groups that had been previously held down. In the fray, the individual was lost. For liberals, the search for new groups to “free” became the doctrine.

However, in conservative doctrine, the individual is only free as long as he or she conforms to the dominant power group’s rules. The idea that new rules might be positive threatens their world view. This is experienced as a personal assault on their core values, even if it is not. While conservatives profess to be against “top down” order, in fact, they support it when it serves them (the recent immigration law in Arizona, for instance). At the same time, they believe that within the established order they are free.

Both liberals and conservatives, when they classify groups fall into the Hegelian abyss of duality, a never-ending cycle of dominance and submission punctuated by violence (which “history” can be seen to be). Both lose their moral and ethical balance and sense of measure that inspires their vision of freedom.

Behind every liberal deserving of the name stands a rebel who is sensitive to injustice and is compelled to act. The liberal who wants change for others, but does not change his or her own life, is just as status quo in his or her thinking as a conservative. Behind every conservative is an absolutist who wants to see his life style codified. There have been powerful cases made for the concept that human nature and the world we live in is ruled by immutable laws. One issue is that these laws are not agreed upon, and another is that there are dimensions we will never understand, and finally, there are those who see random phenomena as part of the norm. The rebel perceives that change must occur through every level of society. Even if the world were to be 9/10ths perfect, the rebel would not be satisfied. The rebel is an agent of change. As such, he or she will always be at odds with society.

Some people dream of a harmonious world where people with different points of view live equally and freely. But others prefer a society that affords them a modicum of safety and stability, including a hedge against diversity and change. In any case, both liberal and conservative thinking tends to live on the boundaries of human nature

Very few people ask what responsibilities are inherent in their freedom. What is the impact of rights for one person, for a minority, for the majority, and for society, on other people, and on society? What are our responsibilities as an individual? None, some, many?

Camus wrote that among the apparent truths about human nature is that each of us must always believe oneself to be innocent, and has a need to dominate and “see oneself as a hero.” Is freedom our goal? Stability? Peace? Does real freedom from the violent past begin when we can honestly and modestly confront the questions of individual and societal rights, their consequences, and their relationship to our own innocence and need to dominate? Was Camus right, that until we find that sense of measure, we will be lost?

Totally globalized native New Yorker and former broadcast news producer Muhammad Cohen is author of Hong Kong On Air, a novel set in his adopted hometown during the 1997 handover about television news, love, betrayal, financial crisis, and cheap lingerie.

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

Since 2000 when the Democrats accused the Republicans of stealing the election, the tactic has been to attack unmercifully, attack to discredit, and attack until you get your way, then, deny any wrongdoing, and blame others. If you pose the slightest threat to the party’s political agenda, you are vilified as was the case recently with Rush Limbaugh. To discredit the outgoing president and assure there would not be a political legacy, they attacked and ridiculed George W. Bush to the point of riding him out of town on a rail (by his own party no less). In other words, liberal politics have taken on a “take no prisoners” approach, the likes of which we have not seen since the Watergate hearings.

There is little, if any, bipartisanship in the drafting of laws and running the government. The administration has basically thrown its weight into its liberal agenda, while trying to paint Republican lawmakers as impediments to change by questioning their patriotism. Now, more than ever, a line has been drawn in the sand between liberal and conservative principles, and there is no true initiative to seek common ground. After all, why should there be if you control both houses of Congress and the White House?

To paraphrase Lincoln, “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” The question now has become, is capitalism wrong and should it be replaced by socialism? I contend capitalism is correct and socialism sets a dangerous course of destruction for this country. The differences between the two ideologues are significant and incompatible, yet this is what now faces the country. Yes, we are very much involved with a titanic class struggle in this country. And Yes, aside from armed conflict, it has all of the earmarks of a Civil War.

In the years preceding the first American Civil War, Congress was embroiled in a similar clash of ideologues, this time is was bitterly divided over the spread of slavery into the Western states. The Missouri Compromise and subsequent Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, for example, pitted the North versus the South in who would control the Congress. The discourse between the two camps ultimately caused political parties to collapse and new ones to emerge, such as the Republican Party. The Democratic Party was split along sectional lines as a result of the conflict.

It occurs to me that today’s political differences may also shake the current parties to their very foundations. They will either change or split. Whereas the Republican Party had been moving towards the middle since the departure of Ronald Reagan, it is now moving rapidly back to conservative principles. The Democrats with their liberal agenda has basically forsaken moderates. Both parties have to shore up their differences internally or face a new third party to emerge, a moderate party.

The Republicans have become complacent, and put on the defensive by some clever political maneuvering by the Democrats and, as such, have been politically reactive, not proactive. This needs to change and an organized approach must be devised to draw up battle plans and devise tactics. Some suggestions:

1. Take the Media to task, which is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the Liberal Party; put them on the defensive; this includes television, radio, newspapers, the Internet. I mean really put on a full court press. Condemn their editorials, refuse to support their advertisers, and discredit their integrity by debunking the illusion they are “unbiased.” Do not allow them to vilify conservative leaders like they did to Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh. Their brainwashing techniques must be broken.

2. Challenge the Liberal Party, anywhere and anytime. I do not know an issue where we need to be on the defensive; we must go on the offensive. However, to contrast Conservatives from Liberals, we must do it with dignity, and tact. Unlike our opposition, we believe in honest debate. We should never stoop to their level of name calling, venom and lying. We must be forthright in our arguments and do it with class.

3. Groom replacements to take over. Ronald Reagan was a great president and we now hear his name mentioned as the savior of the party. But let’s be realistic, Reagan is dead and buried, let’s move along, I’m sure he would want us to move forward and not look back. To this end, I suggest establishing a bona fide school to teach conservative doctrine, and hone skills in communications, management, administration, drafting legislation, and political tactics. In other words, instead of a disorganized approach for grooming the future leaders of our country, let’s devise a structured approach which promotes good government based on sound management principles. The nation needs leaders, not reactionaries.

4. Develop a sound political strategy that provides for a strong war chest to fund political campaigns, devise Congressional target areas, and take back the Congress and the White House.

It is sad to think we are at war with our own countrymen, but the fact remains there are people who are bent on changing the basic way of life in this country, such as redistributing the wealth through expanded government. They have already fired the first shot, are well organized, and now in control. It is time for Conservatives to wake up and get its act together before the changes implemented by the Liberals become irreversible.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Copyright © 2010 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Back in the early 1990s these competitions began to gain attention off campuses, and became large, money making sponsored events. Step has become so popular off campus that even church groups begun to formed liturgical step teams. In February of this year, Zeta Tau Alpha from the University of Arkansas, an all Caucasian sorority, entered in the Sprite Step Off National Step Competition in Atlanta and won. They won the $100,000 grand prize and Black folk are up in arms. Some say, “Oh no they didn’t”. Others say they should have never been allowed to enter the competition in the first place or they were good but, not that good (youtube has the competition online). There are those that feel that this is a “Black thang” and it is off limits to anyone else, while still others ask, “What’s the problem”?

The problem is that stepping is a cultural thing. To many, Zeta Tau Alpha entering this competition is like Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) dressing in traditional Irish garb and showing up to compete in an Irish ”step” dancing competition. There is no doubt in my mind that like the girls from Zeta Tau Alpha were, the AKAs would booed and possibly even worst.

Remember Riverdance back in the 90’s? Everyone was enthralled with the rapid high steppin rhythmic Irish dancing. Tariq Winston, a young African American tap dancer/choreographer who understudied and untimely stared in the Tap Dance Kid on Broadway back in the 80’s, developed a number with Colin Dunne called “Trading Taps” which was featured in Riverdance (you can see these performances on youtube). The difference here is that Tariq maintained his cultural “Black” tap dancing style and Colin his cultural Irish dancing style and, they didn’t compete, they didn’t compare, they complemented. They showed the similarities and the common elements in the two dance styles and it worked. It was a meeting not a melding or a take over. Their collaboration didn’t diminish either style nor did it nullify either style. What these two did was celebrate each other with respect.

So is step a cultural thing? One could question whether there should even be African American “Greek” fraternities and sororities after all, they are using Greek letters to identify themselves. Why don’t they use Swahili, Nubian or Egyptian letters? This question too has been long debated within the Black community.

Several cultures have a form of step dance but to the African American community, to the traditionally Black frats and sororities, stepping is belongs to them. It is cultural and it is a matter of pride. For others to invade this territory is tantamount to the theft of Jazz, Rock N Roll and Rap. A long held opinion has been that Europeans always taken what belongs to other cultures and clam it as their own. These art forms in music and dance are markers, they tell the story of a particular peoples struggle for their identity, acceptance, recognition and respect. These art forms (Jazz, Rap, R & B formerly Rock ‘n Roll,tap dance and step) are prized possessions that say we are creative, we are innovative, we are unique.

I understand the upset. I’m not sure I condone all the arguments. The grand prize winners in the 2010 Sprite competition may well have deserved to win. Maybe they are just that good. But sometimes we need to sit back and enjoy what someone else does. Sometimes we need to let others hold claim to what has always been theirs. We can appreciate it but we don’t need to claim it too. I like belly dancing, Irish dance and flamingo dancing but I know to whom these art forms belong. I appreciate them but I won’t claim them and I shouldn’t.

Grambling State University is know world wide because its famous marching band. Without question they reign supreme for their precision, musical talent and stimulating dance routines. The Black college/university campus marching bands are also in fierce but healthy competition and, there are some things you just don’t mess with.

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

Most African Americans my age (late 50s) had to struggle to discover the history of their own families. Many of us could only trace our families back as far as the grandparents we could see. Sometimes, because of lack of jobs in this country for free black men, that meant we had no idea of our paternal ancestors. Jobs were offered to black women while black men got kicked to the curb, sometimes literally. Women were often in charge of a family by the force of a careless and unfeeling white society. Where slave families had been sold off to various plantations in the past, free black men we treated with disdain and often left in sadness and embarrassment the families they could not support.

Nobody wanted to talk about this ‘past’ when I was little. No one wanted to talk about the other side of the equation either, that is the white forefathers who raped the helpless slave women and sired children that were damned by two races. They were not the right color to be white and were taught they were too good to be black. To make life easier for themselves and their progeny some ‘passed’ for white but down the line the legal system said they were Negroes even if they had as little as 1/32 black blood in them. It was a no win situation for any person of color.

Once we escaped the abomination of slavery we chained ourselves against a brutal ancestry. The education system taught pride in country as well as pride in only one race- the white one. The textbooks slipped in small bits of history such as George Washington Carver and at times Harriet Tubman. It was a fight to get out of the negative image being Negroid created. We were taught there were certain jobs we would never have, certain goals we would never achieve. Strong black bodies were good for hard labor and sports. Those that tried to succeed otherwise had uphill battles that included racism, sexism and a deep feeling that whites were privileged and who was this Negro who thought he had any rights in this country. The song “We Shall Overcome” was not just about overcoming the barriers of being a color that would never totally melt into the pot, it was about overcoming the doubt that we were as good as the rest of the world.

We had faith. Faith in ourselves and faith in a God forced on us from the moment we stepped off the slave ship. The bible played an important part in our recovery from self hate. However back in the day we never though to compare our journey in slavery to the one that was part of the history of the Jews. We had no Moses although we had those fighting for our rights. They could lead us out of slavery but they could not lead us to freedom. I remember hearing Nina Simone singing “I wish I knew how it would feel to be Free.” The next line was most important to the change that was about to come. It went “I wish I could break all the chains holding me.” 

Slavery to so many things was our problem. We wanted equality but it was something hard to achieve when you didn’t know your history and were told no matter what that history was it was going to be bad. We sang, we worked and we prayed. We began to overcome.

You didn’t want to be called ‘black’ because black is associated with the Devil, with evil, with all things bad. Colored and Negro were slave determinations. So we went to the darkest shade of our rainbow of colors to work on our freedom. Some of my elders feared being called black more than the N word, which still brings anger into the community. Then James Brown gave us a mantra: “Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud.” We started looking at ourselves in a different way. We weren’t just descendants of slaves, we were powerful important human beings who had built a country and fought in its wars. We started looking back to see who had created us and found ancestors to love and hate, in both races. Most whites have only one race they can call their own, but most black people in this country can go back through generations to show they are black and white. Why should the government census restrict you to one race? Every African American I know is multi racial. They have the blood of many ancestors running through their veins. Of course there are those that say pure blood is better so that they can make those of mixed heritage feel inferior. But when we learned to say we were black and proud we had to learn to say we were proud of our mixed heritage and those of that pure black were lacking in the spirit of this country. The freedom to be all people.

I am the descendant of a Negro blacksmith, a black train conductor, a white man who signed the Declaration of Independence, a woman of color who created and sold hand made flowers back in the 30s, a dark skinned female minister who traveled the dust bowl, a Trinidadian musician who traveled the world, a Blackfoot woman who was raped by a redneck Alabama farmer, and most recently an accountant/poet/craftswoman and journalist/writer/artist. I am African American. I did not melt into the pot. The pot melted in me.

And of that I am proud

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

The deemphasis of the study and consideration of George Washington and his times ought to be a concern, today.  And that brings us to brain-dead, so-called educators in California and North Carolina,  There may be other states on this potential list of academic shame, but these two I know for sure.  School officials in both states are presently considering whether to cut American history in half.  The proposal is to teach American history only from the 1865 forward.  The people who declared the nation to be, fought the war to establish it, wrote the Constitution to establish it, would disappear from the history books.
 
As students of history know, most of it is ballistic.  Once you know where and how a nation began, and the direction and speed it took, you can predict accurately where it will arrive in time.  That is, absent any cataclysmic events which can change the whole equation.  Every gunnery sergeant who has ever served knows what this means, including those who served under Captain John Paul Jones on the Bonne Homme Richard.  But what can anyone know about the future of the United States in the absence of knowledge about how and when it began?
 
The proposal of these so-called educators would be rank foolishness even if the United States were a small nation, with limited impact on world events and limited leadership by example.  When you include the facts that the US was the first nation to create a written Constitution, and that Constitution has outlasted every other written constitution among all the 186 nations which have constitutions, the proposal of these educators is downright madness.  The history of governments on Earth, not just the history of the US, demands that students have a passing familiarity with how and why we created our system of different branches of government, checks and balances, and limits on governmental power, all of which were brand new to the Framers.
 
Let’s use some examples.  Would a history of England be fatally defective without a study of the Magna Carta?  Would a study of Rome be fatally defective without a study of Julius Caesar?  How about a study of Athens which left out Pericles?  Or, to chose negative examples, how about studying the USSR and leaving out Lenin?  Or Germany while leaving out Hitler?  Students can learn from bad examples what not to do, correct?
 
My understanding is that the proposed abandonment of the beginnings of US history is driven by consideration of new history text books which have been dumbed down, and have left the guts of American achievements on the cutting room floor.  It might be worthwhile for all of you to find out whether this pernicious idea of crippling US history has reared its ugly head in the text books, classrooms, or school boards in your state.  If it has, don’t get mad, get even.  Throw out such books and such “educators” and return US history to its essential place in US classrooms.
 
About the Author: John Armor practiced law in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. His latest book, on Thomas Paine, will be published this year. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us Reach him here: John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
 

John Armor, Esq.
Box 243, 421 Kettle Rock Road
Highlands, NC  28741
828.200-0320
John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

A Contradiction of Times

by Bob Grant

During my trips to China I wish I had taken more photos of the places I passed, to and from, the factories I visited.  In lieu of those photos – I am going to mix some that I found on the Internet with those that I took.

The one phenomenon that I experienced was the contradictions in times as I passed through the cities and into the countryside and back again.  As I have mentioned in earlier postings – I have been traveling to China since 1998.  My time spent there was mainly for business purposes – I rarely took time for sightseeing.  However, it was the “everyday” sights that interested me the most – not the so called tourist spots of which China has many.  I would pass from new building construction to old crumbling buildings in a matter of blocks.  I would drive by places in the countryside where it appeared to me that people were living the same way they had for millions of years.  We would drive from beautiful multi-lane highways to rutted brick and dirt roads – in a matter of miles.  Workers were sweeping the freeways – and other roads – with large straw brooms.  Everywhere I looked I could see new and old in a single setting – a large high rise apartment building next to agricultural areas where people were working the land by hand and animals.

Our office was in Bao’an which is a suburb, if you will, of Shenzhen which is in southern China across from Hong Kong.  Here is a photo of the view from our office.  Shenzhen has around 14 million people – according to the sources I checked – and it was nothing but swampland almost 30 years ago when it was designated China’s first economic zone.  The construction that goes on in this – and other larger – cities is unbelievable.  However, we visited one factory in what I would call the countryside where the owner was enticed to build a new factory because of the inexpensive cost of the land – somewhere around $4 per acre as I recall – as the government wanted to build up business in this rural area.  This factory was in an extremely picturesque location – and from the owner’s balcony – I took a photo of an older boat going down the river.  It reminded me of how the setting (or view) must have been centuries ago.  China has a tremendous amount of history associated with their country – I could see it, in many ways, as I looked out the vehicle window passing to and from our meetings during my numerous visits in country.

I certainly found China to be a country in transition – but as a visitor – I hope they never modernize their country to the extent that it is no longer a Contradiction of Times.

Doctor Watson narrates, and acts, as he helps the famous sleuth to track down clues in this complex crime mystery. Avril Field-Taylor has done her research and takes the reader on a journey which is so well constructed that it is like watching a film of events play out. Set in Devon, Hull and London, with Buckingham Palace playing a role, the story moves rapidly with the trains and Handsome cabs that propel the protagonists through the convoluted plot. The railway stations, backstreets, country houses and, of course, Baker Street, are all described so well that the reader feels at home with them.

The action brings in Mycroft, Sherlock’s brilliant but mysterious brother, the professionally jealous Lestrade from Scotland Yard, the Hellfire Club and Sherlock’s arch-enemy, Moriarty, in a plot which twists and turns without ever losing credibility. The damsel in distress is beautifully drawn and turns out to have more courage and good sense than initially expected, so that the reader really cares about her fate. Watson’s love and concern for Mary, his wife, is very well depicted. And Mrs Hudson gets an unexpected shock when Baker Street is attacked.

I won’t spoil your enjoyment by detailing the plot. This story moves apace and all the characters live so there are no stereotypes here. This will be enjoyed by all who love a good crime novel, a mystery, a problem-solver and an authentic historical setting. Sherlock Holmes fans will particularly enjoy this new adventure for their classic hero, in which the author has the voice of Watson as narrator exactly right. I picked this up, expecting to read it off and on over a few days but did not put it down again until I’d finished it. An exciting and absorbing tale, which I thoroughly recommend.

You can find her books at http://www.avrilfieldtaylor.co.uk/

The World in the Hands of China