The Obama Project@WindonWater.net

Many people are rightfully concerned about the creation of a police state in Arizona (and now, Texas, since apparently, Texas intends to put a similar law in place. MY fear is more long-term, more about the confluence of economic interests and insidious law. In America, we already have an example of a history of laws passing over time that gradually targetted a particular people, in pursuit of the agricultural interests of the south – and that example is what eventually became the legal framework of slavery. Here is a brief overview of some of the issues:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p263.html

Whatever the status of these first Africans to arrive at Jamestown, it is clear that by 1640, at least one African had been declared a slave. This African was ordered by the court “to serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere.”

The grounds for this harsh sentence presumabley (sic) lay in the fact that he was non-Christian rather than in the fact that he was physically dark. But religious beliefs could change, while skin color could not. Within a generation race, not religion, was being made the defining characteristic of enslaved Virginians, The terrible transformation to racial slavery was underway.

emphasis mine

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p270.html

• Philip Cowen Case: At her death in 1664, a Mrs. Amye Beazlye left to her cousin a black servant named Philip Cowen. The will stated that Cowen should work for the cousin for eight years, then be given his freedom and three barrels of corn and a suit of clothes. At the end of the eight years, the cousin extended the contract three years. At the end of those three years, he informed Cowen that another nine years of service was due. In 1675, Cowen petitioned the court for his freedom. The court sided with Cowen, asking the owner to release him from servitude and to pay him the corn and the cost of a suit.

• Fernando Case: A bondservant for life, Fernando petitioned the court in 1667 for his freedom, arguing that, since he was a Christian and had spent several years in England, he should serve no longer than an Englishman was required to serve. The court dismissed the suit. Fernando appealed to a higher court. (Unfortunately, no record of the higher court’s decision exists.)

(there are two other cases at this link)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p262.html

Three servants working for a farmer named Hugh Gwyn ran away to Maryland. Two were white; one was black. They were captured in Maryland and returned to Jamestown, where the court sentenced all three to thirty lashes — a severe punishment even by the standards of 17th-century Virginia. The two white men were sentenced to an additional four years of servitude — one more year for Gwyn followed by three more for the colony. But, in addition to the whipping, the black man, a man named John Punch, was ordered to “serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life here or elsewhere.” John Punch no longer had hope for freedom.

That’s the legal background to the gradual erosion of even the limited rights African Americans had at the founding of this nation, until the legal framework was built up to decide, once and for all, that brown people born slaves should remain so their entire lives, and not as people even, but as property. So, a people arrive in the country with iffy legal status are gradually reduced to permanent slave status. But how about people whose legal status is known? How about free blacks?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3p325.html

The passage of the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act, fueled a huge and vastly profitable underground industry that took full advantage of the inferior legal status of free and enslaved blacks. The law made it possible for a white person to claim any black person as a fugitive, and placed the burden of proof on the captive. Free blacks living in Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and other cities near the borders of slave states were especially vulnerable, though several well-known cases demonstrate that no state was immune.

Slave speculators (or slavers) — who legally purchased the rights to runaways, captured them, and then resold them at a profit — often seized blacks at random, banking on their inability to prove their status to the satisfaction of a magistrate. In one case, a slave speculator who attempted to seize AME Bishop Richard Allen found himself in debtors’ prison, charged with attempted kidnapping, false accusation and perjury by Allen, who dropped the charges several months later.

I would like to think that we are so far past this as a country that this could never happen to Mexicans in the south, who are working as day laborers in agricultural fields, but since in some cases Mexicans have already seen slavery conditions, and given our low level of sympathy for Mexicans as our suspicions about the legal migrant status is provoked, are they really so far off from the precarious position African Americans were in so long ago?

I don’t think so.

QT

Every year or so we get another story about police brutality toward blacks.  Yet another unarmed man shot in the back – and the news media playing it really quietly. I’m doing my part to raise the profile:

Crossposted at Wind On Water.net

QT

Today a bit of memorabilia came in the mail – the Jackson 5 Anthology on CD.    I used to have a 4 album set, bought at a used LP store – but between going years without owning a recordplayer, and years without proper LP storage – they eventually warped… so I bought the CD set.

The set has pictures of the boys on the front – and on the first page of the liner notes, a picture of all six boys – including Randy.  So that’s, Jacky, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Michael and Randy.  Every one of them handsome boys.  No exceptions.

But that’s not how I remember them.  I remember Michael being the cute one, and Jermaine being just alright.  I remember Tito being funny looking, and Jackie being devastatingly gorgeous (but too old for me).  Even in the 80s when I was in high school and college, and when Michael started “changing” – I remember Randy being cute, Jermaine being kinda ugly after all, and wondering why Marlon ever thought he was supposed to be out there at all – he was that funny looking to me.

I reflect on this to note how many scales had to fall from my eyes to appreciate naturally black features as not only ok, but appealing.  Looking at the boys now, I can see what went wrong.  Marlon and Jermaine both have wider noses than the other boys, and fuller lips.  This consigned them to “ugliness” in my young mind.  Looking at them now, I see them all as handsome – I have to try hard to see what was distasteful to my young girl’s eyes.

Lots of people laugh at Michael Jackson for his persistent and aggressive war on his own face – but when I look at this snapshot of the way they were – I can see why Michael attacked himself as he did.  He’s older than me – probably more inclined to see black features as unattractive – and in the world of fame that he inhabits – looks mean so much more.

Today I am very grateful for President-Elect Barack Obama – who was a chubby little boy who didn’t look all that different from a younger Michael Jackson (more accurately, he looked as a baby, like Randy looks in this picture), who grew up to be a handsome black man, ears and all, and President of the United States.  I pray that young black boys and girls grow ever more likely to think that their natural features are beautiful – and to be glad of them.
QT

Jesse Jackson was caught on tape offering to castrate Obama for “talking down” to black folks and telling “n*gg*ers” how to behave. On The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck sparred over the racial slur, with Whoopi arguing that blacks can use the word while whites can’t. Ta-Nehisi Coates, speaks into the issue with well-appreciated nuance and good sense. And so, I tried really hard to think about where I stand with it all.

It is true that there is some nuance in which calling another black person “n*gg*r” is indeed a sign of affection. That is – I can conceptualize it. I can conceptualize it in a humorous content (the way the word “fool” can be used in a teasing, affectionate way), and I have heard and understood brothers talking to one another that way. And because I recognize the inflection, I don’t flinch or even blink when someone uses it. I don’t have any personal affectionate usages of the word – don’t hang hard enough to have acquired the street sense of the word. But I get it.

For white folks who don’t it’s easy enough to explain. There is a clear difference – CLEAR difference, between two women calling each other “b*tch* affectionately, and a man doing it. Unless that man knows that woman REALLY well, and there’s a high degree of trust between them, under no circumstances will the term be well received. (BTW, Elisabeth Hasselbeck was crying over the potential use of the words in front of children. I think that the majority of us, unless we are heavy on the street cred, won’t use coarse language in front of children, so I’d like to take that argument off the table. If we don’t use coarse language in front of children but do use coarse language – the sense of the word n*gg*er and b*tch that I’m using falls in the exact same category.)

So it seems very clear to me that this argument that no one can ever use these words EVER just because white people (or conversely, men) can’t use these words willy nilly is just silly – it’s the ‘reverse discrimination’ argument run amok. We all can conceptualize circumstances in which it simply isn’t an outrage to use the words – and no amount of whining from the dominant culture on the issue is going to change this fact.

BUT… as a Baha’i, it occurs to me that we are missing the point if we leave it to purely situational ethics. Religion purports to give guidance on right and wrong that transcends situational ethics, and it occurs to me that this is one of those times when consulting the scripture might not be a bad idea. The thing is – it troubled me. It troubles me to see certain white folks, who likely call blacks “n*gg*r” all the time, complaining that they can’t do it openly. Those type of folks – you just KNOW that they aren’t being affectionate in their usage. And, here was Jesse Jackson – also CLEARLY not being affectionate in his usage. He’s calling black folks names – and he wants to be able to do it under his breath, the same way racist white* people do, while complaining that Obama wants to encourage improvement for blacks. And – he gets a bye on the subject… because he’s black, and because we all know – we black folk ALL know, just how prevalent it is in the black community for some of us to call others of us the “n” word in a less than affectionate manner. We on’t like it when whites do it, because there’s an inherent threat of an overwhelming prejudice – but we fail to notice the inherent threat of internalized self-loathing – buying into the frame that says that black people ARE n*gg*rs, or for that matter, that women ARE b*tches.

As I thought this through – I called to mind a central teaching of the Baha’i Faith – that we are created noble, and that it is we ourselves who make ourselves less than that. The Hidden Words from the Arabic say:

22. O SON OF SPIRIT!
Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.

(Baha’u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

And that seems to be the crux whereupon this argument stops, at least for me. The term “b*tch” isn’t a noble title for a woman, nor is the term “n*gg*r” a noble one for blacks. These words, hurled at people to abase, have not yet proven to be capable of ennobling. This isn’t the Christians at Antioch – embracing the word “Christian” because they were proud followers of Christ. This is the anglo saxon for a female dog (funny that Islam is condemned for having some sects classify women and dogs as unclean, while we in the west call women dogs…), and the slurred adaptation of the word for black. Nothing wrong with being black – but the intent of the word is to keep blacks separate – apart from the human family.

So I’ve decided, finally, that while I agree with those who say that the words mean something different when people in the affected group use them, I also agree with those who argue that the words ought not be used.

I found a couple of other quotes dealing with language, and how we speak – and I wanted to reference them – just as a record of the ideal – that our speech ought to be harmonizing and uplifting, not tearing one another down.

44. O COMPANION OF MY THRONE!
Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.

(Baha’u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

Consort with all men, O people of Baha, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and goodwill. If it be accepted, if it fulfill its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding.

(Baha’u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 15)

__________________________
*Racist white people =/= all white people. I shouldn’t have to say that, but in this current climate, it’s important to be clear – white people are not all racist, and certainly aren’t all itching to use racially charged language.

A pretty good article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rodriguez21-2008jul21,0,1787991.column

I’ll quote this part here:

In the meantime, voters seem to be reading a whole lot of racial significance into an Obama triumph.

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, about two-thirds of blacks and Latinos and just over one-half of whites agreed that an Obama victory would improve race relations. Blacks were the most optimistic, with 23% saying it would make race relations “a lot better,” compared with 13% of whites. Similarly, 85% of blacks said an Obama win would be a sign of progress toward racial equality in the U.S.

But does this mean that blacks would see a President Obama as a black leader who “speaks” for them, a leader in the mold of civil rights advocates? Asked who they would choose if they had to pick one individual to speak for them on issues of race, 29% of black respondents selected Obama. Although he got the most support as spokesman, 49% named someone else, and nearly a quarter named no one.

That’s amazingly good news to me. I’m thrilled to see stats confirming that black folks don’t think that Barack Obama is our spokesperson or savior. We like him, but we get it that he’s running for president of the United States…

Here in the United States, the nation is embroiled in the political season as we gear up for presidential elections on the first Tuesday in November 2008.  We’re winding down on the primary season, and will immediately pivot into the general election campaign thereafter.  It is likely that Barack Obama will be one of the candidates for president.  As a result of the primary campaign, a number of disturbing trends have come to light – these include racism, sexism, religious intolerance, anti-intellectualism, classism, and a complete lack of unity.   The Obama Project is an effort to address this in the spirit of what WindonWater.net is all about… namely producing small ripples to push against the current…

What:  The Obama Project will be a series of posts focussed on presenting factual information about candidate Barack Obama that negates misinformation about him – but with the specific goal of NOT promoting the candidate, but rather, promoting the eradication of racism, sexism, classism, religious intolerance, and anti-intellectualism.  Of course, I hope that focussing on these things will yield more unity in place of divisiveness.

How: The mission statement of WindonWater.net is “conversation for a better world, and a happy soul.”   The idea is that by changing the way we talk about stuff, we turn the tide on cynicism and negativity.  How necessary is THAT these days?

Why: Why Barack Obama?  Well, largely because his candidacy has called all of this stuff to the forefront of public discourse.  With this candidate, we have room to talk about racism, and religious intolerance.  We have room to talk about the meaning of love of country (patriotism).  We have room to talk about classism, and sexism.  And of course, the candidate has given a groundbreaking speech on race, that gives us a starting place.

As a Baha’i, I’ve been hesitant to start this effort.  Baha’is are not supposed to engage in partisan politics, but rather, are supposed to simply vote their consciences.  I’ve fallen short of that mark often this cycle, because of being so very partisanly in support of candidate Barack Obama.  Notwithstanding, I have concluded that this is something that I can do, and even should do, and I do believe it is doable without trending toward partisanship (at least I hope it is).

Anyway – as a woman and as an African-American, I’ve been sucked in to the process because the issues are very real to me.  And I do feel a personal need to have a direct response to these issues, and a need to do so in a way that avoids the persistent negativity that has dominated the blogosphere.  I hope others will join the conversation, and lend thoughts and ideas – especially out of the box, especially with a spiritual perspective, as we work through these tough issues.

My goal is to produce one post a week – that’s ambitious perhaps – that pushes against the wind.  Everyone is welcome to continue the conversation – and of course to start topics of interest throughout the thread.  The front page will be adjusted every week to promote the latest Obama Project post.

We’ll see how it goes!

Finally – since it really is more of a blogging project than a forum effort, I’m blogging here, instead of on my main forum site.  I’ll try to RSS to WindonWater.net, just the same.

QT