Play the Race Card at Your Own Risk

Please pay attention to what your president-elect is doing, black people (and people of all colors who voted for him.) Now is not the time to wipe your brow and go *phew.* Just because he's black doesn't mean that you can go back to being political couch potatoes; just because he's black doesn't mean you ought to agree with all his policies, nor expect that he's always working with our best interests in mind. It does not mean we can kick back and relax, or that we are now considered full and worthy citizens in this country. And it especially does not mean you need to get your ass on your shoulders when a white person criticizes him. Dr. Cornel West, one of the most righteous brothers on the face of the earth, expressed this sentiment quite succinctly: he is both one of Obama's biggest supporters and his one of his biggest critics. All of us who cast our votes for him would be very wise to take a similar tact.

This is a perfect case of be careful what you wish for. We've got ourselves a black president. The historical significance of this can never be diluted or disputed. But I exhort you to keep this in mind: we have ourselves a president (who's black.) He was elected President of the United States of America, not President of the United States of Black People. He's not going to decide on signing this policy or enacting that law like, "Hmmmm, will black people like this?" Forget about it. PAY ATTENTION, but pay attention with a critical mind. He will get raked over the coals by people who want to see him fail because he's black. There's a whole bunch of folks lining up to say I told you so. You cannot allow this to cloud your judgment. Watch out for them. Call them on their shit because it's foul. But if you get mad and play the race card just because a non-black criticizes him (like Al Sharpton does every time someone sneezes in a black person's direction) you will be doing so at your own risk. You are risking being reactionary, risking acting like the victim, risking missing the opportunity to critique what might really be going on. Ask yourself, why is Whitey jumping all up in Barack's face? Then ask yourself, why is Whitey jumping all up in Barack's face? Maybe he's doing dirt. Because he will, you know. Some think he already is. For instance, he's electing people to his Cabinet, like Bush's defense secretary Robert Gates, who have a history of supporting the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, when part of his campaign hype was promising to end these horrendous, unjust wars. Was he talking out of his neck to get elected? Maybe, maybe not. These are the type of issues that require further investigation. While Barack's Cabinet candidates so far are both Democrat and Republican, none of them are especially progressive.

Conversely, let us also resist the urge to sling around that tired-ass epithet "Uncle Tom" as soon as we perceive Barack as "selling out" to Whitey. First of all, read the book, because you're ignorant for using that term if you don't know where it comes from or understand its historical context. Secondly, if he does something you don't like, it's way too easy to call him a sell-out. That is not critical thinking. Lack of critical thought creates such things as bigots, Sarah Palin, bricks, and other undesirables we don't want participating in our political processes. If Barack pisses you off, that's good—it means you're paying attention. It means you're not just drinking the doped up Kool Aid. Get involved in activism. Write him a letter. Start a blog. Do something. Sitting there calling him names will not make him accountable, nor will it improve your status in this society.

Let the man do his job and remember always what his job is: President of the United States. I don't know about you, but I really hate it when one famous black person speaks and the rest of the world thinks he or she is speaking for all of us. Last I checked, we weren't the Borg. Barack is not our spokesperson. Be aware of bigoted critics, but also be aware of following him like a blind dog. Whether you like it or not, there are other issues on the table besides us and him. He knows it. So should you.

Don't Ask Barack for No 40 Acres OR a Mule

Okay, my peeps, I'm not exactly telling you to stop huffing the Obama glue yet. We need to enjoy the love affair for as long as we can, because the man has to clean up eight year's worth of a big steaming pile of you-know-what—he's going to get his hands dirty. What I am encouraging you to do is temper your expectations.

Mainly, don't go clamoring for reparations for slavery.

Does the government owe us? No doubt, but it shouldn't come in the form of a big ole' check that you'll just run out and blow on some Jordans and a Caddy. Nor should you expect the first black president to push the issue of reparations. It's not a case of whether we should worry "about what white people think." We shouldn't. But the fact of the matter is, they hold a much larger portion of the voting bloc than we do, and as far as I'm concerned, Obama's margin of victory in the popular vote was entirely too close for comfort. This means his margin for error is much tighter. His opponents are wringing their collective hands waiting for him to give black people some sort of unfair advantage, whatever the f*ck that could be. You KNOW this. And the public is fickle. As soon as a Democrat screws up they vote in a Republican and vise versa (except for the last eight years of mass mania.) So what I'm saying is, just because your brother got himself a phat job doesn't mean he's going hire you to be his personal assistant.

What you should expect, in fact, demand, is that Barack begins to build social programs that will invest in the long term elevation of disenfranchised people from across the rainbow. This includes, but is not limited to a few basic reforms:

• Eliminating ghettos. Ghettos are created when poor people are confined to a few areas within a city typically as far as possible from "everybody else," and when transportation to other areas is inadequate at best. This sets up an "us" vs. "them" mentality in both the rich and the poor, leaving no room to imagine a scenario where people of all income levels can reside together. This means building mixed-income housing developments, where a $400/month apartment exists in the same complex as a $2,000/month apartment; building HUD houses in middle-class neighborhoods. It can and has happened in cities across the country, and should become standard practice. Of course there will always be gated communities and the like, but that's fine. We don't want to live with them anyway.
• Socializing health care and education. If you're afraid of the word "socialism," do some research about how well Canada has done with FREE health care and education. And they're still a capitalist society. The two can be integrated successfully.
  
• Investing in truly effective job training programs. I'm not talking about just teaching people how to type so they can work a cash register. I mean building well-funded community centers in the 'hood where people can receive anything from high-quality academic enhancement tutoring to training in the latest computer technology. You want folks off of welfare? This is a good place to start.
  

Now when I say "basic reforms," I don't mean simple or fast. But a well-fed, skilled, healthy black person is a lot less likely to bust a cap in your ass than one who's doing whatever to survive or because he feels like his little three block stretch of turf is the only thing he can really call his. These and other reforms will take a while to get rolling and will require a concerted effort to keep rolling, but in the long run, perpetual motion will kick in and they have the potential to correct the decades of ill we've been combating since Emancipation.

Don't hold your hand out to Barack. Hold your fist up, and make the man that YOU put in office do right the right way: invest, invest, invest in the poor and working class for generations to come. Then we can buy our own damn mules.

"Halfrican-American"? Since When?

As I was persuing CafePress.com, preparing to spend inordinate amounts of money on Barack Obama gear, I came across a t-shirt with an illustration of our president-elect's handsome face bisected vertically, with the left half missing. The text that accompanied the image read: "Halfrican-American." I stared at this thing for about five minutes, trying to decifer its meaning. Is it something created by a person of mixed-raced origins? A hater who wants to remind us that he's not actually black but half-white? Or someone who conjured a clever phrase and just had to put it somewhere? I may never know the answer (though if you do, please, by all means, enlighten me.) All I know is that it pissed me off...a little bit.

Obama has always embraced his mixed-race heritage, and was raised primarily by white family members (including his beloved grandma, rest her soul. I'm still so sad she couldn't hang on long enough to see him win the presidency...) In a campaign where race could have been a time bomb, I applaud him for the classy way he handled the issue while at the same time being open and proud of his origins. But this t-shirt thing stirred up quite a bit of bile for me, for reasons that I can only describe as cultural inheritance.

Ever heard of the "one drop rule"? It is a sticky and complicated concept, but it originated during the late 19th century as an attempt by Southern legislators to maintain "racial purity" among whites and perpetuate the disenfranchisement of blacks in post-slavery US. The parameters of "one-drop" varied from state-to-state, but whether a person had one-eighth, one-sixteenth or one-thirtysecond black ancestry (and the rest white) by the "one drop rule" he or she was black in the eyes of the law. Not mixed, not even "mulatto," but straight up black. If you looked like a member of the Swedish volleyball team, by this rule you were still black. And of course your own sense of identity meant absolutely nothing. People who lived under these laws learned to view themselves as black whether they wanted to or not, because the legal system that enforced Jim Crow segregation never let them live otherwise without fear of "discovery."

The Supreme Court didn't declare the "one drop rule" illegal until 1967, and the concept has been used in court cases as late as the mid-80s to reclassify people from white to black no matter how they had identified or lived their lives. This "rule" remains in the lawbooks of many Southern states to this day. But regardless of the legality of such race-classification, the spirit of the "one drop rule" lives on in the collective American consciousness. People of biracial heritage read as"half-XXX" (black, Native, Asian, Latin, etc.) rather than as "half-white;" it is the "dark" part of their heritage that is called out rather than the white, which is considered to be the default race. (That is a whole other problematic notion...)

Barack Obama is a poster boy for this concept; blacks and whites and for that matter probably everyone else has completely elided his white side. He was the African-American senator from Illinois; on January 20th, 2009 (a date that can't come fast enough) he will be the first African-American president. Anyone who claims his race wasn't an issue in this election is lying or deluded by wishful thinking. It is not a coincidence that such a high percentage of first-time black voters ran to the polls because he reads black. It certainly helps that the man is brilliant and progressive and fresh, but I for one would not have been nearly as excited about an equally brilliant, progressive and fresh white candidate. Why shouldn't we claim him? Everything else in our society, from slavery to this minute, has conspired to label him black. I've never seen a single news story about him containing the words "Biracial presidential candidate Barack Obama," or "Mixed-race senator Barack Obama." Of course it's about race, damn near everything in this country is whether we like it, agree with it or not. And in this case race pretty much means black and white, because that is the specific pathology that has festered in this country for its entire history.

So all of the sudden, here comes this CafePress.com t-shirt that calls Obama "Halfrican-American." Oh really? Do you look at Barack Obama and see a half-white man? Do you look at light-complexioned black people and wonder if they're half-white, or are they just light-complexioned black people to you? You can be darn skippy that when he screws up he'll be black. What if Michelle were white? I bet he'd be even blacker in the eyes of America then.

I have already clarified that I am pleased the man ackowledges everything that he is. And if it is a person of mixed black origins who created that t-shirt, more power to you--you have every right to claim him as well. But I hope you can relate to my point of view. "One-drop" has been used to oppress and punish us (and those who consider themselves not quite "us") for decades. In this country, we have been conditioned that white + black = black. Now, in the highest office of politics in the United States, we can take the "one drop rule" and turn it on its ear, claim it as a rally to empowerment, rub it in their faces. To those old Southern lawmakers and their adherents past and present, guess what? Your president is BLACK.

Why the Passing of Prop. 8 Makes Some of Us Hypocrites

The most important point that supporters of Proposition 8 seem to have missed is that this is a matter of civil rights, not religious beliefs. Those who would cite religion as their reason for voting in favor of this proposition are caught up in a game of semantics. If you believe that the state should not interfere in matters concerning religious freedom, then by simple logic you ought to believe that religious beliefs should not interfere in state legislation.

The amendment to the California Constitution called for by Prop. 8 reads:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

The ProtectMarriage.com website states the following reasons to support Proposition 8:

• It restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and what Californians agree should be supported, not undermined.

• It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people.

• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs.

Here is where semantics come into play. I believe that the word "marriage" is what's causing all the brouhaha. Those who oppose Prop. 8 are not demanding that religious institutions perform same-sex marriages. Religious institutions have the right, and will always have the right (provided there is no change to the First Amendment) to practice as they please without undue interference from state or federal legislation. This is as it should be. One of the principles that makes this country great is our access to religious freedom without political persecution. However, there is a difference between "marriage" as recognized by one's religion and a civil marriage as defined by the state. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a "civil marriage" is defined as, "A marriage ceremony performed by a civil official." CIVIL official, not religious. All that news footage you saw of same-sex couples running to city hall showed people clamoring to engage in civil marriages, performed by a secular body. California law clearly states:

“no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

This also applies to the tax-exempt status of religious institutions: it will not be tampered with. And not to be forgotten, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Along with protecting freedom of speech, it also protects the right to exercise your religion as you see fit. No state legislation can counteract that right. In the case of Prop. 8 and the word "marriage," do not confuse the issue: voting against it is not voting against your religious beliefs or the right to practice them. It is voting for civil rights. (On the same note, the US Constitution contains zero verbiage prohibiting same-sex unions.)

Regarding the "activist Supreme Court judges," they have the authority to overturn laws that they deem unconstitutional regardless of voter sentiment. If a white power group gathered enough signatures to place a proposition on the ballot that would rescind the right of blacks to vote, and the country voted it in to law, wouldn't you want the Supreme Court to have the ability to overturn it?

As far as children being taught that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, this assertion has no basis in fact. First of all, "same-sex" marriages, which are civil marriages, are not the same as marriages performed in a religious ceremony, any more than civil marriages between heterosexual couples are the same as religious marriages between heterosexuals. I was never taught anything about any type of marriages in school, neither have any of my friends with children currently in school mentioned anything of the sort. This is not required by the California Public School System curriculum. If you're worried about your children being exposed to gay issues, it is your duty to teach them whatever it is that you believe regarding homosexuality. Schools are not responsible for raising your children, you are. (I will also go out on a limb and say that hearing about gays will not make your children gay.)

Barack Obama, the man that most of us voted for to assume the office of the 44th President of the United States, has expressed two different, but not contradictory, viewpoints regarding "gay marriage." He is a Christian man, and as such, believes that a Christian marriage is defined by his religious beliefs as a sacred union between one man and one woman. No disrespecting that. However, he also opposed Prop. 8, because he recognizes civil marriage as a right that should be extended to every American. He is a supporter of civil rights at the same time that he maintains his religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. How much research did you do regarding his position on this issue?

How does all this apply specifically to African-Americans? You already know. What other minority in this country ought to understand the necessity of civil rights more than we? Some controversy has erupted since the polls closed on November 4th about whether or not the unprecedented number of black (and Latino) voters were responsible for the success of Prop. 8. This feels like scapegoating considering blacks only make up about 10% of the voting bloc. We definitely did not all vote for it, because unlike what some believe, we are a diverse people who don't operate as a hive mind. But I don't care if only two of us voted for it—ya'll done did dirt. If you understand the history of Christianity and African-Americans, you know it is a complex one fraught with both salvation and degradation. (To my brothers and sisters who follow a religion other than Christianity, please don't think I'm excluding you from the conversation. I am speaking on Christianity as the religion of the majority of African-Americans and the longest standing religion of our people in this country. Rest assured, non-Christians have much to learn from this as well.)

My great-grandfather, Rev. Roland C. Lamb, Sr., helped found Providence Baptist Church in Philadelphia in 1938, and various family members have served there ever since; I understand the role of the black church in the black community. The black church has been the center of our culture since slavery. While white Christian slave holders used the Bible to justify slavery for more than 250 years (in much the same way the Bible is being used to justify homophobia) the black church focused on the teachings of Jesus, which emphasize love, compassion and brotherhood, and condemns hypocrisy among religious leaders, messages that our ancestors dearly craved while they were being systematically stripped of their humanity. Enslaved blacks who wished to be married were often forced to seek the approval of their so-called masters in order to do so, and even then their unions were considered outside of lawful marriage. If you haven't read Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, you need to get on that yesterday. He breaks down the heinous hypocrisy of alleged Christian slave holders from his standpoint as a former slave. It is a perfect example of how religion can be employed to justify any oppression.

"This sort of marriage is not in the best interest of children."
"God has a plan for marriage and this isn't it."
"Allowing this kind of marriage will pave the way for all sorts of moral depravity."
—Comments from the 1960s on the interracial marriage of one man and one woman: Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving
(From ReligiousTolerance.org.)

Sound familiar? Perhaps these are similar to words you've uttered yourself or were spoken by your preacher regarding gay marriage. Do you, as a heterosexual, want the state to dictate to you who you can and cannot marry, regardless of how you feel about marrying outside of your race? Oh, yes, another note about the black church: it was integral to the organization of the Civil Rights Movement.

This is just the beginning of the hypocrisy of voting for Prop. 8. Do you know who funded this campaign? Mormons from Utah, in collaboration with the Catholic church. They raised over $35 million to tell you what you ought to believe. Do you know the history of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints (the Mormon religious institution) and African-Americans? Black (men) were not allowed to hold priesthood in this church until 1978. The following information can be found at the Black Mormon Homepage:

"From 1832 when the Church was founded, until 1848, there were no restrictions upon Black Mormons, and Black Mormons worshiped on equal status with white Mormons in the Church. But from 1848 until June 8th, 1978, Black Mormons were "banned" from the priesthood (which all male Mormons over 12 hold), and from worshiping in Mormon Temples. This was called "The Priesthood-ban". During those 130 years (1848 to 1978) Mormon Church leaders taught, as official Church doctrine, that Negroes were the "cursed" children of Cain, that the Mark of Cain was a black skin, and that Negroes were "less valiant" in the War in Heaven (a battle between Jesus and Lucifer before this planet was created in which all human spirits were involved)".

Read the rest of the explanation; it attests that Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon religion, was not racist, and explains the repeal of the "The Priesthood-ban." I encourage research on the matter, as it bears much consideration. The point is, restrictions were placed on the participation of blacks in this church until well after the Civil Rights Movement began. (And if you want to know how this belief system positions women, further research is absolutely necessary.) It is to their credit that they have since rescinded this restriction, but just because you may agree with Mormons that same-sex marriage is a sin, this doesn't mean they hold you in true solidarity. Legacies of racism die hard. Consider the source and reconsider your stamp of approval.

Now I ask you, how does same-sex marriage really affect you in a negative manner? Does it negate "traditional" marriage? Does every gay civil marriage performed in California cancel out a heterosexual marriage? Does it drive up the already high divorce rate among men and women? Does it discourage heterosexuals from marrying in the first place? If you can show me statistics or valid anecdotes that gay marriage = the demise of heterosexual marriage, I will eat every word on this page. The notion of "protecting" or "restoring" traditional marriage is nothing more than word-play. If you truly believe that gay marriage somehow undermines the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, then you need to seriously question the integrity of heterosexual marriage; if it can so easily be undone by gay marriage, then the weakness lies within these unions, not in the "evil" of gay marriage. Let us as black people look to our own if we're so anxious about the erosion of traditional marriage.

If you think about the rights civil marriage bestows upon people, many are essential rights that everyone who is a citizen of a free country ought to enjoy. (For that matter, many ought to be bestowed to people whether they're in a committed union or not.) I challenge you to examine these rights, and ask yourself, as one who has professed to embrace the New Covenant, embraced the teachings of Jesus, as a person whose ancestors were deprived of civil rights by so-called Christians who considered them 3/5 human at best, who used the Bible to enslave them, can you honestly look yourself in the mirror and say you are not a hypocrite? The following link outlines the rights bestowed to married couples. Review it and ask yourself why any human should be deprived of these rights on the basis of who they love and to whom they want to commit.

NOLO Press on Marriage Rights

And if you think there is no religious support for same-sex marriages, you are mistaken. Many religious institutions recognize the necessity of civil rights being bestowed upon every citizen. Here are just a few links:

Interfaith Working Group Online
ReligiousTolerance.org
United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage
Mormons Divided On Same-Sex Marriage Issue

I would like to leave you with this: If you are thinking, Why should I care about gay civil rights? Don't we, as African-Americans, have enough of a hot mess on our plates as we wage war against the institutionalized racism that continues to hound us, nearly 150 years after Emancipation? Of course we do. But this is not a matter of "our oppression is worse than their oppression." The issue is a group of people's ability to have their love recognized by the state in an official way, one that grants them access to the rights of civil marriage, one that has nothing to do with your religion. Love, and the free expression of that love, is a not privilege that we can think about only once we stop smoking crack and shooting each other. Love and companionship is not only a white gay issue because they do not bear the burden of slavery. This is a black issue, because a society that permits any sort of discrimination is an unstable and untrustworthy one. It is a society that is unwilling to commit fully to social justice. We cannot afford, as people who have not long been considered citizens in this country, to throw up our hands and say, well, that's their problem. Whites, gays, Jews, etc. all participated in the Civil Rights Movement, they all marched with Dr. Martin Luther King. Do you think Dr. King would have voted in favor of Prop. 8? He was not simply fighting for blacks. He believed in a just society for all people. Remember the adage, "None of us are free unless all of us are free," and reexamine what gives you the authority to denounce anyone's freedom.