A+ R A-

More Commentary

Getting Rid of Shanahan and the 'Redskins' Name

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) I was not at all surprised that the Washington Redskins canned Coach Mike Shanahan. Three losing seasons over four years does not make for career advancement. So, on to next season, I guess. Yet, I found myself wondering, once again, why it seems so easy for the owners of the Washington football team to make any number of changes except the one that might actually make a difference for their future: change their name.

Most recently, team owner Daniel Snyder supposedly wanted to convince an increasingly skeptical public about his alleged concerns for Native Americans. Visiting Native Americans and getting a better sense of their miserable conditions was a noble move, but it does not make up for the recurring insult to Native Americans by his refusal to change his team’s name. It almost reminds me of someone talking bad about my mother while having a smile on their face.

Please understand that it is important that Snyder and other members of the wealthy classes of the U.S. get a better understanding of the horrendous conditions experienced by Native Americans. It would be especially useful for Snyder and his colleagues to study a little history to gain an appreciation of the genocide and marginalization experienced by Native Americans. But it is also important that Snyder, et.al. understand that the problem is not one that exists only in the past; there are continuing violations of the humanity of Native Americans. The exposure to and repetition of racist insults against Native Americans is illustrative of this pattern of continuing violations.

So, after another losing season perhaps Snyder, et.al. might consider that this may be the time for a really big change. Perhaps this is an opportunity for Snyder, et.al. to begin to face the ramifications of a history of very real and criminal actions perpetrated against a very real portion of humanity.

Until this happens, I hope that the Washington football team keeps losing.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him on Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

New York City's Progressive Challenge to America

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) The inauguration of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio on January 1 signaled an important left-of-center turning point in the evolution of progressive politics. It’s important not only for the largest city in America, but also for the masses of people who increasingly live in major urban centers throughout the world.

Mayor de Blasio represents a new challenge for a more “progressive” urban change and leadership in America. If the new mayor of New York City is successful in championing the cause of economic equality across the lines of race, class and gender, it will have a transformative impact on how other big cities are led and changed.

After being sworn in by former President Bill Clinton, de Blasio stood at the podium to boldly proclaim, “We care called to put an end to economic and social inequalities that threaten to unravel the city that we love.”

The term “progressive” is simply defined as an individual or group generally classified as liberal in making commitments and actions in support of social, racial and economic equality. Put another way, a progressive is defined as one who seeks reform, change or improvement for the greater good of all.

African Americans and Latino Americans in particular know first-hand the social, racial and ethnic inequalities that characterize major metropolitan areas throughout the United States. This has always been a tale of two cities for them – a city for the superrich and a city of the superpoor. De Blasio declared, “When I said we would take dead aim at the tale of two cities, I meant it. And we will do it. I will honor the faith and trust you have placed in me. And we will give life to the hope of so many in our city. We will succeed … as one city.”

It is important to note that Mayor de Blasio was overwhelmingly elected last November with over 74 percent of the vote. His campaign did not shy away from a stern left-of-center progressive stance on all the major municipal political issues from education, employment, health care, and criminal justice to economic equality. The majority of New York voters knew who and what they were voting for by electing Bill de Blasio.

Hopefully, this will also be a teachable moment for others who seek political office. There have been too many closet progressives or liberals who have felt erroneously that in order to be elected, they had to hide or camouflage the fact that they were actual liberal in their principles and perspectives. Of course, those kind of politically camouflaged elected officials usually end up failing because they have been too cowardly to stand up for their principles.

Harry Belafonte’s also did not shy away from speaking the truth at Mayor de Blasio’s inauguration. He stated, “While it is encouraging to know that the statistics have indicated a recent drop in our city’s murder rate, New York alarmingly plays a tragic role in the fact that our nation has the largest prison population in the world.”

He explained, “Much of that problem stems from issues of race, perpetuated by the depth of human indifference to poverty. Changing the stop-and-frisk law is as important as it is the change of the law is only the tip of the iceberg in fixing our deeply Dickensian justice system.” Of course, Brother Belafonte was correct and on point.

It is refreshing to see the re-emergence of elected officials who are not afraid to represent their constituents and to speak truth to power. The eyes of the world will be watching New York City to see whether there is fundamental change. At least for first days of 2014, the city appears to be headed in a good direction with a good leader. Belafonte said it best: “Bill de Blasio gives New York another opportunity to open the door of possibilities. We, New Yorkers, must not let him fail…. We’ve got a lot of work to do, so let’s get busy.”

Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr. is President of Education Online Services Corporation and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, He can be reached at: http://drbenjaminfchavisjr.wix.com/drbfc

Intolerable Wages Feed Strikes by Fast Food Workers

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) The mainstream media has had difficulty understanding the eruption of strikes in the fast food industry. They have acted as if they have come out of nowhere and for no apparent reason. Neither is true.

The strikes in the fast food industry are the result of intolerable wages and working conditions faced by a workforce that has become increasingly dependent on this sector of the economy in order to survive. Today’s fast food industry is a bit different from days of old. The jobs in fast food are no longer being held exclusively by teenagers and 20-plus who are in school looking for some extra money. As the economy has reorganized and older workers have been thrown out of full-time employment, the fast food industry has become a location one step away from unemployment and homelessness for many workers of various ages.

The strikes, which were initiated by organizing conducted by a project of the Service Employees International Union, have become a front-line in the battle against the polarization of wealth in the U.S. Specifically, these are fights over the immediate necessity to raise the minimum wage. Fast food workers are generally kept at substandard wages and have to piece together various part-time jobs (much like workers in retail). They have few, if any, benefits and do not know from one day to the next whether they actually have a job that will last for any significant duration.

The fast food strikes have come to resemble the movement for the 8-hour day from the 19th century. In that case, workers undertook strikes, demonstrations and other forms of protest – including the strikes that led to the creation of May Day as “International Workers Day” – in order to demand that there be a shorter workweek with no cut in pay. Today’s fast food workers are making an analogous demand: they want a livable wage.

Fast food workers are fighting the good fight not only for themselves but for other vulnerable workers. They know that their conditions will not improve by bargaining a contract one fast food outlet at a time, but that instead there needs to be a governmental raise in the minimum wage and, frankly, there need to be industry standards to which all fast food—and retail—outlets are held. This will happen if and only if there is a continuous outpouring of public support, much of which has already occurred.

Thus, these actions are being conducted by some very courageous workers of all ages who have decided that they have had enough. They need to know that you are backing them up.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the chairman of the Retail Justice Alliance which supports workers in the retail industry fighting for fairness. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” - And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. He can be followed on Facebook and www.billfletcherjr.com.

What Color Is Your Santa Claus?

E-mail Print PDF

By Lee A. Daniels
NNPA Columnist

In case you haven’t noticed, ‘tis the season … to have another controversy illuminating America’s race-driven fault lines.

This time we can thank Fox News’ talk-show host Megyn Kelly for responding to a December 12 essay by writer Aisha Harris on Slate.com that criticized what Harris said was the outdated notion of Santa Claus as a White man.

Harris wrote of the “two different Santa Clauses” of her childhood – the White Santa of the larger American culture, and the one who existed within her family: her father, whose “skin was as dark as mine.”

Noting that “Like the holiday itself,” Santa Claus today is far removed from his religious origins and the real-life historical 4th-century Christian bishop, St. Nicholas, Harris asserted the ecumenical spirit of Santa Claus was its most important feature. She recommended that because television programs and films have made children so used to seeing animals with human characteristics and conveying human meaning, Santa Claus should be a penguin.

Kelly a few days later declared on her program she was having none of it: “For all you kids watching at home, Santa just is White.” And for good measure she added that Jesus was “White,” too.

Naturally, the blogosphere and the twitterverse had a field day, with many agreeing with Harris that today’s Santa Claus isn’t a person but a symbol of kindness, compassion, and putting the happiness of others above one’s own.

That spirit was beautifully described in writer Soraya Chemaly’s poignant remembrance in Salon.com of her Christmas’ “growing up in a British colony as it went through independence,” where almost “every Santa I remember seeing … was a black man.”

“When it comes to Santa,” she wrote, “the most ‘real’ thing about him is millions of parents, often but not always mothers, who quietly work away into the wee hours, tiptoeing in darkened rooms so Santa can get everything done before daybreak. … It wasn’t until I had my own small children that I fully realized how much time, effort and thoughtfulness my mother put into making sure that Santa Claus was so amazing and that Christmas was fantastical.”

She concluded with this: “Given the way childcare is still distributed, most of the time, women and mothers are doing the invisible work that Santa relies on to get through his busy night. If there is one thing for sure, Santa will not be a small, brown woman for some time to come. This self-erasure is poignant, and not an entirely positive lesson. Given the history of the United States in particular, the darker a parent, the more poignant the erasure. However, it is a testament of the purest kind of love. The rank parsimony of insisting on Santa’s whiteness with such vehemence is an ironic way to defend the idea of selfless giving.”

Confronted with an onslaught of facts about the origins of both Santa Claus and Jesus, Kelly two days later declared she had “learned … [it is] far from settled” whether the color of Jesus’ skin was or was not White. (Actually, it is settled that the color of his skin was not White; the question is what shade of brown was Jesus.)

Kelly characterized her earlier statement about Santa as a “tongue-in-cheek,” humorous response to Aisha Harris’s essay. She then added that those criticizing her represented “the knee-jerk instinct by so many to race-bait and to assume the worst in people, especially people employed by the very powerful Fox News Channel.”

Those transparent claims aside, this season’s “Santa controversy” underscores the broader tension that has gripped American society since the civil rights victories of the 1960s erased the color line’s hard, legalized barriers.

It revolves around the same fundamental question that has always defined black-White relations in America: Where’s the “tipping point?” – that point along the spectrum from intolerance to tolerance where the dominant group’s resistance to those who are different flares.

Soraya Chemaly made just this point about Megyn Kelly’s attempt to place a Whites-only sign on two of the world’s revered icons.

“What some people are unwilling to digest,” she said, “is that while they can see themselves, or specific prioritized aspects of themselves, everywhere in culture, they obstinately deny others the exact same right. … they cannot even imagine what it is like to admire and love people who don’t look like them. People of other colors. People of other genders. People of other sexes. ”

Lee A. Daniels is a longtime journalist based in New York City. His latest book is Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America.

Shaking Hands with Raul Castro

E-mail Print PDF

Bill Fletcher, Jr.(NNPA) I have had difficulty believing the uproar in right-wing circles over President Obama shaking hands with Cuba’s President Raul Castro. For goodness sakes, it was at the memorial for Nelson Mandela! Should Obama have spat in the face of Castro?

The hypocrisy of the political Right has been amazing. Comparing shaking Castro’s hand to shaking hands with Hitler? Do these folks have no sense of history? Senator McCain, who decided to enter the fray, condemned President Obama, but it was McCain who shook the hand of the late president of Libya, Qaddafi, who the USA described as being everything but a child of God. So, why did McCain not show his rear to Qaddafi?

It is this attitude of arrogance and bullying that unsettles most of the planet. The political Right believes that the U.S. should treat the rest of the world with contempt unless the world accepts our terms. The rest of the world has a different view.

If it stopped there it would be bad enough, but it gets worse. This idea of bullying helps to explain why we are much too close to war with Iran. It is from Republican and many Democratic politicians that we have suggestions that the recent agreement with Iran was too timid. As I have asked, would they rather war? The answer seems to be “yes,” they want the total surrender by the Iranians to the terms that the U.S. dictates. As it is said, that is a non-starter. But it also helps to explain why countries find it difficult to trust the intentions of this country.

This brings us back to Raul Castro. The U.S. has been working to destroy the Cuban Revolution for more than 50 years. It has orchestrated a blockade, carried out terrorist assaults, assassination attempts, as well as overtly and covertly supported Cuban exiles in terror campaigns. In the international arena that is known as aggression.

So, rather than asking the question of whether it was appropriate for President Obama to be polite and to shake the hand of President Castro, one can actually ask: Was it not exceptional that President Castro was so polite when the leader of the country that has been attempting to overthrow his administration and has permitted the existence of terrorists on its soil offered his hand?

Just asking.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him on Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Page 12 of 89

Quantcast