Boys and Toy Guns: A Black Mom’s Reflection

I have had writer’s block for nearly two months.

I am drained.

We write, we protest, we stand up and things keep going as they have gone. We can recount all of the names of our fallen. The images of crying parents are imprinted on our souls. Earlier this week, yet another grand jury refused to indict police officers for criminal behavior. The murder of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy shot within seconds by an unfit police officer, should shock America’s conscience.

This country is morally bankrupt. Our injustice system is rigged against people of color and poor people.

When I was growing up, my mother never allowed us to play with toy guns. She felt that guns should be used wisely and were not for play.  Even our water guns looked like animals. The no-toy-guns rule stayed with me when I began raising my own children. Somehow I believed it would keep them safe. When we moved to West Virginia in 2010, my son made some great friends through Cub Scouts. Although we were often the only black family around, the kids were always welcome. There was never any feeling of not belonging or of sticking out. We fell into a great circle of people. There were times when race seemed to not really matter.

One time, when my son was about 7, we were at a play date. His new friend wanted to play guns in the backyard. My son knew my rule, but his friend thought it was unfair because they could have so much fun. So his friend asked why I wouldn’t let my son play with guns — they were fun, of course! His parents paused and tried to help shoo the kids away. I explained to him that where I grew up guns were not toys and we didn’t play with them. People used guns to kill each other not for fun. The little boy had no frame of reference for what I was talking about. The innocence in this kid’s face simply faded away. My son looked uncomfortable. It was a moment we all needed to experience. Eventually I gave in and allowed my son to play in the woods with his friend. They played army and hunting. With another friend he built his own tree stand. But there were rules and parameters. I let him go shooting and to target practice. We were in West Virginia and this was common — what harm could there be?

He is older now, and the rules have once again changed upon moving to the Atlanta area. We impress upon the children the importance of being mindful of their surroundings and how they interact with others. I do not want my kids to live in fear, but they need to be aware. In fact, they are fearless and intent on doing anything and everything they set their minds upon. However, “good” behavior might not save them.

I cannot help but look at my son, with headphones on, excited for his birthday. My son who even at 5’8” is my baby. He is the younger of my two children, but he is often mistaken for an older teen. All I see is the same little face looking at me. The same face that looked up at me when he was in preschool.

My son got a paintball gun for Christmas.  Not thinking, he ran outside to show his friends. As soon as I realized he was outside, I freaked out and made him come back inside. I scolded him for not thinking. No matter what, he always has to think. No, the paintball gun does not look real, but what does that matter?

I shared my Christmas day story with my godmother, who recounted a time when my  little brother was surrounded in a park by police with guns. He had been playing with friends who had BB guns. He did not have one. Some neighbor frantically called the cops because there were people in the park running around with guns. It never occurred to anyone that these were kids playing. With the area surrounded by police with drawn guns, my little brother hid in a bush and called my godmother. My godmother contacted the mother of one of the other boys and urged her to go across the street to the park and help diffuse the situation. Thankfully, all three boys left the scene unharmed.

As I listened to the commentary earlier his week regarding the grand jury’s decision to not indict the officers who ended Tamir’s life, these stories flashed in my mind. My momentary panic came back when I thought about my son outside holding his new paintball gun. I couldn’t help but think how lucky we were. How easily a kid excitedly showing his new Christmas present could’ve gone wrong. Or how common it is for little boys in West Virginia to play with replica guns. Or even to do target practice, for “fun.” My son’s friend was most proud of his sniper rifle. It was a toy. No one would ever think that despite its appearance, he actually had a real gun. And even if someone thought it was real, he would be given the opportunity to explain the situation.  His parents probably never thought twice about the way he would be perceived with such “toys” in his possession.

My son turned 12 on Tuesday.  He is an average sixth-grader. He likes to play with his friends, and he jokes around more than he should. However, at 5’8” and 130 pounds, he is often perceived as older than he is. He wears size 13 shoes. None of this should matter … but it does. As he attempted to justify the grand jury decision, the Cuyahoga County prosecutor discussed Tamir’s size and appearance as “older” — as if somehow his mere presence as a seemingly “big black man” justified the officers’ actions.

Jumping out gangster-shootout style and murdering a child in two seconds is not reasonable. It is not justifiable.

There is no excuse for not indicting the officers in question. We must stop allowing irrational fears and stereotypes to be viewed as reasonable in the eyes of the law. We must stop protecting police officers and police departments from the reckless and indifferent choices they make. No one who reasonably fears for their life runs up on an allegedly armed person and just starts shooting wildly.

This ain’t the wild wild west.

You are not in a gangster movie. And that is not a tommy gun.

We need to demand that prosecutors like Timothy McGinty of Cuyahoga County be held accountable. There is no reason for a prosecutor to botch a criminal case. NONE. Sir, you do not work for the police.  Your job is to uphold the law and pursue justice for the citizens of your jurisdiction.

Prosecutors fail to do their duty, when they refuse to prosecute cases against police officers. A grand jury inquiry is a very low legal threshold. Probable cause is a lower standard than even preponderance of the evidence, the standard in a civil case. As we know, in many of these cases, municipalities and counties are paying out millions of dollars for single incidents. This does not include the money paid for wrongful property damage and injuries. Coddling “bad” officers only reinforces this untouchable notion.

There is no deterrent for bad behavior. There is no check on the corruption from absolute power. It is dangerous to have individuals who are above the law. This isn’t Judge Dredd. Everyone should be held accountable for the things they do. The officer who killed Tamir Rice should be held accountable for the reckless and cavalier attitude with which he took an innocent life. Earlier this summer a municipal court judge in Cleveland determined there was probable cause  to arrest the officer who murdered Tamir Rice.  In two seconds, he could not have evaluated the entire situation. In two seconds, he could not have given time for Tamir to respond.

Deadly force is used in far too many instances in which police officers misjudge situations, presume incorrectly and make fatal errors rooted in stereotypes and irrational fear. We need to look at law enforcement training and use of force through the lens of international human rights law, not the “reasonable officer” standard. What is considered reasonable officer behavior has been passed down through the vestiges of a system ingrained with racial and ethnic disparities.

I try not to worry about if someone will overreact to my son because he is “so big for his age.” How could they? He still has that sweet baby face and pleasant disposition. To know him is to love him.  My son says “yes ma’am” and “no sir.” That matters, right? That’s what we are told. As long as we behave and follow the rules, everything will be fair. Right?



#FeelTheBern Why We Bern Bright in the 2016 Election Cycle

Here we are – another presidential election season, with big choices to make. The battle is in full swing, with the candidates trying to build up support and solidify their positions. I am a #BlackBerner and I am with #Women4Bernie.

I sat down with the intention of writing a response to an article about why black people are not supporting Bernie.  But  I realized that what we really need is a conversation about how to engage in the political process this election season and beyond. Despite being a Black woman from a socially conscious family, I could not adequately articulate reasons for why Black people are reluctant to support someone whose platform coincides with many of the issues that have been long neglected in Black communities.  To me it is a no brainer. But everyone is different.  Like any other segement of the population we are not a monolithic group, following one supreme platform. While I have fully embraced being part of the growing grassroots movement to change the status quo, there are many people who aren’t “feeling” Bernie or they are “turned off” by his supporters. Others say he does not “know how to campaign” in Black communities.

That last one should be refreshing. It’s true,  Bernie isn’t well-versed in the practice of greasing palms, kissing rings, and invoking the black church pastor in his speeches. He is a straight shooter from Brooklyn. He pulls no punches when he talks, and doesn’t back down from speaking the truth not just what sounds good in that moment.

Some people find the incessant Bernie news, updates, and memes annoying; however, we have a message of change and progress, and it must be heard. Change is not easy, but it is absolutely necessary.

Gil Scott-Heron famously said, “the revolution will not be televised.” It also will not be published or recorded. This revolution is driven by the people and for the people, and with dollars from the people!

And it is not just Black voters who are wary or reluctant to #FeelTheBern.  Millions of people nationwide are discouraged. They see no reason to get politically active, let alone vote. Leaders in politics, business, and even some in the labor movement ignore the needs of the people and vote for their own interests. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Certain members of state and national “leadership” are deeply entrenched in the political elite in general, and in the Democratic Party establishment specifically. They are comfortable working within that system. It has benefited them and, to a lesser extent, their causes.

But we have to be real. Those leaders have failed Black, Brown, and poor communities nationwide on issues such as wage inequality, public school quality, infrastructure development, Social Security, unemployment, domestic violence, police brutality, high interest rates, and high foreclosure.

This election cycle, we must move beyond the rat race of the past 50 years. We must be more critical than ever and make choices differently from how we did in the past. Change is neccessary to sustain and maintain “progress.” As we have seen with the rollback of voting rights in several places, most notably in Alabama, we cannot rest on our laurels or the laws meant to protect us! Yes, people might sound good and talk a good game, but can they back it up? What have they done when faced with the opportunity to make a positive, lasting impact? Have they done what was politically safe? Or have they taken a stand for what is right? Be sure you know your candidate and not just the public face put forward.

I believe there are three basic things everyone should do this election season to be better informed in the voting process:

  1. Figure out why you are “feeling” or not “feeling” a particular candidate. It is ok to not like someone.  But you should be able to clearly articulate why you feel or think the way you do about that person.
  2. Move beyond the sound bites. Move beyond that one headline you read, or that one article you skimmed through. Check the sound bites and “promises” against voting records. Go to the candidates’ pages and read their plans and proposals. Go to neutral websites to see where candidates stand on issues that matter to you.  See who donates money to them.  Read what other people are saying about those plans. Also quick check social media posts to make sure it is even accurate. Far too often we post, share, and tweet information that sounds good but isn’t accurate.
  3.  Figure out where your personal/moral political philosophy is, and nurture.  Find groups and candidates that are consistent with where you stand.  Can’t find one? Be bold, start a new group and invite others to join you.  Tap into existing social networks to help find others in your area who may see things the way you do.

Some people have expressed stressful interactions with Bernie supporters.  It has been said that we are annoying and condescending among other things.  For the most part, grassroots volunteers for Bernie are tired of the needs of the people not being met.  We are tired of politics as usual and we’re pushing ahead against a huge political machine that would rather silence us then see us win.  We do not simply need change we believe in, or hope, we need to revitalize the working and middle class and provide meaningful opportunities for all and not just the super wealthy.  It can happen if people decide that is something worth fighting for.  All movements have growing pains, but we need to the take time to reflect and evaluate strategies and messaging as we are moving along in our work.   No matter how righteous our quest, there is always space to adjust approaches and tweak messaging.  We can be passionate and committed without being condescending and judgmental.

There is much at stake. Sometimes it is good to take a step back and see the big picture. We are running a marathon not a 100-m sprint.  Whether we like it or not, as members of a grassroots movement, we are de facto representatives of our candidate.  We need to make sure we are communicating in a manner that is consistent with the campaign’s overall goals and objectives.  Know your audience and adjust accordingly.  Even if you are not officially aligned with the campaign, modeling the behavior of the candidate we support will go a long way in terms of building goodwill with potential voters. Arrogant condescending commentary will not help our cause.  From the hood to the hollers, we have to put forth our best efforts in the fight for 2016 and beyond.

In order to have real, meaningful change in our communities, we must use our networks to develop and nurture talent at the local and state levels. This isn’t some corporate shill campaign with a multimillion-dollar war chest. This is a people-powered movement. We are about people. Feedback, criticism, and input from other supporters and undecided folks is crucial — but it’s got to be constructive. Vague comments help nobody. Mere naysaying, without concrete feedback, hinders progress.

In addition, we need to work hard to organize and mobilize voters from underrepresented populations. People power is essential to ensuring the promises of equality for all. Although certain candidates may be more admired, or folks are nostalgic for a time long past, we need practical solutions and a commitment to dramatic change.  We cannot discount the value of interacting with others and helping them actualize the full potential of their power. Contrary to popular belief, VOTING IS POWER.  To people sitting on the sidelines…get involved. Help shape the policy and initiatives you wish to see addressed. Demanding that candidates do x, y, and z is great, but discussing why those initiatives matter and helping to shape policy is even better.  Demanding changes, without specifics, will leave you even more unsatisfied than when you first engaged in the process.

How much more are we willing to take before we stop accepting business as usual? How do we reach people who have been cheated out of their vote? Every election cycle we hear people say, “vote for the lesser of two evils.” In every election cycle, we see candidates who appeal to the fears and prejudices cultivated by years of misinformation and underdevelopment.  In both scenarios, hardworking people lose out, while big business and friends keep blossoming.

It is well past time to take our country back from the top 1%. Together we can overcome every obstacle and dismantle corporate America’s stranglehold on the nation.

I am all in with #Bernie2016 — but I know many people who either are not “feeling him” or are on the fence. Still others happily support different candidates.

Regardless of whom you support, I hope we can continue to motivate and engage new and old voters alike. Voting is only one of many ways in which we can create sustainable, positive change in our communities and country. Electing a president with a progressive platform is a lofty goal, but it can become reality when the people fully embrace it.

We need to step outside of our comfort zones, listen to what other people need, and speak up when we must.

The DNC – “This Organization is Powered by You!”

Our country is at a crossroads.  We can either continue down this path of dismantling the backbone of our society (the working and middle class) or we can change course and rebuild opportunities for American families to thrive. As we exist in a two party system, both groups vie for the attention and support of the average American.  No matter how much certain special interest spend on votes they still need YOU to show up and vote.  Often people are heard saying they are voting for a lesser of two evils. But what if you didn’t have to? What if you could vote your conscience and not against your interest? The National Democratic Party positions itself as being of the people, for the people, by the people.  During a twitter exchange, I was pointed to a “preliminary report”[1] released in February 2015 by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that examined why Democrats were losing.  The report was authored by the Democratic Victory Taskforce, as group appointed by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Although primarily focused on mid-term election losses in 2014, the report looked at historical trends affecting voter motivation and participation.[2]

The national Democratic Party must never allow itself to become a party of Beltway consultants who routinely recommend cookie-cutter campaigns that are detached from the concerns of the people we hope to represent, at the city, state, and federal level. In order to consistently win on every level, we have to reconnect with the reason we want to win—and that reason is the people. The national party must work with and help grow state and local parties, to empower the people to participate in politics, while recruiting and training the next generation of office holders. Democrats must stand for the right of all eligible Americans to be able to register, to vote, and to have their vote counted fairly and accurately. The Democratic Party must field candidates everywhere to ensure our message is heard everywhere. The national party needs to strengthen our state and local affiliates, revitalize our grassroots allies and broaden our appeal to stakeholders and others who assist us in elections. Our focus is not just on the presidential election cycles, but also elections for the US House and Senate as well as state and local offices, including midterm and special elections.  We need to speak directly, in ways that make sense and move people to action, addressing the broad, diverse group of Americans that are receptive to the Democratic Party’s message of shared opportunity and prosperity for all Americans. We know that our message is powerful because our opponents are trying to steal it. Income inequality and the resulting middleclass economic stagnation have become so extreme that even the Republicans are giving lip service to economic fairness—even as they advocate policies that would undermine it.

So why am I talking about a six month old “preliminary report”? In the current dash to the nomination, it seems at times as if DNC leadership has already picked its tribute for the general election.  However, the issues and ideas developed in the “preliminary report” suggest the need for a completely different course of action than the one currently employed by DNC leadership.  The alleged values and political philosophy endorsed by the report’s authors, coincide with one of our current candidates for President.  And it isn’t the presumed frontrunner.  These people handpicked by Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, wax on poetically about the need for strengthening grassroots activism and engaging a broad spectrum of constituents on multiple issues.  “We believe that both prosperity and political power thrive best when they grow organically from below instead of being imposed from above.” How can the party claim to want a bottom-top movement on the one hand, while seemingly dictating outcomes on the other? Two areas the Taskforce identified needing improvement were in the party’s ability to engage, motivate, and mobilize voters and in its ability to create an accessible and open party.  I don’t know if this plan has been completely scrapped and it’s still business as usual, or if people at the top really think they have made some changes.  What is clear is that there is a serious disconnect between the DNC elite and rank and file membership. People need to be motivated and engaged on a new level and the existing DNC structure seems incapable of doing so.

A primary example of the entrenched thinking within the DNC is the chairwoman’s refusal to address the issues and alleged biases in the established debate schedule. During the DNC summer meeting, the chairwoman said the debate schedule was within her sole purview and essentially there was no recourse for those who objected.  This combined with an exclusivity clause, thus preventing candidates from engaging in debates other than the sanctioned six limits the public’s exposure to other candidates that could be more appealing to the target voter base.  While I’m sure the chairwoman is content with her little Marie Antoinette moment, it does not sit well with average rank and file Americans the DNC needs to motivate.  Being told who to vote for, and who is “acceptable” only further alienates those core constituencies you are trying to energize.

“The circumstances that led to the series of devastating electoral losses did not develop overnight. Instead they have been building over decades as the political system has been irrevocably changed by the passage of McCain-Feingold and the Citizens United decision.”

Despite lofty statements to the contrary, the DNC is not operating as if it is a party of the people.  It does not operate as if it is a party concerned about the damage done by McCain-Feingold and the erroneous Citizens United decision.   The base is not galvanized nor inspired…at least not by traditional leadership and their handpicked choice for nominee.  Instead of worrying about individual political points and personal positions of authority, DNC leadership should be acting in service to the people it is supposedly set up to represent.

In order to win elections, the Democratic Party must reclaim voters that we’ve lost including white Southern voters, excite key constituencies such as African American women and Latinas, and mobilize the broadest coalition of voters possible to not only recapture state houses but also Congress. In order to better understand how to bring this large coalition together, the Task Force recommends – in tandem with the National Narrative Project – that the DNC’s research delve more deeply into the barriers that keep people from identifying with, and supporting, Democratic candidates. This also includes working to better understand drop off and independent voters

In this 50th year since the passage of the VRA we should not be looking for new ways to deny voters full participation in the process. By failing to have meaningful participation through debates and fair dealings with all candidates, the DNC under Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz is effectively suppressing the vote of millions of Americans before the polls even open.  There is nothing open or accessible about a party that disenfranchises those who it claims to fight for.  There is nothing open or accessible about a leader whose basic response is “my way or the highway.”  That is not how positive sustainable change occurs.  If we as a party are to reclaim what has been lost over prior elections, there needs to be a quick course correction regarding messaging and transparency.  Regardless of who we support for the Democratic nominee, we need to make sure our party is staying true to the meaning of its creed and not just being business as usual.  Stop being the supposed lesser of two evils, and start being a positive choice for the people.  Mean what you say.  If this is truly a party “powered by the people”, then listen to what those people are saying.  Being in charge, doesn’t make you automatically right.

I recently received a lovely offer from DNC HQ.  If I donated any amount, I would be entered in a sweepstakes to meet President Obama. Sounds nice enough right? My response was no. I will not donate any money to this entity because until we have real meaningful debates. Why should I donate money for you to turn around and support a candidate that isn’t of the people’s choosing? By failing to have meaningful debates prior to the start of primary voting, the DNC is effectively putting its need for entrenched power and maintenance of the status quo ahead of the people it claims to represent. This is voter suppression. “This organization is powered by you”? All I could think was really? Do you people not see the disconnect between your alleged message of greater inclusion and your actions? Yeah let’s placate the little people while we do whatever we want. No thank you.

Bottom line the alleged values of the DNC are completely out of alignment with the current actions being taken by leadership on a day to day basis.  We cannot hope to reclaim what was lost by continuing to say one thing while doing another. It’s time to come down off the lofty moral high ground the DNC allegedly occupies and get with the people to build a movement for change from the ground up.  Cream rises to the top…and so shall the best person for the position as Democratic Nominee and next President of the United States of America.


[2] The report further indicates that a final report would be released in May 2015. It is unclear if the final report was completed or was postponed indefinitely.

REPOST: Activists Confront Hillary Clinton – The New York Times

Nice piece by Charles M. Blow. 

“”People from both sides of the aisle have cast poor black people to the wolves and averted their gaze from the ensuing carnage. But in a way, asking liberals to answer for their complicity is even more important than asking conservatives.

More than nine in 10 blacks vote Democratic. That level of fidelity should give black people some leverage, at the very least, to demand accountability

At one point in one of the videos, Clinton said:

“I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate.”

But what if the same person saying that was partially responsible for changing the laws that allocated the resources that built up a system that operated as a tool of destruction?

These young activists, indeed all of us, should expect liberals to have more direct answers for their own actions — and inactions — than the one Clinton gave.

There can be no sacred cows when black people have been treated like sacrificial lambs.”

Activists Confront Hillary Clinton – The New York Times.

Charleston Gazette-Mail | Latest MCHM test results raise more questions

Still no medical monitoring. Still no inhalation studies. Voting matters. Advocacy matters. People have to take an interest in what is happening in their communities.  We need clear guidance and leadership on issues of public health and safety. Stay tuned for more on this topic.

“Federal officials abandoned a plan in the immediate aftermath of the spill to come up with a limit for how much MCHM was safe in the air, no air sampling was done in homes or public buildings, and follow-up research has warned residents could have been exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals during flushing procedures. The most common problems reported after the spill were rashes, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and the most common way injured residents were exposed to the chemical was through skin contact while bathing, showering or washing hands — routes not considered the government’s screening level during the crisis or studied by federal officials since the incident.

During a Wednesday meeting of the state Public Water Supply System Study Commission, Barbara Taylor, a deputy commissioner at the state Bureau for Public Health, summarized previous National Toxicology Program studies for the commission members, but indicated the most recent results were those made public in mid-June. Taylor and Bureau for Public Health Commissioner Dr. Rahul Gupta said after the meeting that they did not know that the July and August updated had been posted online. Gupta said his agency would review the results and discuss them with federal officials.”

– See more at:

Repost: Univ. of California Academic Workers’ Union Calls on AFL-CIO To Terminate Police Union’s Membership – Working In These Times

Should Police Unions/Associations remain under the AFL-CIO umbrella?

“The letter charges that police associations operate in ways that are antithetical to the mission statement of the AFL-CIO, particularly its stated goal “to fulfill the yearning of the human spirit for liberty, justice and community; to advance individual and associational freedom; [and] to vanquish oppression, privation and cruelty in all their forms.”

It provides historical evidence to its allegations, saying, “Police unions in particular emerge out of a long history of police intervention in labor politics and its complicity in racial violence,” before referencing deadly disputes with activist workers in the 19th century, the defense of Jim Crow segregation, the lobbying that enabled the circumstances of Freddie Gray’s death and the crackdown on the Occupy movement across the country as examples of American police acting as a ‘violent supressive force.'”


Univ. of California Academic Workers’ Union Calls on AFL-CIO To Terminate Police Union’s Membership – Working In These Times.


Great read.  Click the link for the full article.


First the black-white circles are almost always a creation of white liberals. As a testimony to their claim of complete identification with the blacks, they call a few “intelligent and articulate” blacks to “come around for tea at home”, where all present ask each other the same old hackneyed question “how can we bring about change in South Africa?” The more such tea-parties one calls the more of a liberal he is and the freer he shall feel from the guilt that harnesses and binds his conscience. Hence he moves around his white circles – whites-only hotels, beaches, restaurants and cinemas -with a lighter load, feeling that he is not like the rest of the others. Yet at the back of his mind is a constant reminder that he is quite comfortable as things stand and therefore should not bother about change. Although he does not vote for the Nats (now that they are in the majority anyway), he feels quite secure under the protection offered by the Nats and subconsciously shuns the idea of a change. This is what demarcates the liberal from the black world. The liberals view the oppression of blacks as a problem that has to be solved, an eye sore spoiling an otherwise beautiful view. From time to time the liberals make themselves forget about the problem or take their eyes off the eyesore. On the other hand, in oppression the blacks are experiencing a situation from which they are unable to escape at any given moment. Theirs is a struggle to get out of the situation and not merely to solve a peripheral problem as in the case of the liberals. This is why blacks speak with a greater sense of urgency than whites’. 

A game at which the liberals have become masters is that of deliberate evasiveness. The question often comes up “what can I do?”. If you ask him to do something like stopping to use segregated facilities or dropping out of varsity to work at menial jobs like all blacks or defying and denouncing all provisions that make him privileged, you always get the answer -“but that’s unrealistic!”. While this may be true, it only serves to illustrate the fact that no matter what a white man does, the colour of his skin -his passport to privilege -will always put him miles ahead of the black man. Thus in the ultimate analysis no white person can escape being part of the oppressor camp. 

“~here exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant”. 

This description of “metaphysical guilt” explains adequately that white racism “is only possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty” meted out to the black man. Instead of involving themselves in an all-out attempt to stamp out racism from their white society ,liberals waste lots of time trying to prove to as many blacks as they can find that they are liberal. This arises out of the false belief that we are faced with a black problem. There is nothing the matter with blacks. The problem is WHITE RACISM and it rests squarely on the laps of the white society. The sooner the liberals realise this the better for us blacks. Their presence amongst us is irksome and of nuisance value. It removes the focus of attention from essentials and shifts it to ill-defined philosophical concepts that are both irrelevant to the black man and merely a red herring across the track. White liberals must leave blacks to take care of their own business while they concern themselves with the real evil in our society-white racism. 

Secondly, the black-white mixed circles are static circles with neither direction nor programme. The same questions are asked and the same naivete exhibited in answering them. The real concern of the group is to keep the group going rather than being useful. In this sort of set-up one sees a perfect example of what oppression has done to the blacks. They have been made to feel inferior for so long that for them it is comforting to drink tea, wine or beer with whites who seem to treat them as equals. This serves to boost up their own ego to the extent of making them feel slightly superior to those blacks who do not get similar treatment from whites. These are the sort of blacks who are a danger to the community. 

Instead of directing themselves at their black brothers and looking at their common problems from a common platform they choose to sing out their lamentations to an apparently sympathetic audience that has become proficient in saying the chorus of “shame!”. These dull-witted, self-centred blacks are in the ultimate analysis as guilty of the arrest of progress as their white friends for it is from such groups that the theory of gradualism emanates and this is what keeps the blacks confused and always hoping that one day God will step down from heaven to solve their problems. It is people from such groups who keep on scanning the papers daily to detect any sign of the change they patiently await without working for. When Helen Suzman’s* majority is increased by a couple of thousands, this is regarded as a major milestone in the “inevitable change”. Nobody looks at the other side of the coin -the large-scale removals of Afri- cans from the urban areas or the impending zoning of places like Grey Street in Durban and a myriad of other manifestations of change for the worse. 

Does this mean that I am against integration? If by integration you understand a breakthrough into white society by blacks, an assimilation and acceptance of blacks into an already established set of norms and code of behaviour set up by and maintained by whites, then YES I am against it. I am against the superior-inferior white- black stratification that makes the white a perpetual teacher and the black a perpetual pupil (and a poor one at that). I am against the intellectual arrogance of white people that makes them believe that white leadership is a sine qua non in this country and that whites are the divinely appointed pace-setters in progress. I am against the fact that a settler minority should impose an entire system of values on an indigenous people. 


Stephen Biko I Write What I Like – Apartheid South Africa –

Nothin New Under the Sun: Truth, Reconciliation, and State Sanctioned Killings

Today is the born day of Ida B. Wells.  There’s even a google doodle in her honor.  This amazing woman fought tirelessly against racial and gender oppression.  She is the grandmother of intersectionality.  Born into slavery in Mississippi, she advocated around issues ranging from lynchings to women’s suffrage.  Ida B. Wells is one of my personal heroes.  She never backed down and always spoke her mind.   As I think about the legacy of our ancestors, and their tireless battle against state sanctioned killings of Black people I think of Sandra Bland.  By now many are aware that Sandra Bland died in police custody in Waller County, Texas.  She was allegedly arrested after a “routine” traffic stop.  While the “investigation” is underway there are many questions that must be answered.

My mom used to say there ain’t nothing new under the sun.  Sadly, in the case of people of color dying in police custody that is true. Reading about the death of Sandy Bland, like many others I am appalled.  How does one go from an alleged “traffic stop” to lying dead in a jail cell three days later? The suicide while in custody line has been used over and over again, in this country and abroad.  Most notably the Apartheid era police would give some lame excuse for people dying in custody such as suicide or “hunger strikes.”  From the little information we have so far, the circumstances surrounding Sandra Bland’s death do not add up. How does a young woman, ecstatic about starting a new job at her college alma mater, end up taking her own life? And what roll, if any, did the use of force during her arrest play in her untimely death.  From the video, Sandra is questioning the use of force during her arrest.  Did she receive medical treatment for any possible injuries? Was there head trauma from having her head slammed on the ground? Do we really believe that just before being release she decided to hang herself with a plastic bag?

Police disproportionately treat people of color with a brutality and disdain generally displayed by those who abuse animals. In fact if they were abusing animals, there would be harsh penalties. Now some people may say well these people must be doing something wrong, or they shouldn’t have talked back.  Here’s the thing. Police do not have the right (constitutional or otherwise) to use any force they see fit just because they are police.  That’s not the standard. We admonish people for mistreating animals but it is ok for police officers to maim, beat, and kill people of color with no evaluation of appropriateness of anger, intimidation, and force.

As a person of color, interactions with police often are anything but “routine.”  Not to say that other people do not also have issues in encounters with police (if you are aware of them you should speak up), but Black and Latino people disproportionately have interactions that result in severe bodily injury or death.  Black and Brown lives are not valued and we are systematically treated as if we are not worthy of basic considerations afforded to our white counterparts.  How many videos must we watch of white arrestees mouthing off, being belligerent, or even using force against officers who are detained without severe bodily harm or death? In many encounters police do whatever they want without concern for the life and liberty of people of color taken into custody.

Americans have a disconnect in the way they view the treatment of people of color today, and historical accounts of brutality during the American Jim Crow era and Apartheid South Africa.  We cannot continue to rest on the accomplishments of the ancestors decades before us.  There are still persisting issues and disparities in the treatment of people of color at various points in the criminal justice system.  Sandra Bland is another name for us hold up as we continue to demand system wide change.  We need local, state, and national accountability.  Local District Attorneys and police departments are too eager to discount violence against Black and Latino people as routine police activity against those who “deserved” what they got.  They are also too close to the police involved to have an objective view point.  Force is not always necessary, and the use of force in arrests and seemingly benign encounters needs to looked at more closely.

We cannot keep standing by while new names are added to the list of those taken by excessive and egregious police action.  Ida B. Wells said “the way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.”  The present is always the time for addressing injustice. As state and local governments prove themselves to be unable to properly investigate these killings, the DOJ needs to ramp up its presence. We need more than just sound bites and politicians showing up for memorials or speaking at funerals. We demand real, sustainable change.

House to Vote on Overhaul of Outdated Toxic Chemical Regulation Bill

Seventeen months after the Freedom Industries chemical spill along the Elk River in the greater Charleston, WV metropolitan area, the United State House of Representatives is finally troubling itself with reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The House has voted to approve TSCA reform.  We should be rejoicing.  With thousands of new chemicals unregulated this is a step in the right direction.  Except it isn’t.  Reform measures passed by the House do little to close the gap and are ineffective to prevent another incident like the one that occurred along the Elk River.  Practically handwritten by industry darlings, the proposed reform measures fall short of meaningful change in the outdated law.  Industry has convinced House leadership that too much regulation is bad for business. However, no one seems to care that too little regulation is bad for the public health, safety, and welfare.


Communities all across the country have been put in harm’s way to appease companies who take short cuts and endanger the lives of employees and neighboring families alike.  Chemical spills and explosions disproportionately impact low income communities.  People with the fewest resources are put in the greatest harm all for the economic benefit of another.  We need socially conscious industry development in order to protect our communities and families.  We should not be forced to trade jobs and economic development for health and safety.


House to Vote on Overhaul of Outdated Toxic Chemical Regulation Bill.