In the mid-1970s, I was a member of Boy Scout Troop 3115, a ribald collection of teens from the Orange Mound section of Memphis (black) and the Poplar-Higland corrider (white). Roughly half white and half black, the troop was stationed at the Tennessee National Guard Armory and headed up by Mr. Bill Lanier, a sargent in the guard. We caused Mr. Lanier untold nightmares, as we were mischievious and full of devilment. While we were good at "scout" things -- we had numerous awards we'd won at scout events -- we were also good at fighting (often each other) and finding other assorted trouble. I often think of this period as my "Huck Finn" period, as I learned of the woods via the numerous camping trips and of black folks, whom I had never been around much prior to the scouts. Some of my fondest memories of my youth can be found in the camping trip weekends I shared with Jesse Green, Andrew Phillips, Michael Prichard and other members of Troop 3115. Bill Lanier is/was a great man for giving so much of himself during this time. Lord knows, many members of the troop would have found "other" things to get into were it not for the Boy Scouts.
My personal experience with the Boy Scouts is why I am so angered by the Do-gooder-social-engineers and their attempts to destroy the Boy Scouts of America. The latest assault in Philadelphia is outrageous and merely the latest attempt by the left to impose "San Francisco" values on the normal and decent.
The left has a long history of hating the Boy Scouts. The ACLU filed the first lawsuit against the Boy Scouts in 1980. This was the beginning of a litany of forays brought against the Boy Scouts. The year 2000 was a particularly brutal year for the scouts. With the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the scouts -- their policy to deny homosexuals access to boys as Scout leaders -- and the real threat George W. Bush would win the 2000 election, the liberals stepped up the attacks on the Boy Scouts:
- The Clinton Administration launched investigations into the Scouts and ties to federal agencies, particularly its relationships with national parks and military installations.
- Al Gore called for a law demanding that the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals in its ranks.
- The city of Los Angeles voted to evict the Boy Scouts from public facilities.
- Broward County's school board also voted to evict 60 troops and Cub Scout packs from its schools.
- Private business Knight-Ridder, Inc. and Levi's stopped funding the scouts.
- United Way chapters also cut off funding for the scouts.
The message was clear: run afoul of the newest preferred minority -- homosexuals -- and you'll be punished.
The situation in the "City of Brotherly (literally) Love" is beyond outrageous.
Addressing more than 30,000 scouts in August 2005, President Bush reminided the scouts that "At times, you may be come across people who say that moral truth is relative, or call a relgious faith a comforting illusion." The President must have been thinking of Philadelphia's city solicitor Romulo Diaz.
The "Cradle of Liberty Council" serves more than 64,000 boys, mostly from the inner-city and fatherless homes (just like many of the kids in my Troop 3115). Since 1928, the council has been headquartered at the Beaux-Arts Building -- a building the Boy Scouts built in 1928 -- for the symbolic sum of $1.00 a year. But because a Boy Scout pledges to live "morally straight" and because the city of Philadelphia has bought into the phony homosexual civil right movement, the Boy Scouts are being threatened with eviciton from their longitme home. Romulo Diaz, an open homosexual and the city solicitor, has given the Cradle of Liberty Council until December 3, 2007 to come up with $200,000.00 -- fair market rent -- or they must vacate the building. Of course, the council could remain, their $1.00 agreement in place, if they give homosexuals access to the council's 64,000 boys.
What an outrage.
Has America not learned a thing from the experience of the Catholic Church and its homosexual priest problem of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s? The U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released the John Jay Report in 2004, and it revealed that 4,392 accusations had been levied against homosexual priests, with most sexual assaults occuring between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Fully four percent of Catholic priests had engaged in molesting adolescent boys, resulting in millions of dollars being granted to victims via settlements reached in courts across the country. In 2006, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles paid $60 million to settle 45 cases of abuse, only to shell out $660 million in 2007. The Dioceses of Dallas, Boston, Louisville, Orange, and Phoenix all agreed to settle cases in the nine year period between 1997 and 2006 to the tune of $242 million. Because they had lawsuits and trial dates pending, several dioceses -- Portland, Spokane, Tucson, Davenport and San Diego -- filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to save their parishes from financial ruin.
Is this the fate we want the Boy Scouts to suffer?
If you ask the radical homosexuals and their mafia-like backers, the answer is a loud "yes." How dare any organization believe in moral absolutes in this day and age of "secular-progressives" and their gospel where right and wrong are merely matters of interpretation.
Radical homosexuals and their defenders will view the example of the Catholic Church and say the problem was "pedophilia" and not homosexuality. Au contrare, I would add. The overwheliming majority of the complaints in the Catholic Church scandal regarded priests molesting adolescent boys, not young children. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent boys and girls. While NAMBLA -- a prominent member of the homosexual mafia -- might enjoy groping young boys, the homosexual priests preyed upon adolescent boys, young men, if you will.
Romulo Diaz can say, "We will not subsidize...discrimination..." in Philadelphia, but what he really means is, "Unless we homosexuals get a shot at these teenage boys, the Boy Scouts will not be allowed to use city property, no matter what the Supreme Court says."
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily has written extensively of the phony homosexual movement and, in particular, of its hostility towards the Boy Scouts. He poses the following question for all to consider: "Would you rather live in a community populated by the Boy Scouts and Scout leaders or one populated by members of ACT-UP?" Discuss. (Oh, and by the way, don't answer until June 2008
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Racism Forever -- Please!
On June 14, 1997, President Bill Clinton announced with great zeal his proposed "dialogue" on race, his "One America in the 21st Century" initiative. America's "first black" president, I guess Mr. Clinton felt it his responsibility to lead such a conversation. In a 1995 speech, Mr. Clinton bandied about his racial bona-fides: "I graduated from a segregated high school seven years after President Dwight Eisenhower integrated Little Rock Central High School. My experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South and the legacy slavery left."
I dismissed the effort at the time because such -- a discussion on race -- was not possible then. Nor is it possible now. For whatever reason, any conversation on race evolves into a monologue, with blacks on one side, wagging their fingers at whites and saying, "Shame, shame, shame." Ward Connerly said the initiative was "the sound of one hand clapping." With the lefty panel Clinton appointed to head these "conversations," there would plenty of guilt trips laid out, and little conversation held.
At one time, I believed -- naively, it turns out -- that my generation, those born in the 1960s, would be the generation to put the "race" issue to bed. After all, we came of age after the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim Crow was someone we never knew. We attended integrated schools. We were raised -- at least, my two brothers and I were -- not to judge someone on the color of their skin. We were the first generation to have some regular, and even daily, contact with that "other" race. Surely, all the mistrust, strife, anger and bitterness of the past, a past we had only heard of, would be buried by us.
How wrong I was.
I believe race relations are worse in 2007 than they were thirty years ago in 1977, my tenth grade year in high school. And things are only getting worse.
What the hell happened?
The "Racism Industry" is what. An amalgamation of activists (s--t starters), attorneys (well-dressed parasites with law degrees) and black-only organizations (Marxists with an axe to grind), the Racism Industry finds prosperity and political clout in keeping, not hope, but strife alive. If something causes animosity, bitterness or anger between the races, then there's a good chance you will find a member of the Racism Industry behind it. Long gone are the days of peaceful groups of well-dressed and well-spoken people rallying for the right to vote and a fair shot at the American Dream. They have been replaced with activists demanding equal outcomes and other assorted aims of the Racism Industry:
Of course, this sort of grievance-mongering is not new. Booker T. Washington spoke of such as early as the late 1800s: "There is a another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Mr. Washington was speaking of many of his critics, most notably W. E. B. DuBois, the Harvard grad noted for his "talented tenth" theory that the talented ten percent of blacks would lead the race. Mr. Washington's words aptly describe the latter-day crop of "DuBoisian" fellows: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. These two (and other like-minded players) have never met a racial stir -- real or perceived -- that they did not want to exploit for their own gain.
Jesse Jackson has established a profitable career for himself and his family. Like Tony Soprano used his "waste management" position to cover his illegal activities, so too does Jesse Jackson. His "Operation PUSH"-- People United to Save Humanity -- is a non-profit front used by Jackson to wash literally millions that have come Jackson's way. Kenneth Timmerman's 2002 book Shakedown highlights the good reverend's tactics and windfalls of his activism. Using 18 chapters, 400+ pages and an astounding 1,000 plus footnotes, Mr. Timmerman paints the picture of a guy always out looking for the next score. During the Carter Administration, Mr. Jackson was able to get millions of dollars in federal grants funneled into the education wing of PUSH. The jig was up, however, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Reagan Administration and its audits led Reverend Jackson to his true calling: the corporate shakedown. Beginning with Coca-Cola in 1981, Jackson has used his tried and true tactics to extort millions from American corporations. The M-O is simple. First, find an alleged racial slight with a company (like Coca-Cola's dealings with apartheid South Africa). Secondly, threaten boycotts or protests of the company. By the second step, companies usually settle with Jackson. Literally. While other blacks have benefited from Jackson's efforts, no one has benefited like Jackson himself and those closest to him. His half brother, Noah Robinson, was awarded a syrup distributorship by Coca-Cola in September 1981, one month after a $30 million settlement had been reached. Jackson's two sons own a beer distributorship in Chicago -- gained in the same manner. Anheuser-Busch, Texaco and Nike have all felt the brunt of Jackson's "work." Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Jackson's mau-mauing toward corporations was as automatic as the John Stockton-Karl Malone pick and roll of the same era: guaranteed to deliver. Seeking "justice," Jackson got himself a lot of it in the form of dollar bills.
While Jesse Jackson is a racial extortionist, Al Sharpton is a racial arsonist. Jackson seeks financial gain, while Sharpton is out for political chits. The Reverend Al cut his teeth in the 1980s, when he, like some sleazy lawyer at an accident scene, would show up at any incident that hinted of a racial angle that could be exploited. With his James Brown hair-do, sweat suits and vituperative tongue, Sharpton fanned any racial flames he could, often making a tragic situation even worse. No incident shows Sharpton's dishonesty like the Tawana Brawley affair. In November 1987, fifteen year old Tawana Brawley claimed she was abducted, raped and smeared with feces by a group of white men, some of whom were police officers with the Duchess County (New York) police department. A grand jury determined that Brawley's story was a hoax, designed to cover her being out too late one night. Despite any evidence to support Brawley's claim, Al Sharpton and his goons -- in this case, attorneys Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason -- arrived to exploit the race aspect of the case. The three even went as far as to accuse Duchess County assistant district attorney Steven Pagones of taking part in the fictional assault and rape. Sharpton even told Pagones to "sue" him if he was lying, which Pagones did in 1997. A jury awarded Pagones a $345,000.00 judgement, of which the good reverend has yet to pay one red cent.
Similar protests by Sharpton in 1991 (Crown Heights) and and 1995 (Harlem's Freddy's Fashion Mart) actually resulted in the deaths of people. Jackson, while dishonest to the core, does not cause the deaths of people in his wake.
One might think that such shady dealings and outrageous rhetoric would take away the credibility of someone. Think again. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run for the presidency (as Democrats, of course). If anything, it appears that each's record has heightened their profile. Judging from events of the past year, Jackson and Sharpton have taken on Christ-like proportions, as white people who make "insensitive racial remarks" must trek to Jackson or Sharpton and pay tribute and beg for forgiveness. Michael Richards, the former Seinfeld star, went to Jackson to beg forgiveness for his use of the word "nigger" on a comedy stage. Don Imus used "nappy-headed hos" to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, and the next week he appeared on Sharpton's radio show to grovel and kiss the ass of Sharpton. At this writing, it is not certain which of the race-hustlers Dog the Bounty Hunter will appeal to to atone for his racial comments made during a private conversation with his son.
What irony. Al Sharpton, who has called Jews "diamond merchants, and Jesse Jackson, who referred to New York City as "Hymietown," are now the arbiters of the speech police. What a country.
I dismissed the effort at the time because such -- a discussion on race -- was not possible then. Nor is it possible now. For whatever reason, any conversation on race evolves into a monologue, with blacks on one side, wagging their fingers at whites and saying, "Shame, shame, shame." Ward Connerly said the initiative was "the sound of one hand clapping." With the lefty panel Clinton appointed to head these "conversations," there would plenty of guilt trips laid out, and little conversation held.
At one time, I believed -- naively, it turns out -- that my generation, those born in the 1960s, would be the generation to put the "race" issue to bed. After all, we came of age after the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim Crow was someone we never knew. We attended integrated schools. We were raised -- at least, my two brothers and I were -- not to judge someone on the color of their skin. We were the first generation to have some regular, and even daily, contact with that "other" race. Surely, all the mistrust, strife, anger and bitterness of the past, a past we had only heard of, would be buried by us.
How wrong I was.
I believe race relations are worse in 2007 than they were thirty years ago in 1977, my tenth grade year in high school. And things are only getting worse.
What the hell happened?
The "Racism Industry" is what. An amalgamation of activists (s--t starters), attorneys (well-dressed parasites with law degrees) and black-only organizations (Marxists with an axe to grind), the Racism Industry finds prosperity and political clout in keeping, not hope, but strife alive. If something causes animosity, bitterness or anger between the races, then there's a good chance you will find a member of the Racism Industry behind it. Long gone are the days of peaceful groups of well-dressed and well-spoken people rallying for the right to vote and a fair shot at the American Dream. They have been replaced with activists demanding equal outcomes and other assorted aims of the Racism Industry:
Of course, this sort of grievance-mongering is not new. Booker T. Washington spoke of such as early as the late 1800s: "There is a another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Mr. Washington was speaking of many of his critics, most notably W. E. B. DuBois, the Harvard grad noted for his "talented tenth" theory that the talented ten percent of blacks would lead the race. Mr. Washington's words aptly describe the latter-day crop of "DuBoisian" fellows: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. These two (and other like-minded players) have never met a racial stir -- real or perceived -- that they did not want to exploit for their own gain.
Jesse Jackson has established a profitable career for himself and his family. Like Tony Soprano used his "waste management" position to cover his illegal activities, so too does Jesse Jackson. His "Operation PUSH"-- People United to Save Humanity -- is a non-profit front used by Jackson to wash literally millions that have come Jackson's way. Kenneth Timmerman's 2002 book Shakedown highlights the good reverend's tactics and windfalls of his activism. Using 18 chapters, 400+ pages and an astounding 1,000 plus footnotes, Mr. Timmerman paints the picture of a guy always out looking for the next score. During the Carter Administration, Mr. Jackson was able to get millions of dollars in federal grants funneled into the education wing of PUSH. The jig was up, however, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Reagan Administration and its audits led Reverend Jackson to his true calling: the corporate shakedown. Beginning with Coca-Cola in 1981, Jackson has used his tried and true tactics to extort millions from American corporations. The M-O is simple. First, find an alleged racial slight with a company (like Coca-Cola's dealings with apartheid South Africa). Secondly, threaten boycotts or protests of the company. By the second step, companies usually settle with Jackson. Literally. While other blacks have benefited from Jackson's efforts, no one has benefited like Jackson himself and those closest to him. His half brother, Noah Robinson, was awarded a syrup distributorship by Coca-Cola in September 1981, one month after a $30 million settlement had been reached. Jackson's two sons own a beer distributorship in Chicago -- gained in the same manner. Anheuser-Busch, Texaco and Nike have all felt the brunt of Jackson's "work." Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Jackson's mau-mauing toward corporations was as automatic as the John Stockton-Karl Malone pick and roll of the same era: guaranteed to deliver. Seeking "justice," Jackson got himself a lot of it in the form of dollar bills.
While Jesse Jackson is a racial extortionist, Al Sharpton is a racial arsonist. Jackson seeks financial gain, while Sharpton is out for political chits. The Reverend Al cut his teeth in the 1980s, when he, like some sleazy lawyer at an accident scene, would show up at any incident that hinted of a racial angle that could be exploited. With his James Brown hair-do, sweat suits and vituperative tongue, Sharpton fanned any racial flames he could, often making a tragic situation even worse. No incident shows Sharpton's dishonesty like the Tawana Brawley affair. In November 1987, fifteen year old Tawana Brawley claimed she was abducted, raped and smeared with feces by a group of white men, some of whom were police officers with the Duchess County (New York) police department. A grand jury determined that Brawley's story was a hoax, designed to cover her being out too late one night. Despite any evidence to support Brawley's claim, Al Sharpton and his goons -- in this case, attorneys Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason -- arrived to exploit the race aspect of the case. The three even went as far as to accuse Duchess County assistant district attorney Steven Pagones of taking part in the fictional assault and rape. Sharpton even told Pagones to "sue" him if he was lying, which Pagones did in 1997. A jury awarded Pagones a $345,000.00 judgement, of which the good reverend has yet to pay one red cent.
Similar protests by Sharpton in 1991 (Crown Heights) and and 1995 (Harlem's Freddy's Fashion Mart) actually resulted in the deaths of people. Jackson, while dishonest to the core, does not cause the deaths of people in his wake.
One might think that such shady dealings and outrageous rhetoric would take away the credibility of someone. Think again. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run for the presidency (as Democrats, of course). If anything, it appears that each's record has heightened their profile. Judging from events of the past year, Jackson and Sharpton have taken on Christ-like proportions, as white people who make "insensitive racial remarks" must trek to Jackson or Sharpton and pay tribute and beg for forgiveness. Michael Richards, the former Seinfeld star, went to Jackson to beg forgiveness for his use of the word "nigger" on a comedy stage. Don Imus used "nappy-headed hos" to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, and the next week he appeared on Sharpton's radio show to grovel and kiss the ass of Sharpton. At this writing, it is not certain which of the race-hustlers Dog the Bounty Hunter will appeal to to atone for his racial comments made during a private conversation with his son.
What irony. Al Sharpton, who has called Jews "diamond merchants, and Jesse Jackson, who referred to New York City as "Hymietown," are now the arbiters of the speech police. What a country.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Huck Finn: Still Troublesome After All These Years
"We do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking."
-- Mark Twain
As an English teacher since 1991, I get aggravated each year at the inevitable attacks on Mark Twain, as school districts wrestle with demands from one of the permanently dour to ban the teaching of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Birdsville High School (Texas) is the latest in a long, long list of school districts forced to deal with the complaints of parents (or, as is the case in Birdsville, a parent) and activists who are outraged this "racist" tome is taught to high school students.
Seventeen year old junior Ibrahim Mohamed took offense with a lesson plan designed to alleviate such umbrage. The lesson obviously didn't work. Entitled "Word Magic (How To Deal With the N-word When Reading Huck Finn)," the lesson called for the teacher to write several offensive words and phrases, including "nigger," on the board; the intent was to open a discussion on the use of the terms and if context matters. The lesson never got to step two because Ibrahim demanded that the word be removed from the board and any discussion. When the teacher did not remove it, Ibrahim complained to his mother, Tunya Mohamed, who enlisted the usual suspects of the Racism Industry -- the NAACP -- to protest the lesson and have the book removed from the school's reading lists. In addition, the activists want the teacher to do community service for their organization and to apologize in writing, as if she was some sort of pedophile or drunk driver. Ibrahim, according to his mother, is "really upset and very, very depressed."
I have two words for young Ibrahim: Grow up! If, at age 17, you are so despondent upon seeing one word on the board -- a word you probably say with glee while listening to your favorite thug rapper -- how are you going to survive in the "real world," where no one gives a damn about you or your feelings?
A teacher in the 87% black Memphis City Schools, I typically scoff when I hear of another call to ban Huck Finn, especially for the reason cited for banning it: its racist use of the word nigger. Yes, the word does appear in the novel 215 times, which is about the average number of times I hear it in the hallways each day from black adolescents. No, the irony has never escaped my grasp.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim Huck Finn racist, when any analytical reading of the book shows quite the opposite to be true. Twain's classic intended to demean and vilify the slave-holding society of the pre-Civil War south, of which Missouri was a like-minded territory. The frequent use of the word accomplishes this, while giving the reader an insight into a long forgotten era. Frankly, to avoid use of the word in the book would not have been realistic. Like it or not, the word was used by whites in daily conversations then-- much like rappers do now-- to refer to blacks.
Of course, anyone with an IQ above a brick understands that Huck Finn is an "anti-racism" novel. Ralph Ellison, the noted black author, understood Twain's intent: "Huckleberry Finn knew, as did Mark Twain, that Jim was not only a slave but a human being, a symbol of humanity...and in freeing Jim, Huck makes a bid to free himself of the conventionalized evil taken from civilization by the town -- in other words, of the abomination of slavery itself."
A learned man, Mr. Ellison was ruled by his intellect, as opposed to guided by his emotions. Not everyone is predisposed to such.
For the emotionally-guided who refuse to read between the lines of the novel, Russell Baker provides a vivid image these child-like folks can get: "The people Huck and Jim encounter are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, frauds, child abusers, numb-skulls, hypocrites, windbags, and traders in flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is black Jim, the runaway slave." It doesn't take a PhD to "get" Twain's indictment of the slave-owning society of the south. Jim is the only noble character in the book, and he is the one the other characters (society) hold in contempt. In 2007, how do people not "get" this?
The measure of great art is found in its ability to evoke a response or reaction. Nothing has done just such like Twain's The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn. Earnest Hemingway called the book the "source" of all American literature. The book has managed to inspire and offend in not only the 19th century of its creation, but also in the 20th and now 21st centuries.
It is my guess Mark Twain is smiling when viewing all the trouble his little story has created. He might look at his critics and say these words again: "Be yourself is about the worst advice to give people."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)