Category Archives: The Law & Injustice

Investigations Force Feds to Revisit Murders of Civil Rights Era – COLORLINES

See on Scoop.itTHE LAW & INJUSTICE

There were many more killings than those of activists. A Louisiana black businessman’s murder is the latest case reporters have reopened.

See on colorlines.com

Seeing RED!

Re-blogged from: ThoughtLeader

AUTHOR: Gillian Schutte
Image

“What is the Red October movement hoping to achieve through its hate-based hodgepodge discourse that is a bizarre combination of radical left communist speak and backward racist doctrine, peppered with obtuse analysis and expedient misinterpretation of social statistics. No really — what do they see at the end of this tunnel vision? Do they think that if they send out enough verbal hate missiles the black population will simply disappear into thin air and they can get on with running the country along with workable roads, clean hospitals and job reservations for whites only?

The recipient of their vitriol is the black South African population, the members of which, it seems, are stealing all the jobs, torturing and murdering up to 17 white people a month and raping whites by the minute (and God knows they are not used to being raped by ethnics — as Steve Hofmeyr was quick to point out). Not only this, they (the blacks) simply cannot run a country and as a result all the hospitals are “filthy”, all the roads are up to shit, the entire country is falling to pieces and this is apparently, solely because white people are no longer in power.

But the discursive cherry on the top is the fact that genocide is being perpetrated against the white population in South Africa — barring the libtards, the communists, and shameless black-loving whites (like me) … because we are, according to this bunch — actively encouraging this genocide.

Image

**for TRANSLATION see END OF POST 2013/10/FB1e.jpg

Image

**for TRANSLATION see END OF POST 2013/10/FB1e.jpg

But as Facebook friend Alcide Herveaux points out: “The genocide story is ridiculous. 1.2% of the murders happening in SA annually are white according to 2009 Medical Research council stats. Whites make up almost 9% of population. According to Sunette’s stats of 17 murders per month it is around 200 white murdered per year. The rest of the 15 000 are other races.”

When asked about their claim that white Afrikaners are undergoing level six genocide in South Africa, Sunette Bridges is quick to say that is not about the numbers of people being killed — genocide takes on all forms of oppression, which lead to final genocide. This includes it seems “giving jobs to black people” and “renaming the cities and towns after African indigenous names”. Getting rid of the names of apartheid oppressors is genocide? Really? This document cites the South African government as being active in the encouragement of the genocide of white farmers in South Africa.

it does not seem to matter to them that we are all sympathetic to murder of any kind but that we cannot support the fabrication of facts and figures to present one group as being the victims of a genocide, which cannot be proved to actually exist.

Apparently as Bridges told radio presenter Rowena Baird in an interview on SAfm, it is also about the president once singing Umshini Wami — to which Bridges has liberally added the words — “rape the dogs”. When it was pointed out to her by Baird that we would clearly hear the word izinja in the song if it were indeed there, Bridges raised her voice to an imperious attack that implied that Baird, a mere black, had no right to question her truth. Her tone was indeed, a metaphorical sjambok and Baird had to grit her teeth and get through the tense interview without losing it — kudos to her for such fortitude.

You can listen to the podcast here.

After the radio interview this commentary was to be found on Bridges Facebook site in relation to Baird.

**for TRANSLATION see END OF POST 2013/10/FB5.jpg

Image

**for TRANSLATION see END OF POST 2013/10/FB5.jpg

Then came the Aljazeera show about Red October, which I was invited to participate in. I turned it down based on my understanding that it is useless to argue against their irrational racism — I prefer to write at them than go blue in the face on a public podium about it. Besides which I think it is black people to whom they must answer, not fight with me about what sort of white I am.

In the show both Dan Roodt and Bridges were strident and confident that the pearls of swine wisdom that fell from their lips was the God’s honest truth. The rest of us were “pathetic libtards” as some tweeted during the show. But this comes as no surprise as according to them some of us are even “black-cock-loving social terrorist morons” among other delightful multi-epithets.

During the show Roodt and Bridges claimed they are “human-rights activists” and it was implied — after the show on social media — that we “the communists”, are actively working to rob them of their rights to cultural expression. More likely though is that we are actively working to reflect back to them their sense of entitlement at their so-called God-given right to be white, arrogant, superior, hateful and sanctimonious. Why? Because some of us do in fact respect and celebrate diversity and will not stand idly by while the right wing create a propaganda machinery of prejudice and anti-black hate mongering while also attributing this malice to all whites.

(I do have to add though, that at least with this lot we know what we are dealing with and they do not have the arrogant temerity to say dubious things like “I agree with the content but will punish her for tone”. Get over yourselves. If you agreed with the content you would not inadvertently feed right-wing supremacy by fighting about tone.)

**Translation exists in image itself

Image

**Translation exists in image itself

Anyway, moving on from liberal hypocrisy back to white supremacy …

I asked the question in my video contribution on the Aljazeera The Stream show (click here to see the show) what the systemic machinery is that the right-wing discourse seeks to create or feed into with their homily of fear and the demonisation of blackness. Though I have written about this before it became very clear to me while listening to their ludicrously constructed arguments, that what they seek to do first and foremost is discredit and demonise black South Africans — but mostly black South African men. It is black South African men who they perceive as the biggest threat to their wealth, privilege and status quo. Thus everything they put out, from xenophobia to crime, to baby rape, to corrective rape, to women abuse, to corruption, is placed squarely at the feet of black men. They spend a lot of their time and resources feeding this myth through curating stories of black male crime and corruption — totally overlooking white crime of course. This is the war of patriarchs. It is the discursive space in which the white Afrikaans patriarchs of the right wing pit themselves against those whom they perceive as the next wave of patriarchal power players.

The terms in which they speak of “the blacks” are disgusting and dehumanising. The right wing will “plagiarise” the language of many ideologies and appropriate anyone else’s struggle vocabulary, as long as it suits their discourse of demonising the black SA male. They will use African foreigner’s concerns about xenophobia and black lesbian narratives about corrective rape (without their consent) to push their own white anti-black male propaganda. See video in this article.

They even refer to our government as “a communist government and the ANC a far left-wing terrorist group”. And President Zuma is referred to as a “Kaffer Dog” in one of the screen shots that has been doing the rounds this week.

Besides being really obtuse and even infantile, this is pure hate speech and defamation. But where is the outrage? Besides a handful of mostly Afrikaans protestors the white middle class has been particularly silent over this furore.

**Translation exists in image itself

Image

**Translation exists in image itself

We know though that largely the white middle class and their gatekeepers choose to get outraged over things that insult them directly, like utterances made by Zuma about how whites “treat dogs better than their gardeners”, or the banning of The Spear — yet they remain silent when movements that host up to 40 000 white followers insult the entire black population with heinous public invectives. What’s up with that? Is this elitism, hypocrisy or just plain indifference? One would imagine that it is important to take on the wave of hate speech that has hit our public spaces and that some have said “reeks of possible treason and defames an entire nation of people”, based on their skin tone.

There are of course white people who care enough to make a stand and some Afrikaans anti-racist activists have been actively lobbying against the Red October campaign and infiltrating right-wing sites with satire, parody and mockery to destabilise the ongoing narrative. One such group is Suid Afrikaners op wie ons Trots is en vir wie ons Skaam kry, the initiator of which, Hendrik Potgeiter, has been recording hate speech found on the sites of Bridges, Hofmeyr and Roodt.

Here is a link to an album that has screen grabs of the most heinous examples of the hate speech that permeates our public spaces right now. (You will need to register to see pics in full size.)

You can follow their campaign on Facebook here.

At the end of the day though it is black people who these white supremacists are attacking and attempting to dehumanise with their discourse of hate — and it is black people to who they must answer. There are rumours afoot of a group of black activists beginning a movement called The People vs Red October, in which they plan to start a class action suit against the Red October group for defamation of the entire black South African population. They also plan to call on the government to take this hate speech seriously and begin to find ways to deal with it through the judicial system.

Perhaps it is also time for the right wing to reflect on the manner in which they are being manipulated by the leaders of Red October into becoming their own worst enemies as they buy into the construct of an imaginary genocide and declare a hate-filled discursive war against the entire black population.

And perhaps it is also time for many more white South Africans to also openly and publicly join the call to stop racism.”; view original post on Thoughtleader

** TRANSLATION of 2013/10/FB1e.jpg: Nou mak dit als sin” – Now it all makes sense.  “Maak my siek!!!!!!!!!” – Makes me sick!!!!!!!!! “Vieslik. Wens ek kon op haar kots.” – Disgusting.  Wish I could throw up on her.  “Shame, so ‘n pragtige paartjie, so fotogenies, so rasig,somooi want mens mag mos nou nie meer ‘n rassis wees, lekker man lekker” – Shame, such a beautiful couple, so photogenic, so ‘racial’, so pretty because we’re not allowed to be racist anymore, nice man nice. “lol”lol  “ugh”ugh (meaning ‘yuck’/not good/disgusting).

** TRANSLATION of 2013/10/FB5.jpg:  Sy lyk soos Malemmer se sussie” she looks like Malema’s (referring to Julius Malema)  sister.  “Dis mos kamstig waar ons vandaan kom. lmga”Thats apparently where we come from. Laughing my ass off.  “Nee Carlo dis mos ‘n subspesie soos Buks gese het” – No Carlos thats a sub-specie like Buks said.  “Is dit ‘n man of ‘n vrou wonder maar net” –  Is it a man or a woman. Just wondering.  “bccsa@nabsa dit is die organisasie waaran ‘n mens skryf om ‘n klagte te le teen die meid se rassisme maar ek glo nie hulle verstaan baie Afrikaans nie alhoewel hulle elke klagte na die saBC aanstuur” – bccsa@nabsa.co.za thats the organisation one writes to in order to lay a charge against the maid’s racism but I dont think they understand Afrikaans.   woze Rowena..die medem soek bietjie koffie! En jy maak dit ordentlik of ek wetter vir jou terug katnong toe!  (Dis al wat Rowena vir goed is!  Moet dit nooit vergeet nie!” – Woza (mocking black people) Rowena… the madam (“Madam” Apartheid/racist slur meaning ‘your white boss’ refers to female) wants coffee! And you better make it a decent cup or I swear I’ll send you back to Katnong!  (thats all Rowena is good for! Don’t ever forget that!!).

What was Jim Crow

“Jim Crow was the name of the racial caste system which operated primarily, but not exclusively in southern and border states, between 1877 and the mid-1960s. Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws.

It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-black racism. Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that whites were the Chosen people, blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation. Craniologists, eugenicists, phrenologists, and Social Darwinists, at every educational level, buttressed the belief that blacks were innately intellectually and culturally inferior to whites. Pro-segregation politicians gave eloquent speeches on the great danger of integration: the mongrelization of the white race. Newspaper and magazine writers routinely referred to blacks as niggers, coons, and darkies; and worse, their articles reinforced anti-black stereotypes. Even children’s games portrayed blacks as inferior beings (see “From Hostility to Reverence: 100 Years of African-American Imagery in Games”). All major societal institutions reflected and supported the oppression of blacks.

Seated in Rear The Jim Crow system was undergirded by the following beliefs or rationalizations: whites were superior to blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior; sexual relations between blacks and whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America; treating blacks as equals would encourage interracial sexual unions; any activity which suggested social equality encouraged interracial sexual relations; if necessary, violence must be used to keep blacks at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. The following Jim Crow etiquette norms show how inclusive and pervasive these norms were:

  1. A black male could not offer his hand (to shake hands) with a white male because it implied being socially equal. Obviously, a black male could not offer his hand or any other part of his body to a white woman, because he risked being accused of rape.

     

  2. Blacks and whites were not supposed to eat together. If they did eat together, whites were to be served first, and some sort of partition was to be placed between them.

     

  3. Under no circumstance was a black male to offer to light the cigarette of a white female — that gesture implied intimacy.

     

  4. Blacks were not allowed to show public affection toward one another in public, especially kissing, because it offended whites.

     

  5. Jim Crow etiquette prescribed that blacks were introduced to whites, never whites to blacks. For example: “Mr. Peters (the white person), this is Charlie (the black person), that I spoke to you about.”

     

  6. Whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma’am. Instead, blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.

     

  7. If a black person rode in a car driven by a white person, the black person sat in the back seat, or the back of a truck.

     

  8. White motorists had the right-of-way at all intersections.

Stetson Kennedy, the author of Jim Crow Guide (1990), offered these simple rules that blacks were supposed to observe in conversing with whites:

  1. Never assert or even intimate that a white person is lying.
  2. Never impute dishonorable intentions to a white person.
  3. Never suggest that a white person is from an inferior class.
  4. Never lay claim to, or overly demonstrate, superior knowledge or intelligence.
  5. Never curse a white person.
  6. Never laugh derisively at a white person.
  7. Never comment upon the appearance of a white female.

restroom sign Jim Crow etiquette operated in conjunction with Jim Crow laws (black codes). When most people think of Jim Crow they think of laws (not the Jim Crow etiquette) which excluded blacks from public transport and facilities, juries, jobs, and neighborhoods. The passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution had granted blacks the same legal protections as whites. However, after 1877, and the election of Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, southern and border states began restricting the liberties of blacks. Unfortunately for blacks, the Supreme Court helped undermine the Constitutional protections of blacks with the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case, which legitimized Jim Crow laws and the Jim Crow way of life.

In 1890, Louisiana passed the “Separate Car Law,” which purported to aid passenger comfort by creating “equal but separate” cars for blacks and whites. This was a ruse. No public accommodations, including railway travel, provided blacks with equal facilities. The Louisiana law made it illegal for blacks to sit in coach seats reserved for whites, and whites could not sit in seats reserved for blacks. In 1891, a group of blacks decided to test the Jim Crow law. They had Homer A. Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth black (therefore, black), sit in the white-only railroad coach. He was arrested. Plessy’s lawyer argued that Louisiana did not have the right to label one citizen as white and another black for the purposes of restricting their rights and privileges. In Plessy, the Supreme Court stated that so long as state governments provided legal process and legal freedoms for blacks, equal to those of whites, they could maintain separate institutions to facilitate these rights. The Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld the Louisiana law, declaring that racial separation did not necessarily mean an abrogation of equality. In practice, Plessy represented the legitimization of two societies: one white, and advantaged; the other, black, disadvantaged and despised.

Blacks were denied the right to vote by grandfather clauses (laws that restricted the right to vote to people whose ancestors had voted before the Civil War), poll taxes (fees charged to poor blacks), white primaries (only Democrats could vote, only whites could be Democrats), and literacy tests (“Name all the Vice Presidents and Supreme Court Justices throughout America’s history”). Plessy sent this message to southern and border states: Discrimination against blacks is acceptable.

drinking fountains Jim Crow states passed statutes severely regulating social interactions between the races. Jim Crow signs were placed above water fountains, door entrances and exits, and in front of public facilities. There were separate hospitals for blacks and whites, separate prisons, separate public and private schools, separate churches, separate cemeteries, separate public restrooms, and separate public accommodations. In most instances, the black facilities were grossly inferior — generally, older, less-well-kept. In other cases, there were no black facilities — no Colored public restroom, no public beach, no place to sit or eat. Plessy gave Jim Crow states a legal way to ignore their constitutional obligations to their black citizens.

ticket Jim Crow laws touched every aspect of everyday life. For example, in 1935, Oklahoma prohibited blacks and whites from boating together. Boating implied social equality. In 1905, Georgia established separate parks for blacks and whites. In 1930, Birmingham, Alabama, made it illegal for blacks and whites to play checkers or dominoes together. Here are some of the typical Jim Crow laws, as compiled by the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site Interpretive Staff:

  • Barbers. No colored barber shall serve as a barber (to) white girls or women (Georgia).

     

  • Blind Wards. The board of trustees shall…maintain a separate building…on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race (Louisiana).

     

  • Burial. The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons (Georgia).

     

  • Buses.All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races (Alabama).

     

  • Child Custody. It shall be unlawful for any parent, relative, or other white person in this State, having the control or custody of any white child, by right of guardianship, natural or acquired, or otherwise, to dispose of, give or surrender such white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support, of a negro (South Carolina).

     

  • Education.The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately (Florida).

     

  • Libraries. The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals (North Carolina).

     

  • Mental Hospitals. The Board of Control shall see that proper and distinct apartments are arranged for said patients, so that in no case shall Negroes and white persons be together (Georgia).

     

  • Militia. The white and colored militia shall be separately enrolled, and shall never be compelled to serve in the same organization. No organization of colored troops shall be permitted where white troops are available and where whites are permitted to be organized, colored troops shall be under the command of white officers (North Carolina).

     

  • Nurses. No person or corporation shall require any White female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms in hospitals, either public or private, in which negro men are placed (Alabama).

     

  • Prisons. The warden shall see that the white convicts shall have separate apartments for both eating and sleeping from the negro convicts (Mississippi).

     

  • Reform Schools. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other (Kentucky).

     

  • Teaching. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined… (Oklahoma).

     

  • Wine and Beer. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine…shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time (Georgia).1

     

riprap The Jim Crow laws and system of etiquette were undergirded by violence, real and threatened. Blacks who violated Jim Crow norms, for example, drinking from the white water fountain or trying to vote, risked their homes, their jobs, even their lives. Whites could physically beat blacks with impunity. Blacks had little legal recourse against these assaults because the Jim Crow criminal justice system was all-white: police, prosecutors, judges, juries, and prison officials. Violence was instrumental for Jim Crow. It was a method of social control. The most extreme forms of Jim Crow violence were lynchings.

Lynchings were public, often sadistic, murders carried out by mobs. Between 1882, when the first reliable data were collected, and 1968, when lynchings had become rare, there were 4,730 known lynchings, including 3,440 black men and women. Most of the victims of Lynch Law were hanged or shot, but some were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten with clubs, or dismembered. In the mid-1800s, whites constituted the majority of victims (and perpetrators); however, by the period of Radical Reconstruction, blacks became the most frequent lynching victims. This is an early indication that lynching was used as an intimidation tool to keep blacks, in this case the newly freed people, “in their places.” The great majority of lynchings occurred in southern and border states, where the resentment against blacks ran deepest. According to the social economist Gunnar Myrdal (1994): “The southern states account for nine-tenths of the lynchings. More than two thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South” (pp. 560-561).

Many whites claimed that although lynchings were distasteful, they were necessary supplements to the criminal justice system because blacks were prone to violent crimes, especially the rapes of white women. Arthur Raper investigated nearly a century of lynchings and concluded that approximately one-third of all the victims were falsely accused (Myrdal, 1994, p. 561).

Under Jim Crow any and all sexual interactions between black men and white women was illegal, illicit, socially repugnant, and within the Jim Crow definition of rape. Although only 19.2 percent of the lynching victims between 1882 to 1951 were even accused of rape, lynch law was often supported on the popular belief that lynchings were necessary to protect white women from black rapists. Myrdal (1994) refutes this belief in this way: “There is much reason to believe that this figure (19.2) has been inflated by the fact that a mob which makes the accusation of rape is secure from any further investigation; by the broad Southern definition of rape to include all sexual relations between Negro men and white women; and by the psychopathic fears of white women in their contacts with Negro men” (pp. 561-562). Most blacks were lynched for demanding civil rights, violating Jim Crow etiquette or laws, or in the aftermath of race riots.

Lynchings were most common in small and middle-sized towns where blacks often were economic competitors to the local whites. These whites resented any economic and political gains made by blacks. Lynchers were seldomly arrested, and if arrested, rarely convicted. Raper (1933) estimated that “at least one-half of the lynchings are carried out with police officers participating, and that in nine-tenths of the others the officers either condone or wink at the mob action” (pp. 13-14). Lynching served many purposes: it was cheap entertainment; it served as a rallying, uniting point for whites; it functioned as an ego-massage for low-income, low-status whites; it was a method of defending white domination and helped stop or retard the fledgling social equality movement.

Lynch mobs directed their hatred against one (sometimes several) victims. The victim was an example of what happened to a black man who tried to vote, or who looked at a white woman, or who tried to get a white man’s job. Unfortunately for blacks, sometimes the mob was not satisfied to murder a single or several victims. Instead, in the spirit of pogroms, the mobs went into black communities and destroyed additional lives and property. Their immediate goal was to drive out — through death or expulsion — all blacks; the larger goal was to maintain, at all costs, white supremacy. These pogrom-like actions are often referred to as riots; however, Gunnar Myrdal (1944) was right when he described these “riots” as “a terrorization or massacre…a mass lynching” (p. 566). Interestingly, these mass lynchings were primarily urban phenomena, whereas the lynching of single victims was primarily a rural phenomena.

James Weldon Johnson, the famous black writer, labeled 1919 as “The Red Summer.” It was red from racial tension; it was red from bloodletting. During the summer of 1919, there were race riots in Chicago, Illinois; Knoxville and Nashville, Tennessee; Charleston, South Carolina; Omaha, Nebraska; and two dozen other cities. W.E.B. DuBois (1986), the black social scientist and civil rights activist, wrote: “During that year seventy-seven Negroes were lynched, of whom one was a woman and eleven were soldiers; of these, fourteen were publicly burned, eleven of them being burned alive. That year there were race riots large and small in twenty-six American cities including thirty-eight killed in a Chicago riot of August; from twenty-five to fifty in Phillips County, Arkansas; and six killed in Washington” (p. 747).

The riots of 1919 were not the first or last “mass lynchings” of blacks, as evidenced by the race riots in Wilmington, North Carolina (1898); Atlanta, Georgia (1906); Springfield, Illinois (1908); East St. Louis, Illinois (1917); Tulsa, Oklahoma (1921); and Detroit, Michigan (1943). Joseph Boskin, author of Urban Racial Violence (1976), claimed that the riots of the 1900s had the following traits:

  1. In each of the race riots, with few exceptions, it was white people that sparked the incident by attacking black people.

     

  2. In the majority of the riots, some extraordinary social condition prevailed at the time of the riot: prewar social changes, wartime mobility, post-war adjustment, or economic depression.

     

  3. The majority of the riots occurred during the hot summer months.

     

  4. Rumor played an extremely important role in causing many riots. Rumors of some criminal activity by blacks against whites perpetuated the actions of the white mobs.

     

  5. The police force, more than any other institution, was invariably involved as a precipitating cause or perpetuating factor in the riots. In almost every one of the riots, the police sided with the attackers, either by actually participating in, or by failing to quell the attack.

     

  6. In almost every instance, the fighting occurred within the black community. (pp. 14-15)

Boskin omitted the following: the mass …” Read original article here

Aint a dang thing changed: From the ‘TILL’ Generation to the TRAYVON Generation

re-blogged from/author:
Dr David J. Leonard

Emmett-Trayvon-5“…Rage . . . anger . . . sadness;

Angry at the prosecution & police; the jurors and the Zimmerman supporters; angry at CNN (the defense) and so much more;

Angry at a system that at its core has no concern for black life;

Furious that we are not shocked – the depths of white supremacy run deep;

Full of rage at the silence from white America; at the unwillingness to account for racism, white supremacy and white privilege

Sick and tired of excuses, denials, distractions, and dismissals;

Outraged by the celebration – Fox News, the right wing, and the Zimmerman GANG;

Outraged by their smiles and laughs, their arrogance and entitlement;

Outraged by their lack of concern for Trayvon Martin, his friends and family, and the many people who are hurting, who are outraged, who are angry;

Enraged that those who care for life, who fight for justice, are filled with so much pain;

Sad, enraged, and devastated that almost 60 years later, from Till to Trayvon, aint much changed;

These memories of Till’s murder and the sham of a trial are a haunting reminder that aint a dang thing changed:

I was a senior at Los Angeles High School in California. It had a profound affect on me because I understood that it could have happened to any of us. It shook my confidence. It was as though terrorists had struck — but it was terrorists from our own country. It made me want to do everything I could to make sure this event would not happen ever again – Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.

My memories are exact — and parallel those of many others my age — I felt vulnerable for the first time in my life — Till was a year younger — and recall believing that this could easily happen to me — for no reason at all. I lived in Pennsylvania at the time – Julian Bond

Emmett Till and I were about the same age. A week after he was murdered… I stood on the corner with a gang of boys, looking at pictures of him in the black newspapers and magazines. In one, he was laughing and happy. In the other, his head was swollen and bashed in, his eyes bulging out of their sockets and his mouth twisted and broken. His mother had done a bold thing. She refused to let him be buried until hundreds of thousands marched past his open casket in Chicago and looked down at his mutilated body. [I] felt a deep kinship to him when I learned he was born the same year and day I was. My father talked about it at night and dramatized the crime. I couldn’t get Emmett out of my mind… – Muhammed Ali

I was fifteen years old when I began to hate people. I hated the white men who murdered Emmett Till and I hated all the other whites who were responsible for the countless murders… But I also hated Negroes. I hated them for not standing up and doing something about the murders – Ann Moody

Almost 60 years later, this is America

When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not. It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe – Aura Borgado

You see, tonight Trayvon Martin’s unremorseful killer was acquitted. Tonight, I fell silent with a dear friend when we heard the news.  Our eyes closed.  Our heads fell into our hands. There were no words. Tonight, I heard my mother’s voice crack and tremble under the weight of her grief as she expressed her shock and sadness at seeing an unapologetic black-child-stalker-and-killer walk free. And tonight I realized, more than ever, that as much as I love your potential, as much as I love the good that I know is in your heart, as much as I appreciate and see the beauty of your highest calling, the truth is that I feel like this relationship — our relationship — is becoming abusive and toxic on a level that nearly boggles the mind – Crystal Fleming

Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily. Fucking punks,” Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. “These assholes. They always get away.” So true it’s painful. And so predictable it hurts – Gary Younge

I wish I had answers to soothe my worries, optimism to soothe my rage. I do know a change had better come. Because as James Baldwin said in the epigraph to one of my favorite collections of his essays, “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water. The fire next time – Brittney Cooper

Perhaps history does not repeat itself exactly, but it is certainly prone to extended paraphrases. Long before the jury announced its decision, many people had seen what the outcome would be, had known that it would be a strange echo of the words Zimmerman uttered that rainy night in central Florida: they always get away – Jelani Cobb

About the Author (see below)

 Dr DAVID J. LEONARD

davidleonard1

RBG-The Shadow of Hate: A History of Intolerance in Amerika

Moorbey'z Blog

A 1995 American short documentary film directed by Charles Guggenheim about racism. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Short Documentary.

LEARN MORE
RBG-The Maafa (EuropeanHolocaust of Afrikan Enslavement) and Reparations Collection
http://www.scribd.com/collections/375…

BUY THE BOOK-VIDEO PACKAGE:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shadow-Hate…

View original post

Social Awareness

See on Scoop.itTHE LAW & INJUSTICE

Police try to stop and search black boys in the UK and are defeated for the FIRST time on camera.

See on pinterest.com

Sometimes the debate just tires you out

BY: Earnest Harris

“After much deep thought (well semi-deep at least) I have decided to discontinue this blog. It is in part because my film production company and talent management company are keeping me extremely busy these days, but the biggest reason frankly is just fatigue from trying to open people’s minds.

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin trial, I have watched the racial division get even more entrenched between those I feel are trying very hard to get people to to realize the many subtle and profound ways race plays into life in America, and those on the other side who simply refuse to see it. I think I have come to realize that blogs like mine either preach to the choir of those who are like-minded already (though it has been a joy to meet so many through this blog) or it goes to those who simply want to argue and no matter what logic is used, prefer to discount.

I have also reluctantly come to the conclusion that at the end of the day, for the most part, the only people that can impact white racism, in terms of getting people to maybe possibly listen, is another white person. When a person of color, especially a black man, tries to discuss what racism feels like, it is hard for some whites, the ones who most need to hear it, to get beyond the fact that a black person is saying it. They see it as whining, complaining, exaggerating, being mistaken, everything but being what it is. And certainly the same may well be true for dealing with closed minded blacks or other minorities, only other people of color may be be able to get through to them also.

The reality of this fact hit me the most in the aftermath of President Obama’s wonderful discussion on the Trayvon Martin verdict. It was heartfelt, honest and just a man talking about his real life experience. Yet the outcry from those who don’t like Obama or don’t want to hear that black male view was swift and ugly in many instances. Again, basically totally discounted.

So my decision to stop writing this blog doesn’t mean I am giving up on what matters to me. That would be impossible when I live a mixed life, with a mixed family, one of varying ethnicities and cultures. Nor do I think the majority of the people out there are bad. Not at all. And as I said before I have had the pleasure of meeting some wonderful people all over the world, and of varying skin colors through this blog. And I will continue to support, follow and comment on their blogs. I treasure them too much. I will continue to chime in occasionally through my Huffington Post blog, which I write here and there, as I am moved. I have found lots of great blogs and sites on matters of race, mixed life, and equality in general, so I know the information is out there. So mine ceasing won’t end the debates and good work so many are doing.

Thanks to the loyal readers and those that stumbled hear occasionally . I hope I added something. And I’ll be jumping into the fray here and there, so don’t think I am disappearing.”; Re-blogged from NO MORE RACE

Same Sh*t, Different Decade: Trayvon Martin and the Politics of Race

Image

Re-blogged from:  CHANGELAB

Author:  SCOT NACAGAWA

“When the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial was announced on Saturday I turned off the TV and went to bed, emotionally exhausted. My exhaustion surprised me, though the verdict did not. The verdict was all too predicable.

It is simply a fact that the racial composition of juries makes a difference in cases where the victim and/or the perpetrator are black, yet five of six jurors were white, and none were black. And in cases of murder where the victim is black, both the rate of conviction and severity of punishment are suppressed by this fact of race, regardless of the race of the perpetrator. The failure of the police to vigorously investigate the circumstances of the killing also follows a discriminatory pattern evidenced by an unsolved murder rate that is higher for blacks than for whites, especially when black people are killed in majority black neighborhoods. And not even following ordinary investigative procedures, much less conducting a vigorous investigation, guaranteed that the prosecution’s case would be thin in terms of physical evidence.

Contributing further to my bleak outlook was that fact that justice would not have been served, regardless of the verdict. Convicting George Zimmerman would not have returned a beloved son to his family. Nor would it have struck down the Stand Your Ground law without which this tragedy might not have occurred. Neither would it have reduced the implicit racism on which that law is founded; the same implicit racism that made pictures of Trayvon looking like an adult scary enough to be effective in helping to build Zimmerman’s case for self-defense.

I awoke the next day, still tired, with one name on my mind. Emmett Till. I went to the internet to remind myself of the circumstances of Till’s death. As I read, the source of my exhaustion became clear to me.

Emmett Till was a 14 year old black boy who was murdered while on a visit from Chicago to relatives in Money, Mississippi in 1955. In Money, he made the fatal error of acting like a white man when addressing a white woman. That woman’s husband, Roy Bryant, and another man, J. W. Milam, retaliated by kidnapping Till and torturing him before shooting him through the head and tossing his body into the Tallahatchie River. Bryant and Milam were charged with murder but acquitted, becoming heroes of white resistance to civil rights reforms when they admitted to the crime in a post-trial magazine interview.

Emmett Till, a Chicagoan, failed to understand the rules of engagement in the Jim Crow South; rules informed by the vicious bile of racism that labeled blacks subhuman, predatory, and criminal. According to those rules, any attempt by a black man to cross the color line, even with a look or a word, could get him killed in the name of public safety.

When the verdict came down in the Zimmerman case, it confirmed that, in spite of some not inconsiderable progress since 1955, the underlying social dynamics of race relations in the U.S. have remained largely unchanged. Like Emmett Till before him, Trayvon Martin broke unwritten racial codes.

He was a black boy walking alone at night in a mostly white, suburban neighborhood. When approached by a man with a gun who fancied himself a cop, he dared to defy him. He had a history of smoking marijuana, an act that the composition of our prisons makes clear is a sign of criminality when undertaken by blacks, but is nothing more than a minor indiscretion when undertaken by whites. He got suspended from school. He documented a fight on video, even got into a fight or two himself.

Unwritten racial codes of our society dictate that, far too often, police harassment, arrest, imprisonment, even death may result when these ordinary acts are undertaken by black people. Trayvon was today’s equivalent of a black teenager acting as though he was as free as any white man in Money, Mississippi in 1955.

And now Trayvon Martin is dead. His killer walks free because demonstrating that Trayvon had the audacity to undertake these ordinary acts was all that was necessary to raise suspicion of his criminality. And, it appears, that suspicion made credible the completely counter-intuitive theory that an adult armed with a gun was acting in self-defense when he stalked, shot, and killed an unarmed 17 year old.

That just exhausts me.”

THESE KIDS SHOW US THAT WE CAN GET PAST THE RACIAL POLARIZATION

“This video is a MUST WATCH. Especially at this time when our country seems even more polarized over the role race plays after the verdict in the Zimmerman trial. Restored my faith in people, our future. It is so so touching.”

re-blogged from: NO MORE RACE written by Ernest Harris

What did race have to do with the George Zimmerman case?

Abagond

What did race have to do with the George Zimmerman case in America? George Zimmerman, a half-white, half-Latino man who gets a bloody nose and a few scratches on his head, shoots dead Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, 17-year-old black boy, calls it self-defence and is found “not guilty” of both murder and manslaughter by a nearly all-white court. How could that possibly be racist? I mean, it is not like Zimmerman used the N-word. It was a fair trial! Besides, the president is black!

Here are some ways:

  1. Black life was assumed not to matter much. In effect, a bloody nose and a few scratches on the head of a man who is half-white mattered more than the life of a 17-year-old black boy. It was not just Zimmerman who thought that, so did the police, who did not think the killing was a big deal. So did the prosecution…

View original post 379 more words