Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Showing posts with label 1964 Civil Rights Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1964 Civil Rights Act. Show all posts

Sunday, February 06, 2011

My Remembrance of Ronald Reagan, an African American Perspective


FIRST PUBLISHED HERE ON MONDAY, JULY 12, 2004

My Remembrance of Ronald Reagan, an African American Perspective

By John H. Armwood

It is unfortunate though common that at the death of a prominent leader people praise that leader in an uncritical manner. Shakespeare's truism from the play Julius Caesar does not apply to Ronald Reagan. Shakespeare wrote that "the evil that men do lives after them while the good is oft interred with their bones". Reagan is remembered for his leadership in helping to end the cold war but his leadership in an anti black backlash against the civil rights movement is all but ignored. Reagan, in death, has remained as he was in life the "Teflon President". All I now hear is praise being heaped on Ronald Reagan. Even liberal media outlets like CNN and the New York Times have joined in this love fest. I know it is in bad taste to speak ill of the recently departed but truth must be told. Young people must have a balanced account of history, not a self serving one separate and distinct from realty. I, above all else, remember Ronald Reagan as a person who seemed to give tacit, if not overt support to those who supported racism and segregation.

I remember Reagan launching his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the brutal murder of three civil rights workers in 1964 by praising "states rights". Those apologists of legal segregation (American apartheid) in the south supported legal segregation under the banner of "states rights". The argument was that local states should be able to decide what policies those states should follow. Southern states in particular wanted to continue the three hundred year old policy of violently violating the human rights of African Americans. This symbolic beginning of Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign signaled to the old south that he was their champion. He was the philosophical heir not just to the 1964 presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater but the 1968 campaign of former Alabama segregationist governor George Wallace.

During the 1960s Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act which made segregation in public facilities illegal. During his presidency Reagan opposed the extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act which authorized the U.S. federal government to monitor local elections in areas of the country which had a history of voting rights abuses. Reagan even vetoed congressional legislation which would have placed economic sanctions on the murderously repressive, segregationist apartheid South African government of that era. He called the racist South African regime "a good friend of the United States". Congress passed this sanction legislation once again with a super majority including many Republicans, over Reagan's veto and it became the law of the land.

I remember Ronald Reagan stating that it was the "right thing" to order the Internal Revenue Service to violate United States law by giving tax subsidies to Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian school which prohibited interracial dating. This conservative religious school through the 1990s still refused to allow interracial dating. Their students, exclusively white, were not allowed to date African Americans, Asians or Hispanics. As a result of this racial policy this school was not eligible to receive federaltax exemptions. In a court case arising out of the Reagan decision the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ronald Reagan's actions were illegal. The Supreme Court vote against the Reagan policy was eight justices to one.

I remember Ronald Reagan illegally ordering the mining of the Nicaraguan capital of Managua in violation of U.S. law. Even the father of American conservatism, Barry Goldwater strongly criticized Ronald Reagan for this illegal policy. This was part and parcel of a policy that included trading arms for hostages with the tyrannical Iranian regime.

I remember the Reagan administration arguing that ketchup should be considered a vegetable in determining minimum nutritional standards for poor children under the federal student lunch program.
Were not these Reagan views and policies the very face of evil in America? Would the American majority celebrate the life of a leader who had such extremist views and policies against a majority ethnic subgroup group in America? I think not.

For me, an African American, President Reagan represented the electoral coup d'etat of an eight year evil empire which captured Washington D.C. during the nineteen eighties. Mr. Reagan was arguably the most anti black president of the 20th Century. He clearly was the most anti black president of the post World War II era. We must not whitewash our history. Reagan was the great communicator but his message often was seeded with the fruits of the same character of evil that he decried in the anti Semitic Soviet Union. Yes, I know he signed the Martin Luther King holiday bill. He did it begrudgingly stating at the time "if that is what the people want" and that " in thirty-five years we would know if Martin Luther King was a communist".

Reagan was no friend of African Americans, Hispanics or Asians irrespective of his unseemly multimillion dollar television endorsements contracts he entered into in Japan shortly after he left office. Reagan's was able to present to the world a positive, sunny image which hid from those who were not inclined to look, a deeper, more sinister political agenda.

In conclusion I would like to say that the Reagan presidency made me personally feel less like an American than at any other time in my fifty-one year lifetime. His dream of a America as a city on a hill did not seem to include me. This is Reagan's legacy for me and for many other like minded Americans. This national celebration of the Reagan legacy is an affront to my sense of patriotism, justice and honor. For me is it un- American. It makes me question the sense of fairness and of justice of the American majority population. I can hardly wait for my cloud of sadness to pass as the Reagan legacy fades into the sunset of our surreal national mythology.

John H. Armwood

Monday, January 17, 2011

From MLK to Obama: How we define black leadership

From MLK to Obama: How we define black leadership

By Melissa Harris-Perry

In anticipation of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, I began meeting, discussing, and planning with theGrio team nearly six months ago. Our goal was to honor the legacy of Dr. King by examining both historic and contemporary African-American leadership. We knew that producing a list of the most influential, groundbreaking, creative, and impactful black leaders in American history would be both difficult and controversial; therefore, rather than relying on the editorial judgments of just a few people, we chose to tap into the expertise of more than two dozen African-American historians, artists, and political leaders.
In our first meeting we wondered aloud who would make the top ten. Surely Dr. King would appear, but in what position? Would someone outrank King on his own holiday? Would our panel chose only the names of the best known leaders or would their expertise lead them to assess less famous individuals are more important than is typically recognized. Would President Obama make the list or would his embattled presidency and brief tenure on the national scene cause our experts to hesitate in choosing him?
All of these questions are answered by the expert panel's decisions in theGrio's top 25 African-American leaders. You can read the full report and learn more about both the expert panel and the leaders they chose by clicking here.

This project led to many interesting outcomes, but for me, the most fascinating, puzzling, and potentially controversial is the pair who top the list: Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and President Barack Obama.
Both men are brilliant orators, both had a unique ability to capture the American political imagination, both were tremendous authors, both are deeply introspective and both endured harsh criticism. But there are stunning differences between these men. Dr. King led an interracial social movement, but his efforts were primarily focused on organizing African-American communities for action. Constrained by the realities of his time, King never competed for or held elected office. He worked closely with elected leaders, but his extraordinary achievements were the result of pressure tactics applied from outside the political system, not embedded within it.
Alternately, President Obama is the elected leader of a racially diverse nation where African-Americans still constitute less than 15 percent of the population. Though he has some personal experience with community organizing, his achievements are wrought within the context of government and constrained by the realities of partisan politics. Both were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace, but King was the prophetic voice speaking against the war in Vietnam while Obama is the commander-in-chief trying to lead a nation still mired in two wars.
The close proximity of Dr. King and President Obama at the top of the list makes me wonder how we judge leadership and to ask what these two men share that lead our experts to evaluate both so highly. I believe that one reason Dr. King and President Obama share top billing is because they both insist that means are as important as ends in our efforts to achieve freedom, equality, and a more racially just America.
Popular imagination sometimes recalls the civil rights movement of the 1960s as if it were a period of uncontested embrace of King's leadership, the goals of desegregation, and the tactics of non-violent direct resistance. These are false memories. During his life Dr. King was derided, criticized, and challenged, in part, because of his unwavering commitment to non-violence. These criticisms became increasingly harsh beginning in 1966 when Dr. King turned his attention to economic issues and anti-war efforts. Within a matter of months civil rights demonstrators led by King were brutally attacked in Chicago. School children were savagely beaten by an angry mob of white adults in Grenada, Mississippi.
A leading minister in the movement was found bludgeoned to death in Ohio. Acts of racial violence and murder had long marked the movement, but many had grown weary of absorbing such violence without returning it. The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act appeared inconsequential in stemming the continuing danger faced by protesters. Many openly castigated King for his continuing insistence on non-violence.
Discontent mounted among those who said America would never change until black Americans fought back. Despite all of his accomplishments, some called King a coward, unwilling to defend himself or his community.
Yet despite the reprisals and criticisms King held firm that the movement could only achieve its goals if its means were as noble as its ends. Legislative action and economic empowerment would mean nothing, he suggested, if America ripped itself apart with violence.

Monday, October 11, 2010

MSNBC"s Hardball Host Minimizes The Evil Of The Confederacy By Stating That Nazi Reenactments Are Evil But Confederate Reenactments Are OK!

WASHINGTON - MAY 19: Journalist Chris Matthews...Image by Getty Images via @daylifeI was deeply offended by insensitive and historically fallacious remarks made by Chris Matthews during his October 11, 2010 Hardball show. Mr. Matthews, while rightfully challenging Eric Cantor's Nazi reenactment as offensive but in contrast he defended confederate reenactments as just part of a love for tradition and history. I would hope that Mr. Matthews at least knew African American history on a cursory level. The history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, embodied in the confederate tradition, cost at a minimum between 4 and 15 million lives just in the middle passage between Africa and America. Once on American shores Africans were subjected to the most barbaric chattel slave system in world history. Slavery lasted for over 250 years. Legal segregation and de-facto segregation and discrimination only began to be dismantled around forty years ago. Chris Matthews dismissal of the horrific barbarism of the confederacy is shameful. Confederates and their ancestors and accomplices murdered at a minimum in the neighborhood of 20 million people, over a period of over 300 years. Confederates are America's Nazis.
I have been a fan of Hardball for years. I usually agree with Mr. Matthews's positions but I have found that he occasionally is insensitive to women and African Americans. Chris Matthews needs to understand that for African Americans there is no difference between July 3, 1776 and July 5, 1776. Our ancestors were still held in brutal slavery by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson et al after July 4, 1776. America did not become a true democracy until after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.
Please do not dismiss the evil of the confederacy and its accomplices. The slave trade and its legacy of slavery, segregation and discrimination is America's original sin. To African Americans the confederate flag represents the same level of evil as does the Nazi flag. This flag and the confederate tradition represents murder, rape and slavery. This is the history of our country. Americans have fought and died from this countries colonial days to the present to make America the democracy it is today. We still have more room to improve.
Please do not belittle the legacy of these patriots struggle to make America live up to those most famous lines in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". This dream was only won by African Americans after years and generations of struggle
John H. Armwood
Chris Matthews's comments are in this video clip.

Friday, September 03, 2010

An Expose Of Current Republican Lies & A Revisionist Civil Rights History


I really am infuriated by revisionist history. Even so called “moderate Republicans” like George Bush Sr. opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. I was young at the time but I remember this very will. In congress there was a young Republican congressman from New York City, John V. Lindsay, who later became a two term mayor, was a strong supporter of civil rights but the fight for the heart and soul of the Republican party was lost at the 1963 presidential convention when Barry Goldwater, the Arizona Senator who opposed the civil rights act, beat N.Y. Governor and future vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Pennsylvania Governor William W. Scranton for the nomination in 1964. After that time there were fewer and fewer liberal Republicans. Senator Jacob Javits of New York was another good one.
I watched the whole 1964 Republican Convention on T.V. I also watched Richard Nixon’s 1968 Law and Order southern strategy aimed at southern whites, who were angry at the Democrat support of civil rights, win the presidency. I saw President Johnson, on T.V. live calling for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 saying in his address to the nation “we shall overcome”. I remember being only eleven years old but crying because I understood what it meant to be called nigger repeatedly by fellow classmates in school in New York City. I remember my 3rd grade teacher telling me to put my hand down because “I was not ready” to participate in class elections in the Fall of 1961 because I was one of the “bus children”.
I know this is a rant but conservatives make me angry. They lie and get away with it because most people are uninterested in history, even recent history. I was very happy to see the Rachel Madow show point out Barbour’s incredible dishonesty. There was a similar expose in Slate Magazine yesterday.
John H. Armwood