Whose News Is It Anyway?

In the wake of the racist Don Imus commentary, Media Matters for America conducted a study of the race and gender diversity of hosts and guests on prime-time cable news programs. At the peak of the Imus controversy, program hosts pursued African Americans and other people of color for comments on the topic. Was this just an anomaly in the cable news world? Are people of color only invited to speak on subjects dealing with race and racism but overlooked as experts in other subject matters? The Media Matters study sought to address these and other tough questions and found a disturbingly familiar trend: while a significant number of Blacks were on cable news programs (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) the week of the Imus controversy, White hosts and guests dominated the airwaves both before and after Imus faded from the media spotlight. The data confirmed what we knew to be true—cable news media is still a world of White, peppered by people of color only as the need arises.

The study reported that “in none of the three weeks did Latinos, Asian Americans, or any ethnicity other than African Americans make up more than five percent of the guests on any network.” It is appalling how these programs tout themselves as being the expert source for news and frequently report and comment on issues of concern to communities of color, yet don’t consult with or feature the people affected.

When viewed in the context of these and other statistics about racial diversity in the media, we find an explanation for the racist, biased characterizations of Hurricane Katrina survivors in the news media as looters and criminals. These and other racially polarized news items are the products of a media machine that consists of White males pontificating about the plight of African Americans and other people of color while excluding the same from the discussion.

The media, as an institution, shapes the perceptions of how America views people of color. Without the voices of people of color, the media sensationalizes racial conflicts and controversies, such as Don Imus, without exploring the historical reasons behind these events. Without Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans as guests and hosts on prime-time cable news programs, issues affecting communities of color—urbanization, poverty, education, health care—are not given the attention they deserve and are analyzed from a one-sided point of view. It’s time that the news media recognizes that “the public” does not refer solely to White Americans, but that the persons reporting on and commenting about the news should be representative of the diversity of the American population.

Race Under the Rug

A recent post on MyDD.com called “Hidden Racism” talks about a decision by CBSNews.com to disable the comment feature on stories about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. Blogger Jerome Armstrong asserts that CBS is employing a double standard that is not being applied to the other candidates to hide the racist comments that are being made about Obama stories. Armstrong argues that instead of hiding these racist views we should be putting a spotlight on the ignorance of such racists, and he advocates “having a place where the sun can shine on these racists, and holding the politicians who cater to them accountable.”

The mere fact that CBSNews.com is receiving this magnitude of incendiary emails in response to stories about Obama tells us that racism is, indeed, a major factor in this presidential race, despite some arguments to the contrary. And preventing everyone from sharing their comments on the CBSNews.com website is only a panacea for a larger problem. Sweeping race under the rug isn’t the solution. By taking the easy way out—canning all comments instead of filtering the “trash” that is coming in—CBS is giving ammunition to these racist factions who would like nothing better than to see all coverage of Obama and his run for the presidency just disappear.

The general consensus of MyDD’s readers on this issue is that this was a bad move for CBS and they are missing out on a golden opportunity to raise awareness about and promote broad discussion about race. One commenter said that “racism is real and it affects the presidential race.” We say invest the manpower, CBS, in moderating the comments on these articles, ban the “loose cannons” who launch derogatory, personal attacks against Obama, and elevate the consciousness of the general public about the realities of race and its role in the 2008 election.

Getting Away With Murder

The federal government is not going to be held liable in at least two of the hundreds of deaths resulting from their failure to respond to the crisis following Hurricane Katrina. Their public apology for the “errors” that were made after Katrina made landfall are little comfort for victims’ families who are seeking justice for the death of their loved ones.

If it’s not the government’s fault that their inaction left 91-year-old Ethel Mayo Freeman to die in the sweltering heat outside of the convention center in New Orleans, then whose fault is it?
Who will be held accountable for these and other untimely deaths? It’s time the government is held responsible for the way they ignored the poor, Black residents of New Orleans whose lives were devastated by the hurricanes.

In the wrongful death suit brought by Freeman’s son, the judge wrote in his decision: “one can only speculate at this point whether these mistakes caused the tragic deaths of the decedents.”

The word “mistakes” implies that the government’s actions were beyond their control. But, the government had the capacity to aid survivors but instead left people stranded for days without food or water. They were left to die. Deliberate inaction is as egregious as willful action.

No Time Limits on Justice

The wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly. In the case of righting the wrongs that were committed during the 1921 race riot in Tulsa, Okla., it seems those wheels are grinding to a halt. The sponsors of a bill that would extend the statute of limitations and give living survivors of the riots more time to sue the city and state of Oklahoma for the massacre.

The Tulsa riot is one most marginalized chapters of civil unrest in our nation’s history. The riot began on May 13, 1921, the manifestation of public outrage from an incident that occurred one day prior. A Black man, Dick Rowland, stepped into an elevator in the Drexel Building where Sarah Page, a White woman, was working. A scream sounded from the elevator; Rowland ran out. Subsequently, he was accused of sexually attacking Page, though there was no solid evidence of wrongdoing.

On May 13, Rowland was arrested and jailed. More than 70 Black men gathered outside the courthouse, offering protection to Rowland but the sheriff refused. A melee started when a White man attempted to disarm one of the Black men. They wrestled over the gun and it went off. This event marked the beginning of the deadly Tulsa race riot.

When everything was said and done, Greenwood —an area of Tulsa known as “Black Wall Street”—was, quite literally, reduced to ashes. Although official death toll reports stated that 10 Whites and 26 Blacks were killed, unofficial estimates counted as many as 300 deaths.

Despite the magnitude and lasting effect of the riot on Tulsa and the lives of hundreds of people, it receives scant mention in history books, as if it is a memory that historians prefer to erase from our collective minds. Now, more than eight decades later, people of color who survived the riot are taking a stand to make sure that this significant event in African-American history is not forgotten. At the time of the riot, many legal avenues were closed to Black people. To ensure that those responsible for the Tulsa riot do not go unpunished, Mayor Kathy Taylor should advocate for extending statutes of limitation and act in the interest of seeing long-overdue justice served.

Lynch in the New Millennium (Part 2 of 2)

In part two of our analysis, we explore another disturbing example of how the racist principles of power and control delineated by Willie Lynch—a British slave owner who taught methods for controlling slaves and preserving the subjugation of slavery to Virginia slave owners in 1712—are still being put to use today. Somehow the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Take for instance the recent decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a lawsuit against the Salvation Army for firing two of its employees for failing to speak English in the workplace. Sidestepping, for a moment, the valid and justifiable argument that the King’s English is NOT the native language of America, let’s focus on the fact that this country was built from the blood, sweat, and tears of immigrants who came from their respective home countries—some by force and others by choice—to form the diverse, multicultural Mecca that is the United States of America.

What the Salvation Army (and any other employer who attempts to adopt similar policies) is essentially doing to its Spanish-speaking employees is stripping them of their culture, requiring them to conform to a foreign tongue in a foreign land. Forcing immigrants to speak English or lose their jobs is an unjust, institutional barrier to employment and professional advancement based on race.

Willie Lynch well knew the power that is held by people who have strong ties to their native language. In his infamous speech, he warned Virginia slave owners that effective controlling and oppressing slaves required that they control the language spoken by African slaves. Lynch knew the power of the tongue was so mighty that he indoctrinated the slave owners on the urgent need to “ANNIHILATE THE MOTHER TONGUE” of their slaves.

Why did Lynch put so much emphasis on stripping slaves of their language and thus, their culture? Because the destruction of native language and culture is fundamental to discrimination, subjugation, and racism. Ethnicity scholar and philosopher, Horace Kallen, said it is “not only unrealistic, but cruel and harmful, to force new immigrants to shed their familiar, lifelong cultural attributes as the price of admission to American society.” In other words, immigrants to this country should not have to pay—the steep price of giving up their native language—to stay.

Willie Lynch made one true, insightful statement in his otherwise demeaning, racist diatribe when he said that language “leads to the heart of a people.” Language is, indeed, a matter of the heart, a part of shared, cultural heritage. Kudos to the EEOC for challenging the Salvation Army’s “Willie Lynch” mentality and its attempt to place immigrants at a disadvantage in the workplace.

Lynch in the New Millennium (Part 1 of 2)

Is the racist ideology of Willie Lynch, a British slave owner who taught Virginia slave owners in 1712 about how to control slaves and preserve the peculiar institution of slavery, still relevant today? Absolutely. In the first of a two-part series, we look at 21st century examples of structural racism and how they relate to Lynch’s 300-year-old rant.

This week, thousands of marches were held in support of comprehensive immigration reform. The protests focused on the effects government raids—carried out as part of “Operation Return to Sender”—are having on families. The raids are putting undocumented immigrants, those with children who are legal citizens, in a tough position. The government is treating immigrants like animals, rounding them up and holding them captive, and many times their children are left with no one to care for them. The practice of separating immigrant children from their parents is a sad replica of how slave children were routinely separated from their families. The breakdown of the family structure benefits and supports structural racism because at its core, it’s all about power and control.

Willie Lynch underscored the importance of breaking down the family structure when exerting power over another group of people. He instructed his fellow slave holders to employ the same principles used in breaking horses to “break the spirit and independence” of slaves. He said,

“Whereas nature provides [slaves] with the natural capacity to take care of
their offspring, we break that natural string of independence from them and
thereby create a dependency status, so that we may be able to get from them
useful production for our business and pleasure.”

History is, in essence, repeating itself. Only now, the federal government is acting in the role of the slave owner, ripping apart immigrant parents from their children, using immigration status as a way to prevent them from caring for and nurturing their children.

During slavery, it was common for children to be separated from at least one of their parents. In fact, approximately one quarter of all slave children were raised in a single-parent household, while another tenth grew up away from both children. Not surprising, considering that 20 percent of all slave marriages were destroyed by a sale. Clearly, slaves were viewed as less than human, and slave marriages and family ties were not recognized by American law. But more importantly, they were weakened by alienation from their families.

We’re now seeing this same ugly practice rear its head again, this time in the form of the rights that immigrant parents and children have to remain together. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more than 3.1 million children in America have at least one parent who is here illegally. Couple that with the fact that Immigration and Custom Enforcement removed 221,664 immigrants from the United States in the last year, an increase of about 20 percent from the year before, and the resulting catastrophe is clear: thousands and thousands of children will be without their parents, facing traumatic and unnecessary separation.

The New York Times recently profiled a boy whose mother had been deported back to the Honduras. The traumatized six-year-old now refuses to eat and suffers from earaches as a result of, in the words of his nurse, “acute sadness.” Why is this boy, along with thousands of children like him, being cruelly separated from his mother? Because in this country immigrants are believed to be second-class citizens and treated as such. This policy of irresponsibly separating children from their parents only demonstrates the intention behind the action.

Like the separation of slave children from their parents, separating immigrant children from their families only serves to promulgate the idea that immigrants are not equal citizens in our society. Treating immigrants like cattle, moving them place to place with no concern for their livelihood, or that of their families, is dangerous and calculated racism. Forcing immigrant parents to leave their children behind places these kids at a disadvantage in American society.

Just as Willie Lynch referred to African slaves as animals, work horses, and property—not as human beings—breaking up immigrant families doesn’t take into account the cultural ties and values that are passed along through families. While it’s a different group of people targeted, the hatred and racism, and the desire for power and control that fuels the actions remain the same.