Today begins Black History Month and every February it's as if the same lessons are being replayed over and over again. Public schools will talk about slavery, MLK, the civil rights movement, Frederick Douglass and few other very well known individuals. As important as these people are to our history, black history contains many unsung heroes that need to be talked about and remembered.
Until the movie "Hidden Figures" most people had no idea that a group of brilliant African-American women worked at NASA, and served as the brains behind one of the nation's greatest moments. How many African-American's would have been inspired to become mathematicians, engineers, and scientist if they had known about these women?
Black history month is celebrated in the United States and Canada in February, but in Great Britain, it is celebrated in October. Unfortunately, it seems black history in England is taught much the same as it is in the United States.
Frustrated with the teaching of Black History Month in schools, a dissatisfied student, Samuel King, communicates his disappointment to his teacher that Black History Month isn't taught with much depth or with much pride in schools. Samuel criticizes his teacher, before arguing that education in school does little to satisfy his thirst for knowledge of influential people in Black history who seem to be missing from the lessons. He states, "There seems to be a lot you haven't told us, and you shut down and hold back on the bold ones who stand against the way you're trying to mould us"
European colonialism destroyed most of Africa's historical buildings, monuments and distorted its history. For example, in the fourteenth century, Timbuktu, in West Africa was five bigger than London and was the richest city in the world. Europeans stole much of Africa's great wealth and resources including its people.
The Beginning Negro History Week
"Negro History Week," created in 1926 in the U.S., was the precursor to Black History Month. Historian Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History designated the second week of February to celebrate because it coincided with the birthday of Abraham Lincoln on February 12 and of Frederick Douglass on February 14, dates Black communities had celebrated together since the late 19th century.
"If a race has no history, it has no worthwhile tradition, it becomes a negligible factor in the thought of the world, and it stands in danger of being exterminated. The American Indian left no continuous record. He did not appreciate the value of tradition; and where is he today? The Hebrew keenly appreciated the value of tradition, as is attested by the Bible itself. In spite of worldwide persecution, therefore, he is a great factor in our civilization."
United States: Black History Month (1976)
In 1976 as part of the United States Bicentennial, the informal expansion of Negro History Week to Black History Month was officially recognized by the U.S. government. President Gerald Ford spoke in regards to this, urging Americans to "seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history."
On 21 February 2016, 106-year-old Washington D.C. resident and school volunteer Virginia McLaurin visited the White House as part of Black History Month. When asked by the president why she was there, Virginia said, "A black president. A black wife. And I’m here to celebrate black history. That’s what I’m here for."
There was an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, "Some St. Louis charter schools worry their popularity threatens diversity". The article stated, "A few of the city’s charter schools are becoming so popular that they’re struggling to stay accessible to low-income families." On the surface, this may seem like some innocent accident, but it may have been part of the design.
The easiest way to hold back or control a group is people is to control their education. Just as Southern slave owners understood that denying slaves an education reduced the capacity of slaves to think, substandard education reduces the capacity to do for yourself and increases reliance upon others. See our Educational Oppression page.
The St. Louis Public School System has and will continue to decline. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I taught in the St. Louis Public Schools. Even then, you could see the games being played with the desegregation program.
Many of the best and brightest black students were being taken out of the city system and the county was transferring some of its poorly performing or trouble maker white students into the city system. Hundreds of millions of city school dollars ended up going to county schools which helped pay for modern facilities and amenities. The obvious results were declining enrollment, older facilities in disrepair and lower student performance which opened the door for charter schools.
Charter schools stripped, even more, dollars from the public school system and were not accountable in the same ways as public schools since they were considered independent even though they were funded with public education funds.
Below you will find excerpts and links to three different sources that make a pretty good argument for the racist nature whether planned or unintentional.
The now-popular idea of offering public education dollars to private entrepreneurs has historical roots in white resistance to school desegregation after Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The desired outcome was few or, better yet, no black students in white schools. In Prince Edward County, Virginia, one of the five cases decided in Brown, segregationist whites sought to outwit integration by directing taxpayer funds to segregated private schools.
Two years before a federal court set a final desegregation deadline for fall 1959, local newspaper publisher J. Barrye Wall shared white county leaders’ strategy of resistance with Congressman Watkins Abbitt: “We are working [on] a scheme in which we will abandon public schools, sell the buildings to our corporation, reopen as privately operated schools with tuition grants from [Virginia] and P.E. county as the basic financial program,” he wrote. “Those wishing to go to integrated schools can take their tuition grants and operate their own schools. To hell with 'em.”
Attorney David Mays, who advised high-ranking Virginia politicians on school strategy, reasoned, “Negroes could be let in [to white schools] and then chased out by setting high academic standards they could not maintain, by hazing if necessary, by economic pressures in some cases, etc. This should leave few Negroes in the white schools. The federal courts can easily force Negroes into our white schools, but they can’t possibly administer them and listen to the merits of thousands of bellyaches.”
The NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, recently passed a resolution at their national convention in Cincinnati calling for a ban on privately managed charter schools. The resolution said the following:
* “Charter schools have contributed to the increased segregation rather than diverse integration of our public school system.”
* “Weak oversight of charter schools puts students and communities at risk of harm, public funds at risk of being wasted, and further erodes local control of public education.”
* “[R]esearchers have warned that charter school expansions in low-income communities mirror predatory lending practices that led to the sub-prime mortgage disaster, putting schools and communities impacted by these practices at great risk of loss and harm…”
In 2005, a research paper, published by Beth Hatt-Echeverria, a White female assistant professor of Education at Illinois State University and Ji-Yeon Jo, a Korean female independent researcher, discuss a subtle form of racism based uncovered by research conduct at Eagles Landing Charter School. Excerpts from their findings are below.
“There is a charming story by Dr. Seuss…In a society of beings called Sneetches, there were plain and star bellied speeches. The star-bellied Sneetches were the ‘best’ and dominated the plain-bellied folks. Recognizing the injustice of the situation, the oppressed Sneetches decided to paint stars on their own bellies. Now there was equality! But not for long. The original star-bellied Sneetches had their stars painfully removed and claimed, of course, that plain bellies were now marks of superiority. Power structures do not crumble easily.”
Even though there has always been racism in American history, it has not always been the same racism. Political and cultural struggles over power shape the contours and dimensions of racism in any era”. The “contours and dimensions of racism” change as if dancing with civil rights to ensure that White privilege remains the lead dancer. As legislation and policies occur to provide opportunities for people of color, Whiteness shifts to make certain White privilege remains dominant. Giroux (1999) claims that the new shape of racism is a White, conservative backlash to racial minority rights and changing demographics of U.S. cities such as increases in the U.S. Latino population.
As race became paramount in shaping U.S. politics and everyday life from the 1980’s on, racial prejudice in its overt forms was considered a taboo. While the old racism maintained some cachet among the more vulgar, right-wing conservatives, a new racist discourse emerged in the United States. The new racism was coded in the language of ‘welfare reform,’ ‘neighborhood schools,’ ‘toughness on crime,’ and ‘illegitimate births.’ Cleverly designed to mobilize White fears while relieving Whites of any semblance of social responsibility and commitment, the new racism served to rewrite the politics of Whiteness as a ‘besieged’ racial identity.
One of the ways that racism transforms and shifts to maintain White privilege is through the (re)defining of Whiteness as what is “moral” and “normal” in such a way that Whites, especially the upper middle class, benefit.
Eagles Landing Charter School arose from a group of White parents and White educators being frustrated with the local school system. All of the original Board members were parents and teachers connected to one local middle school. A key characteristic of the middle school was that over the past five years it had become more racially integrated. Students of color were beginning to become a majority in the school.
The following statements seemed to be the mantra of the original board members: Class sizes are too large. Too much violence. Too many drugs. Teachers should be allowed more voice. These statements are similar to Giroux’s (1999) description of the new racism as involving coded language that addresses issues of race indirectly by discussions of “Toughness on Crime,” “Welfare Reform,” and “Illegitimate Births.” When interviewing White students, teachers, and parents, the majority of them mentioned some form of the statements above as an explanation as to why they were going to the charter school. Additionally, many of them had left the previously mentioned middle school. On the contrary, many of the African-American students chose to attend the charter school because it was located close to their homes.
Initially, Echeverria and Jo saw the school positively, but then they both felt like the school was almost too perfect. The school staff had maintained some control concerning the student interviews. However, a group of Black students wanted to speak to the researchers without any school staff present.
For these Black students, the school was not only a very negative experience but it was directly influencing their school achievement. They were experiencing differential treatment, lower expectations by teachers, and alienation. It was the hidden transcript that encouraged us to ask how the ideals and realities were so different in the school and how the teachers and administration constructed their “innocence” in contributing to the experiences of the Black students.
Art does not exist only to entertain, but also to challenge one to think, to provoke, even to disturb, in a constant search for truth. – Barbara Streisand
David Pulphus, a North St. Louis resident and recent graduate of Cardinal Ritter College Prep, is the 2016 winner of the U.S. Congressional Art Competition from Missouri's 1st Congressional District.
Pulphus' winning painting "Untitled #1" has stirred a national debate about art, censorship, and first amendment rights after police groups urged its removal for depicting cops as pigs.
David Pulphus painting "Untitled #1"
Each year Members of the U.S. House of Representatives select one high school student from their districts as a winner. The artists' pictures usually hang in the halls of Congress for a almost full year – an incredible honor.
Just as "one man's junk is another man's treasure" and "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", so is art.
The two officers and the African-American man all appear to have animal-like facial features. The two officers have faces resembling a boar and a horse, the African-American man resembles a wolf or if you stretch your imagination a "black panther". The "wolf-man" depiction could be interpreted negatively as well. Is the predatory wolf attacking the prey who is defending himself? Depends on your point of view, because art is subjective.
An article in the St. Louis American provides the following description, “The painting portrays a colorful landscape of symbolic characters representing social injustice, the tragic events in Ferguson and the lingering elements of inequality in modern American society”.
When is art offensive?
Walt Disney's Zootopia depicts police officers as animals and even has one depicted as a pig, but I don't recall any public outcry. I'm certain countless number of police officers took their children to see this film without a second thought about Disney's "pig" cop. I guess the difference was this pig wasn't pointing a gun at a black man. Maybe it's not so much about "pigs" as it is about don't show cops behaving badly.
Officer Swinton from Walt Disney's Zootopia
The Zootopia Police Department, or ZPD, in the film is mostly run by heavy-weight mammals, such as buffalos, rhinos, elephants, hippos, and predators such as wolves, cheetahs, tigers, bears and lions, until it changed when Judy Hopps became the first rabbit on the police force.
Political Correctness
When a powerful group within the majority population complains of negative depictions, the narrative changes. The depictions are labeled insensitive, disrespectful, malicious, anti-American, or unpatriotic, but never politically correct.
Police officers are a part of this country's most powerful institution. Police officers hold more power than any elected official including the president, they have been given the right to kill. Historically, police have policed themselves, so their actions have seldom resulted in the sort of scrutiny or penalties ordinary citizens face.
When police organizations began propaganda efforts to play victims in response to groups such as Black Lives Matter, it would have been comical if not for the serious damage their propaganda produced. Countless unarmed, innocent Black people, who were truely powerless, have been harrassed, injured and killed by police. Because there was no justice, people spoke out in frustration.
When was the last time you heard about a police officer shot or murder where they didn't find a suspect? The police by contrast almost always get justice when they are wronged.
Instead of facing the reality that far too many unarmed people were being shot dead and mistreated by police, police unions created a false narrative that "Black Lives Matter" somehow meant no other lives mattered.
Black people have been complaining for generations about how we are depicted in art and media including the nightly news. Mascots such as the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and the Washington Redskins perpetuate negative stereotypes of Native American people and demean their native traditions and rituals.
However, when these slights are pointed out, individuals or groups are called whinners, accused of political correctness or playing the race card.
Many white people including cops act as if racism doesn't exist, but as anti-racism activist, Jane Elliot points out, white people know the truth they just don't want to admit it.
2016 Congressional Art Competition Winners' Slideshow
David Pulphus' painting, "Untitled #1" is shown at 13:53 in the video's timeline.
The following speech, the source of the quote at the top of this page, in support federal support for the arts was given by Barbra Streisand at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts on February 3, 1995:
I’ve stood up and performed in front of thousands of people — but let me tell you, this is much more frightening. Maybe it’s because this is The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, and I’m neither a politician nor a professor. I like to think of myself as a perpetual student. Perhaps some of my anxiety has to do with the fact that I’ve been told that a future President of the United States might very well be in this audience. And if that’s true, I’m sure she will be the one to ask me the toughest questions. I’m saying that because I had a wonderful lunch with some of the students yesterday. Their knowledge, their enthusiasm, their optimism was truly inspiring.
I’m very honored to be invited here. This invitation has a special meaning for me because it involves my convictions and not just my career.
The subject of my talk is the artist as citizen. I guess I can call myself an artist, although after thirty years, the word still feels a bit pretentious. But I am, first and foremost, a citizen: a tax-paying, voting, concerned American citizen who happens to have opinions — a lot of them — which seems to bother some people. So I’m going to try to say something about those two roles.
This is an important moment to deal with this subject because so much of what the artist needs to flourish and survive is at risk now.
When I was asked to speak here a year ago, I was much more optimistic. We had seven women in the Senate, bringing the hope of full representation for more than half the population. And, we had a President who judged our ethnic, cultural and artistic diversity as a source of strength rather than weakness.
Then came the election of 1994, and suddenly the progress of the recent past seemed threatened by those who hunger for the “good old days” when women and minorities knew their place. In this resurgent reactionary mood, artists derided as the “cultural elite” are convenient objects of scorn; and those institutions which have given Americans access to artistic works — such as the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — are in danger of being abolished.
From my point of view, this is part of the profound conflict between those who would widen freedom and those who would narrow it; between those who defend tolerance and those who view it as a threat.
All great civilizations have supported the arts. However, the new Speaker of the House, citing the need to balance the budget, insists that the arts programs should be the first to go. But the government’s contribution to the NEA and PBS is actually quite meager. To put it in perspective, the entire budget of the NEA is equal to one F-22 fighter jet — a plane that some experts say may not even be necessary. And the Pentagon is planning to buy 442 of them. One less plane and we’ve got the whole arts budget. 72 billion dollars for those planes. Now that’s real money. On the other hand, PBS costs each taxpayer less than one dollar a year and National Public Radio costs them 29 cents.
So maybe it’s not about balancing the budget. Maybe it’s about shutting the minds and mouths of artists who might have something thought-provoking to say.
William Bennett, in calling recently for the elimination of the Arts agencies, charged that they were corrupt for supporting artists whose work undermines “mainstream American values.” Well, art does not exist only to entertain — but also to challenge one to think, to provoke, even to disturb, in a constant search for the truth. To deny artists, or any of us, for that matter, free expression and free thought — or worse, to force us to conform to some rigid notion of “mainstream American values” — is to weaken the very foundation of our democracy.
The far right is waging a war for the soul of America by making art a partisan issue. And by trying to cut these arts programs, which bring culture, education and joy into the lives of ordinary Americans, they are hurting the very people they claim to represent. (By the way, I also find it ironic that Newt Gingrich said that “the NEA and PBS are protected by a bunch of rich upper-class people.” Isn’t it a little hypocritical to lobby for tax cuts for these same rich upper class people, but resent them when they try to protect the arts?)
The persistent drumbeat of cynicism on the talk shows and in the new Congress reeks of disrespect for the arts and artists. But what else is new? Even Plato said that artists were nothing but troublemakers and he wanted to ban poets from his perfect Republic. In Victorian times there were signs requiring actors and dogs to eat in the kitchen. As recently as last year, artists who have spoken out politically have been derided as airheads, bubbleheads, and nitwits. And this is not just by someone like Rush Limbaugh, who has called people in my industry the “spaced-out Hollywood left.” This is also the rhetoric of respectable publications.
For example, the editor of The New Republic wrote of actors: “In general, they are an excruciating bunch of egomaniacs. They have little to say for themselves… and their politics are uniformly idiotic.” To me — this is all about jealousy. He specifically singled out Paul Newman, Whoopi Goldberg, and Tom Hanks as subjects for his wrath after last year’s Academy Awards.
What is the sin? Is it caring about your country? Why should the actor give up his role as citizen just because he’s in show business? For his role in the movie “Philadelphia,” Tom Hanks had to learn quite a bit about being a gay man with AIDS. Should he have remained silent on this issue? For 30 years, Paul Newman has been an outspoken defender of civil liberties and a major philanthropist. Would it be better if he just made money and played golf? Should Whoopi Goldberg retreat into her home and not do anything for the homeless? Or, is Robert Redford a bubblehead because he knows more about the environment than most members of Congress?
Imagine talking about the leaders of any other group in our society this way — say, leaders of the steelworkers union, agribusiness, or chief executives of the automobile industry. Imagine having this kind of contempt for an industry that is second only to aerospace in export earnings abroad. According to Business Week, Americans spent 340 billion dollars on entertainment in 1993. Maybe policy makers could learn something from an industry that makes billions while the government owes trillions.
The presumption is that people in my profession are too insulated, too free-thinking, too subversive. One can almost hear the question — are you now or have you ever been a member of the Screen Actors Guild? Never mind that the former president of our guild did become President of the United States. The Hollywood smear only seems to apply to liberals. With no special interest and serving no personal or financial agenda, artists make moral commitments to many issues that plague our society. Indeed, this participation often makes artists vulnerable professionally. They take the risk of offending part of their audience or their government. As the record of the Hollywood blacklist demonstrates, they can even pay the price of serving time in jail. having their works banned, or being prevented from practicing their craft.
Ironically, contempt for the artist as citizen is often expressed by those most eager to exploit the celebrity of the entertainer. Both journalists and politicians feed off the celebrity status of the successful artist. We can attract a crowd and raise astounding amounts of money for the politicians — and make good copy for the journalists. Which is precisely why we are courted — and resented — by both. I recall various leading newspapers and magazines trying to entice Hollywood celebrities to join their tables at the White House Correspondents dinner, only to trash them afterwards. You can just hear them thinking — you make money, you’re famous — you have to have political opinions too?
But we, as people, are more than what we do — as performers, professors or plumbers — we also are, we also should be — participants in the larger life of society.
In the old days of the dominant movie studios, an artist wasn’t allowed to express political opinions. But with the breakup of the studio system, creative people gained independence. And with the rise of the women’s, environmental and gay rights movements, there has been an increase in artists who support liberal causes. Why is that?
Well, most artists turn up on the humanist, compassionate side of public debate, because this is consistent with the work we do. The basic task of the artist is to explore the human condition. In order to do what we do well, the writer, the director, the actor has to inhabit other people’s psyches, understand other people’s problems. We have to walk in other people’s shoes and live in other people’s skins. This does tend to make us more sympathetic to politics that are more tolerant. In our work, in our preparation, and in our research, we are continuously trying to educate ourselves. And with learning comes compassion. Education is the enemy of bigotry and hate. It’s hard to hate someone you truly understand.
Our participation in politics is a natural outgrowth of what we do, and it can and should be a responsible use of celebrity. Since we do have the ability to raise issues, reach people, and influence opinion, as with Charlton Heston lobbying against gun control and, thank God, for the NEA, we do have a greater responsibility to be informed.
I’m not here to defend everything that comes out of the entertainment industry. A lot of junk is produced; gratuitously violent, sexist, exploitative and debasing of the human spirit. I don’t like it and I won’t defend it. This is a profit-driven industry that produces the best and the worst in its attempt to find a market. If you notice the far right rarely attacks the violent movies — in fact, their candidates campaign alongside some of the major practitioners of this so-called art form.
What disturbs them is often the best work of the mass media. They have attacked programming, beginning with “All in the Family,” because it dealt with the controversial issues of racism and sexism. They attacked “Murphy Brown,” which represents a thoughtful attempt to deal with the reality that Americans now lead lives which, for better or for worse, are very different than the lives of Ozzie and Harriet.
Art is the signature of a generation; artists have a way of defining the times. Marion Anderson, singing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial because, as a black woman, she was forbidden to sing at Constitution Hall, forced Americans to confront the outrageousness of segregation. Art can illuminate, enlighten, inspire. Art finds a way to be constructive. It becomes heat in cold places; it becomes light in dark places.
When there was chaos in the Sixties, Bob Dylan said it was like “Blowin’ in the Wind.” During the riots of the Sixties, when people tried to explain the inexplicable, Aretha Franklin sang, simply what was being asked for, “R-E-S-P-E-C-T.”
Then there are the movies that spoke for their times. The movie version of John Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” brought the sad reality of the Depression home to those who wanted to ignore it. In the 1940s, a movie called “Gentleman’s Agreement” raised the issue of anti-semitism in America. “In the Heat of the Night” was named Best Picture of 1967, and is remembered for its unsparing look at the issue of race. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” focused on buying votes and favors — a problem we still haven’t solved. A generation ago, “Inherit the Wind” took on the Scopes trial and the subordination of science to one narrow religious view — and the movie is powerfully relevant today in light of the Christian Coalition’s efforts to reintroduce creationism into the public school curriculum.
Just last year, we saw a motion picture called “Schindler’s List” bring the subject of the Holocaust to millions of people around the world. Steven Spielberg rescued it from fading newsreels and recast it in black and white film, which makes it vivid and real — and yes, undeniable.
Moviemakers can be late to a subject, or afraid, but often they are brave and ahead of their time. Artists were criticized for their involvement in the civil rights struggle and their early opposition to the Vietnam War. In those cases at least, I would suggest that the painters and performers were wiser than most pundits and politicians.
I’m not suggesting that actors run the country; we’ve already tried that. But I am suggesting, for example, that on the issue of AIDS, I would rather have America listen to Elizabeth Taylor, who had the courage to sponsor the first major fund-raiser against this dreaded disease, than to Jesse Helms, who has consistently fought legislation that would fund AIDS research.
Our role as artist is more controversial now because there are those, claiming the absolute authority of religion, who detest much of our work as much as they detest most of our politics. Instead of rationally debating subjects like abortion or gay rights, they condemn as immoral those who favor choice and tolerance. They disown their own dark side and magnify everyone else’s until, at the extreme, doctors are murdered in the name of protecting life. I wonder, who is this God they invoke, who is so petty and mean? Is God really against gun control and food stamps for poor children?
All people need spiritual values in their lives. But we can’t reduce the quest for eternal meaning to a right wing political agenda. What is dangerous about the far right is not that it takes religion seriously — most of us do — but rather that it condemns all other spiritual choices — the Buddhist, the Jew, the Muslim, and many others who consider themselves to be good Christians. The wall of separation between church and state is needed precisely because religion, like art, is too important a part of the human experience to be choked by the hands of censors.
Artists have long felt the stranglehold of censorship by officially established religions. A sixteenth century Pope ordered loincloths painted on the figures in Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment”; nineteenth century clerics damned Walt Whitman. Tolstoy was viewed as a heretic; and today, Islamic extremists, sanctioned by governments, are still hunting down Salman Rushdie.
It’s interesting that Americans applaud artists in other parts of the world for speaking out, in China for example. It’s very often the artist who gives a voice to the voiceless by speaking up when no one else will. The playwright Vaclev Havel went to jail because of that. Now he’s the president of his country.
I know that I can speak more eloquently through my work than through any speech I might give. So, as an artist, I’ve chosen to make films about subjects and social issues I care about, whether it’s dealing with the inequality of women in “Yentl,” or producing a film about Colonel Grethe Cammermeyer, who was discharged from the army for telling the truth about her sexuality. Her story reminded me of a line from George Bernard Shaw’s “St. Joan” that said “He who tells too much truth shall surely be hanged.” Hopefully we won’t be hanged for trying to dispel some of the myths about gays and lesbians when the film airs next week on network TV.
I promised myself I wouldn’t get too partisan here. Some of my best customers are Republicans. When I sang in Washington DC, I asked the audience for a show of party allegiance, and a majority turned out to be Republican. I should have known; who else could afford those ticket prices?
Fortunately, there are reasonable Republicans. But I am worried about the direction in which the new Congress now seeks to take the country. I’m worried about the name calling, the stereotypical labeling. I want to believe that these people have good intentions, but I think it was dangerous when Newt Gingrich developed a strategy in the last campaign of pitting President Clinton against so-called “normal Americans.” Just last week, the Speaker attacked again when he said, and I quote: “I fully expect Hollywood to have almost no concept of either normal American behavior, in terms of healthy families, healthy structures, religious institutions, conservative politics, the free enterprise system.”
This from a politician who holds up a Hollywood movie, “Boy’s Town,” as his answer to welfare reform? And how can he say that Hollywood doesn’t know anything about free enterprise? And why just this past Wednesday — was he trying to round up Hollywood celebrities to promote his agenda? But most of all, I deeply resent the notion that one politician or political party owns the franchise on family values, personal responsibility, traditional values and religion.
We are all normal Americans, even with our problems and complexities, including people in my community. We were not born in movie studios. We come from every part of this country and most of us are self-made. We’ve worked hard to get where we are and we don’t forget where we came from, whether it’s Iowa, Cincinnati or Brooklyn.
This notion of “normal Americans” has a horrible historical echo. It presupposes that there are “abnormal” Americans who are responsible for all that is wrong. The new scapegoats are members of what Gingrich calls the “Counterculture McGoverniks.”
I did a concert for George McGovern in 1972, and I still think that he would have made a better President than Richard Nixon. I’m disappointed that I’ve read so little in defense of McGovern. Was McGovern countercultural? This son of a Republican Methodist minister has been married to the same woman for 51 years and flew 35 combat missions in World War II. Isn’t it odd that his patriotism be disputed by a person who never served in the military and whose own family history can hardly be called exemplary. But then again — no one should have to conform to some mythical concept of the ideal family — not even Mr. Gingrich.
I must admit that I’m confused by this man’s thinking. He proposes taking children away from poor mothers and placing them in orphanages. If that’s an example of mainstream culture, let me say I’m happy to be a member of the counterculture.
I’m also very proud to be a liberal. Why is that so terrible these days? The liberals were liberators — they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Thanks to liberals we have Social Security, public education, consumer and environmental protection, Medicare and Medicaid, the minimum wage law, unemployment compensation. Liberals put an end to child labor and they even gave us the 5 day work week! What’s to be ashamed of? Such a record should be worn as a badge of honor!
Liberals have also always believed in public support for the arts. At the height of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration, which helped struggling artists. Willem deKooning, Jackson Pollack, and John Cage were among those who benefited from the support of the WPA.
Art was a way out for me. I represent a generation of kids who happened to benefit from government support of the arts in public schools. I was a member of the choral club at Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn. Sadly, this current generation of young people does not have the same opportunities.
How can we accept a situation in which there are no longer orchestras, choruses, libraries or art classes to nourish our children? We need more support for the arts, not less — particularly to make this rich world available to young people whose vision is choked by a stark reality. How many children, who have no other outlet in their lives for their grief, have found solace in an instrument to play or a canvas to paint on? When you take into consideration the development of the human heart, soul and imagination, don’t the arts take on just as much importance as math or science?
What can I say: I have opinions. No one has to agree. I just like being involved. After many years of self-scrutiny, I’ve realized that the most satisfying feelings come from things outside myself. And I believe that people from any walk of life, when they stand up for their convictions, can do almost anything — stop wars, end injustices, and even defeat entrenched powers.
As the difference between the elections of 1992 and 1994 shows, the outcome is not pre-ordained; progress, whatever your definition of it, is not inevitable. I thought this current administration was doing a helluva good job: reducing the deficit by 700 billion dollars, creating 6 million jobs, downsizing government and passing a significant amount of important legislation. I’m not a policy wonk, but that’s the way I see it.
Most artists are not experts, but all of us are something more. As President Carter said in 1980, “In a few days, I will lay down my official responsibilities in this office, to take up once more the only title in our democracy superior to that of President, the title of citizen.”
We also need to keep in mind some words spoken by the man for whom this school of government is named. President Kennedy said he valued so much what artists could give because they “knew the midnight as well as the high noon [and] understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit.” He also said, “In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation.”
By the way, President Kennedy was the first to suggest the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Well aware that art can be controversial, he concluded, “[the artist] must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role.”
But in 1995, I continue to believe it is an indispensable one — that artists, especially those who have had success, and have won popularity in their work, not only have the right, but the responsibility, to risk the unpopularity of being committed and active.
We receive so much from our country; we can and should give something back.
So, until women are treated equally with men, until gays and minorities are not discriminated against and until children have their full rights, artists must continue to speak out. I will be one of them. Sorry, Rush, Newt and Jesse, but the artist as citizen is here to stay.
Barbra Streisand's speech republished under fair use exemption for educational purposes.
President Obama gave his farewell speech today in Chicago, the video is below. After eight years of having a president that geniunely cared about people and didn't seem to have any hidden agendas, he will surely be missed, especially by his supporters. I suspect that after President Elect Trump has been in office for a while, even some of President Obama detractors will begin missing him as well.
Prior to becoming president, Senator Barack Obama ran a near perfect campaign devoid of any major mistakes. While running for re-election, the worst thing many of his opponents and detractors could say about him was that he was too nice.
President Barack Obama will leave office without ever having been marred by a single scandal or embarrassment during his eight years in the White House. He has achieved icon status and is a hero in the eyes of many. Obama set the bar pretty high for future presidents and his presidency will influence this country for decades because of the positive example he has provided to younger generations.
Below is a video of people expressing their favorite Obama moment and a short essay, with some edits, that my oldest son wrote last year concerning Obama's legacy.
Obama's Legacy
What do you think President Obama’s legacy will be in 50 years? What will be seen as his main accomplishments? Failures?
When then Senator Obama was running for president, my father, mother, brother and I went downtown to hear him speak on the grounds of the St. Louis arch. It was a chilly morning and my family stopped for hot chocolate as we walked to the St. Louis River Front to hear his speech.
Oct 18, 2008 – Then Senator BARACK OBAMA speaks to a crowd of over 100,000 gathered underneath the St. Louis Gateway Arch
When we first arrived, there was a thin crowd, but by the time Obama appeared, I was amazed at the size of the crowd. News reports estimated 100,000 people attended that speech. There was an electricity in the air throughout a very diverse crowd. I remember seeing people in the crowd crying both black and white. I was a freshman in high school and I remember thinking, that it was too bad that I wasn't old enough to vote for the person who might become the first black President of the United States.
I believe President Obama will be viewed as one of America's great Presidents. His most obvious legacy is being the first African American President, which many people prior to his election didn't believe was possible. President Obama made good on his main campaign promises of health care and ending the Iraq war, he also:
Prevented another great depression,
provided the biggest middle class tax cut in history,
restored confidence and improved America's image abroad,
saved the auto industry,
expanded Stem cell research,
improved fuel efficiency standards,
captured Osama Bin Laden,
provided payment to cheated minority farmers thru the Claims Resolution Act,
ended don't ask – don't tell in the military,
reformed student loans,
reformed credit cards,
passed Wall Street reforms,
created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
ended President Bush's Torture policies,
signed a new START Treaty with Russia,
increased support for veterans,
secured the border,
cracked down on predator practices of "for profit colleges,"
got almost every state to reformed education through the Race to the Top incentive program,
passed the Food Safety Modernization Act,
passed Fair Sentencing Act (making cocaine sentencing a little more fair),
appointed two highly qualified Supreme Court Justices,
Invested more in green energy than ever before,
improved school nutrition thru the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act,
expanded Hate Crimes Protections: Signed Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
expanded DOJ focus on ‘implicit’ or ‘unconscious’ bias, by police officers and departments
Unfortunately, people have short memories, they have forgotten how bad the situation was when Senator Obama was elected President. The world economy was in danger of collapse because of bad bank investments. Much of the world had lost faith in the United States and the election of President Obama almost single handedly provided renewed faith in the United States. Obama even started working on solutions before he was inaugurated. Black people in this country who have for centuries been enslaved, oppression and denied opportunity had proof that hope and "change" had actually occurred.
President Obama's main failure was not providing better protection for home owners during the banking crisis. When he bailed out banks, he should have also bailed out home owners. Millions of people lost their homes because the banks who got bailed out with tax money only cared about greater profits.
People who thought President Obama was somehow going to wave a magic wand and make all their problems disappear had unreasonable expectations. Even though the President of the United States is considered the most powerful man in the world, his power has limits which can be checked by either the Congress or the Supreme Court.
Over the past eight years of his presidency, President Obama has responded exceptionally to a number of crises including: the financial crisis and war he inherited, the nation's first Ebola cases, multiple mass shooting events. I was especially moved when he stated, "If I had a son, he would have looked liked Travon Martin" and when he sent his Attorney General, Eric Holder in response to the Ferguson Protest to access the situation and provide assurance that an investigation would occur. In fact, I was surprised to learn about all the work that the Attorney General was doing to reduce incidents of unfair policing even before Ferguson. Obama's $800 billion economic stimulus can only be compared to President Roosevelt's New Deal.
President Obama has provided an entire generation the image of a black president. My 16 year old brother and those younger than him, don't really remember any President other than Obama, so they will never see becoming President as an impossibility.
Yesterday was the last day to declare candidacy for the March 7th primary election in the City of St. Louis. Unfortunately, it looks like the black political leadership in St. Louis, has fallen for the ancient strategy of divide and conquer and is about to throw away the chance to demonstrate it can take charge and bring about positive change.
Divide and conquer is a strategy of maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The strategy includes causing rivalries and division to prevent smaller groups from linking up to break up existing power structures.
St. Louis is a majority black city and there was a legitimate chance for a black candidate to become mayor resulting in a major power shift. Power is not centralized in the mayor's office. The charter of St. Louis provides the Board of Estimate and Apportionment (BOE&A) with the power to approve all City real estate purchases, appropriations, and the City's annual operating budget. The BOE&A consist of three citywide office holders:
Mayor
Comptroller
President of the Board of Alderman
If the City of St. Louis elects a black mayor, it would mark the first time in the city's history that the BOE&A was all black. An all black board doesn't guarantee it won't be business as usual, but there would be some added incentive for a collective black Board of Estimates and Apportionmentto concentrate more on issues affecting black residents. In a city as racially segregated and polarized as St. Louis is, in the era of Trump, it would be a nice change of pace, especially considering the city just elected a black sheriff and its first black prosecutor, not to mention its black treasurer and license collector.
One of the most refreshing aspects would be that a black mayor would have control of the police department and could direct resources where the most crime occurs. I would expect a black mayor to deploy additional economic resources and services rather than just increasing police presence. North St. Louis has never recovered from the unofficial implementation of the Team Four Plan.
Unfortunately, that change of pace may never happen. The democratic primary winner will most like become the next mayor of St. Louis. There are seven candidates, five of whom are black.
Antonio French
Lewis Reed
Jeffrey L. Boyd
Tishaura O. Jones
Jimmie Matthews
All five black candidates enjoy at least some name recognition. Four of the candidates are viable and three are particularly strong. However, it is almost a mathematical certainty that these five candidates will dilute the black vote thereby assuring the strongest white democratic candidate (either Lyda Krewson or William “Bill” Haas) the mayor's office.
It is unfortunate that the four candidates who work in the same building everyday didn't get together and decide to rally behind one candidate so that a collaborative agenda could be achieved. Instead, an all chiefs and no Indians attitude will most likely result in none of the five candidates being elected. I suspect that a meeting was held between potential white candidates which may explain why police chief Dotson decided not to run.
Each of the candidates has every right to seek the office of mayor. However, every election cycle the candidates ask the voters to go to the polls and support them. In exchange for our support, it is expected that our elected officials will work in the best interest of those whom elected them to office.
These elected officials owed a duty to make certain their constituents best interests were protected. As a community, we have a special set of needs that have gone ignored far too long.
There was an excellent opportunity to build a coalition to ensure a mayor who would genuinely look out for our best interest would be elected. Instead, these candidates are now divided and have become adversaries in pursuit of an office that none of them stand much chance of winning. Even the St. Louis Post Dispatch warned how multiple candidates could dilute the black vote. Their loss will be a loss for us all. I expected our black political leaders to be smarter. "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
Next month, Kimberly Gardner, will become St. Louis' first black prosecutor and the most powerful person in the City of St. Louis criminal justice system. Ms. Gardner will become a member of a very exclusive club, out of more than 2,300 elected prosecutors nationwide, only a few dozen are African-American
Having the right black prosecutor can make a tremendous difference how fairly justice is administered and how injustice is resisted. The bizarre, half-hearted grand jury presentation conducted by the white prosecutor in Michael Brown’s death, versus Marilyn Mosby’s vigorous pursuit of indictments in the case of Freddie Gray demonstrate the potential difference. Jennifer Joyce waiting more than four year to prosecute former police office Jason Stockley and only did so after a video surfaced even though the city reach a wrongful death settlement with the victim's family.
However, Ms. Gardner doesn't get a pass just because she's black. Black folks are well aware there are those among us that will sell us out for opportunity. As Phillip Agnew, with Dream Defenders stated during the PBS special "America After Ferguson"
"It's not a matter of just having a representative … that looks like you, they've got to come from the community, know the issues of the community, and then it's folks in the community that got to remind them every day that we pay your bills and where watching every single day to ensure that the platform on which we elected you on is followed and defend you when those people who seek to calibrate the system and right the system as it's been built seek to come after your for that office"
Make no mistake, if Ms. Gardner proves to be a fair prosecutor, there will certainly be those that will attempt to distort her statements, vilify her actions and generally discredit her. There is a private prison system that stands to lose millions of dollars under a non-oppressive system.
Powers of the Prosecutor
Robert H. Jackson, Attorney General of the United States, delivered an address during the second annual conference of united states attorneys on April 1, 1940 in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice Building in Washington, D. C.
The speech Jackson gave demonstates the power of prosecutors. Even though he was addressing federal prosecutors, local and state prosecutors hold a similar type of power that can devastate lives.
The Federal Prosecutor
The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind of person, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed.
The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspended sentence, and after he is put away, as to whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice' or other base motives, he is one of the worst.
These powers have been granted to our law-enforcement agencies because it seems necessary that such a power to prosecute be lodged somewhere. This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done – wanted crime eliminated – but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved.
Because of this immense power to strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself, the post of Federal District Attorney from the very beginning has been safeguarded by presidential appointment, requiring confirmation of the Senate of the United States. You are thus required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.
Your responsibility in your several districts for law enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered to Washington, and ought not to be assumed by a centralized Department of Justice. It is an unusual and rare instance in which the local District Attorney should be superseded in the handling of litigation, except where he requests help of Washington. It is also clear that with his knowledge of local sentiment and opinion, his contact with and intimate knowledge of the views of the court, and his acquaintance with the feelings of the group from which jurors are drawn, it is an unusual case in which his judgment should be overruled.
Experience, however, has demonstrated that some measure of centralized control is necessary. In the absence of it different district attorneys were striving for different interpretations or an applications of an Act, or were pursuing different conceptions of policy. Also, to put it mildly, there were differences in the degree of diligence and zeal in different districts. To promote uniformlty of policy and action, to establish some standards of performance, and to make available specialized help, some degree of centralized administration was found necessary.
Our problem, of course, is to balance these opposing considerations. I desire to avoid any lessening of the prestige and influence of the district attorneys in their districts. At the same time we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.
Nothing better ean come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just.
Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. The lawyer in public office is justified in seeking to leave behind him a good record. But he must remember that his most alert and severe, but just, judges will be the members of his own profession, and that lawyers rest their good opinion of each other not merely on results accomplished but on the quality of the performance. Reputation has been called "the shadow cast by one's daily life." Any prosecutor who risks his day-to-day professional name for fair dealing to build up statistics of success has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character. Whether one seeks promotion to a judgeship, as many prosecutors rightly do, or whether he returns to private practice, he can have no better asset than to have his profession recognize that his attitude toward those who feel his power has been dispassionate, reasonable and just.
The federal prosecutor has now been probibited from engaging in political activities. I am convinced that a good-faith acceptance of the spirit and letter of that doctrine will relieve many district attorneys from the embarrassment of what have heretofore been regarded as legitimate expectations of political service. There can also be no doubt that to be closely identified with the intrigue, the money raising, and the machinery of a particular party or faction may present a prosecuting officer with embarrassing alignments and associations. I think the Hatch Act should be utilized by federal prosecutors as a protection against demands on their time and their prestige to participate in the operation of the machinery of practical politics.
There is a most important reason why the prosecutor should have, as nearly as possible, a detached and impartial view of all groups in his community. Law enforcement is not automatic. It isn't blind. One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints. If the Department of Justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, ten times its present staff would be inadequate. We know that no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws, or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning. What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor, stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
In times of fear or hysteria political, racial, religious, social, and economic groups, often from the best of motives, cry for the scalps of individuals or groups because they do not like their views. Particularly do we need to be dispassionate and courageous in those cases which deal with so-called "subversive activities." They are dangerous to civil liberty because the prosecutor has no definite standards to determine what constitutes a "subversive activity," such as we have for murder or larceny. Activities which seem benevolent and helpful to wage earners, persons on relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for existence may be regarded as "subversive" by those whose property interests might be burdened or affected thereby. Those who are in office are apt to regard as "subversive" the activities of any of those who would bring about a change of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not forget that it was not so long ago that both the term "Republican" and the term "Democrat" were epithets with sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that were "subversive" of the order of things then dominant.
In the enforcement of laws which protect our national integrity and existence, we should prosecute any and every act of violation, but only overt acts, not the expression of opinion, or activities such as the holding of meetings, petitioning of Congress, or dissemination of news or opinions. Only by extreme care can we protect the spirit as well as the letter of our civil liberties, and to do so is a responsibility of the federal prosecutor.
Another delicate task is to distinguish between the federal and the local in law-eaforcement activities. We must bear in mind that we are concerned only with the prosecution of acts which the Congress has made federal offenses. Those acts we should prosecute regardless of local sentiment, regardless of whether it exposr lax local enforcement, regardless of whether it makes or breaks local politicians.
But outside of federal law each locality has the right under our system of government to fix its own standards of law enforcement and of morals. And the moral climate of the United states is as varied as its physical climate. For example, some states legalize and permit gambling, some states prohibit it legislatively and protect it administratively, and some try to prohibit it entirely. The same variation of attitudes towards other law-enforcement problems exists. The federal government could not enforce one kind of law in one place and another kind elsewhere. It could hardly adopt strict standards for loose states or loose standards for strict states without doing violence to local sentiment. In spite of the temptation to divert our power to local conditions where they have become offensive to our sense of decency, the only long-term policy that will save federal justice from being discredited by entanglements with local politics is that it confine itself to strict and impartial enforcement of federal law, letting the chips fall in the community where they may. Just as there should be no permitting of local considerations to stop federal enforcement, so there should be no striving to enlarge our power over local affairs and no use of federal prosecutions to exert an indirect influence that would be unlawful if exerted directly.
The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyvvay. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.
On January 1, 2017, the state of Missouri will implement a public school policy sure to accelerate the descent into police state dystopia. See, Missouri Revised Statutes 565.054 and 565.056.
The Hazelwood School District put out a memo to parents and guardians stating that, according to Missouri statute, fights at school or on buses will be treated as felonies — which can result in up to four years of prison, fines or probation.
“Dear Parents/Guardians:
We want to make you aware of a few new State Statutes that will go into effect on January 1, 2017, which may have a drastic impact on how incidents are handled in area school districts.
The way the new statue reads, if a person commits the offense of an assault in the third degree this will now be classified as a Class E Felony, rather than a misdemeanor. If he or she knowingly causes physical injury to another person (hits someone or has a fight with another individual and an injury occurs) – one or both participants may be charged with a Felony.”
Gone are the days when teachers broke up fights and sent the kids home, calling the parents and perhaps suspending the kid if it was a serious incident. “School Resource Officers” or local cops now arrest the kids and, if there is any perceived injury (an arbitrary judgment), will charge them with third-degree assault – treating children cooped up in school as if they are violent adults on the streets.
“What does this mean for students?
For example, if two students are fighting and one child is injured, the student who caused the injury may be charged with a felony. Student(s) who are caught fighting in school, bus or on school grounds may now be charged with a felony (no matter the age or grade level), if this assault is witnessed by one of the School Resource Officers/police officers (SRO) or if the SRO/local law enforcement officials have to intervene.”
It doesn’t stop there. Even attempts or threats to cause harm will be treated as a Class A misdemeanor, which can bring up to a year of prison time. If the assaulted person is considered a “special victim,” a Class D felony can be imposed which can mean up to seven years in prison.
The Free Thought Project has reported on numerous examples of how public schools are increasingly relying on armed cops to carry out discipline, thereby criminalizing the age-old reality of children behaving badly.
This has resulted in the increasingly prevalent phenomenon known as the “school to prison pipeline.”
The Arizona State Law Journal found that over the last three decades, there has been a marked shift in public schools to using law enforcement instead of school administrators and teachers for students violating school rules.
Approximately 260,000 students were referred to law enforcement during the 2011-2012 school year, and about 92,000 students were arrested on school property. Unsurprisingly, these numbers affect disadvantaged minority students the most.
The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) documented disturbing examples of children being subjected to law enforcement, just as a shocking video emerged of a cop brutalizing a teenage girl in the classroom for misbehaving.
”Some police actions involve alarming physical altercations, with kids subdued and handcuffed. Others may be handled without much force. But law-enforcement involvement in school discipline has routinely resulted in kids—some as young as elementary school-age—summoned to court to answer charges that they committed crimes. Frequently, charges include battery or assault in connection with schoolyard fights or disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace at school —issues that some believe should be handled by school officials, not cops.”
The worst state is Virginia, with a rate of 16 students per 1,000 being referred to law enforcement. One school had a shocking 228 students, most between 11 and 14, that were referred to cops. A 12-year-old girl was charged with obstruction of justice for clenching her fist at a cop. 11-year-old Kayleb Moon-Robinson, who is autistic, was slammed to the floor for walking out of class too early, and then was charged with felony assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct.
Other shocking examples include five- and six-year-olds being handcuffed, arrested and booked into jail for throwing temper tantrums. Dress code violations, tardiness, and even passing gas have all led to students being referred to law enforcement.
CPI describes how early exposure to law enforcement and the “justice system” has a devastating impact on the mental health of children, and makes it more likely they will grow up to live all or part of their lives behind bars.
“…prosecuting kids in court for low-level accusations like disorderly conduct and battery is actually backfiring; kids become stigmatized, develop records and often disengage from school. The risk increases that they’ll progress to more serious trouble, especially if core emotional or mental-health or learning problems go unresolved or inadequately treated.”
The Arizona State Law Journal confirmed that incarceration increases delinquency and future involvement in the justice system, and “the official processing of a juvenile law violation may be the least effective means of rehabilitating juvenile offenders.”
“No one should underestimate the negative consequences associated with incarcerating a juvenile, both to our society as a whole and to the youth themselves, which is the end result of the school-to-prison pipeline. Empirical research demonstrates that incarceration produces long-term detrimental effects on youth, including reinforcement of violent attitudes and behaviors; more limited educational, employment, military, and housing opportunities; an increased likelihood of not graduating from high school; mental health concerns; and increased future involvement in the criminal justice system.”
By enacting their draconian new rules, the state of Missouri is completely ignoring science, instead, falling back on uniformed state agents with badges and guns – trained to confront the worst of society – to deal with misbehaving kids in school.
Missouri is ignoring the proven benefits of “restorative justice.”
“Thus, rather than excluding the student from the school community for misbehaving, which potentially can cause resentment, disrupt that student’s educational progress, and lead to recidivism and dropping out of school, one of the primary goals of restorative justice is to integrate the offender back into the school community as a productive member.
In essence, restorative justice practices are conflict resolution tools that involve victims, offenders, and other members of the school community. Using formal and informal conferences, or “circle groups,” victims share with offenders how they have been harmed by the offender’s behavior, offenders have opportunities to apologize to the victims, and, with the help of the victims and the other members of the school community, conference participants devise remedies for the harmful behavior.”
Instead of smart approaches like restorative justice, Missouri is set to plunge its children into a police state nightmare — guaranteeing a long-term rise in prison population and further destroying the mental health of the most vulnerable individuals.
December 7, 2016, marked the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. News outlets all over the country showed footage from December 7, 1941, "A date which will live in infamy". People were interviewed, stories were told about that tragic day when more than 2,400 people were killed, the day was memorialized and ceremonies were held.
Tragedies involving Black people, don't usually get memorialize or "live in infamy" and instead are mostly forgotten. Dorris "Dorie" Miller, a Black Pearl Harbor hero, was mostly ignored by the white press; a tradition that continues even to this day, remember Shoshana Johnson? Dorie Miller took part in the Battle of Makin Island and was killed when a torpedo hit his ship within two years of his Pearl Harbor heroics.
My grandmother, on my father's side, had six sons serving overseas in the military during World War II, but when it came time to recognize the mother from St. Louis with the most number of sons serving in the military, a white woman with five sons was chosen.
My grandmother, according to my father, rarely went downtown, so he was excited one day when they caught the bus downtown. By the time they arrived downtown, my grandmother needed to use the restroom. While her six sons were risking their lives for this country, my grandmother was denied the simple dignity of using the restroom. My father mentioned how humilated his mother felt after being rudely told she could not use the restroom at several locations, forcing them to catch the bus home so she could use the restroom. My grandmother almost never left home after that incident according to my father. Discussing it almost brought tears to my father's eyes.
Slavery, Jim Crow, convict leasing, peonage, race riots, lynchings, medical experimentation, mass incarceration, and other racial atrocities commited against black people is not treated as a tragedy in the same way the Holocaust is treated even though Africans experience their own Holocaust in addition to slavery.
The negative affects of slavery includes all the horrible combined legacy, both physical and mental, of actual bondage and the institutional forms of racism, and oppression that followed and still continues to this day. Black Americans have never fully been allowed to recover or progress.
Malcolm X stated it best when he said, “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, that’s not progress. If you pull it all the way out, that’s not progress. The progress comes from healing the wound that the blow made. They haven’t even begun to pull the knife out. They won’t even admit the knife is there.”
In addition to bondage, slaves were prohibited from reading and so-called "free Blacks" were restricted by law, through the "Black Codes," from entering certain professions, assembling, establishing businesses, bearing arms, serving in the militias, and some states even barred free blacks from entering.
Dispite the fact that African-Americans were treated as second class citizens and endured numerous indignities, they strongly supported, and desired to be part of, the war effor. After Japan's defeat, the United States treated their former enemy better than they did black men and women who served and risked their lives. During the occupation and reconstruction period, Billions of U.S. aid and assistance were spent rebuilding Japan.
The U.S. purchased approximately 5,800,000 acres of land, (approximately 38% of Japan's cultivated land), from wealthy landowners, under the government's reform program and resold the land to Japan's tenant farmers at extremely low prices. By 1950, three million peasants had acquired land, dismantling a power structure that the former landlords had long dominated.
The United States provided for Japan's poor farmers better than it did it's own former slaves. While the U.S. was helping the poor citizens of it's enemy secure land, Black soldiers who helped win the war were denied access to the G.I. Bill which allowed returning white soldiers to enroll in college and purchase homes. Japan is now a world economic power, while Blacks in America are still subjected to discrimination, police brutality, predatory courts, and an enormous wealth gap.
Japan is currently a world power because it received crucial aid and assistance rebuilding it's devasted cities and economy. Had the Black community received a fraction of the assistance provided to former enemies, our communities would be flourishing too. Instead of aid, the Black community was sabotaged by laws that placed artificial restrictions and provided substandard education. The government even participated in an illegal program that dumped drugs into black nieghborhoods. When Black folks became addicted to those drugs, they were treated like criminals, sentenced to harsh jail sentences and prevented from participating in society's safety nets such as student aid, food stamps and public housing.
Even as American was reflecting this Pearl Harbor day, there were those who will tell Black folks to stop whining and re-visiting the past, get over it and forget about slavery and the residual suffering because it was so long ago. We can't get over it, because it's not over. Every economic downturn or crisis effects the Black community disproportunately because of systemic exclusion of resources and opportunity.
"It's foolish to let your oppressor tell you that you should forget about the oppression that they inflicted upon you."
The Bundy militia fought for their right to make money. We want to protect our sacred lands – but the state is treating us with violence and hostility
Sometime in the early summer when the Sacred Stone Camp was just a handful of tents and the Dakota Access machines had not yet come to our side of the Missouri river, I got an email from a woman who said her husband was Cliven Bundy and that she wanted to bring her daughters to stand with us. I knew little of this gun-toting militia, but enough that I told her no, we are a non-violent encampment, you cannot come here.
When I began to look into the Bundy’s standoff at the Malheur Refuge, I became angry. That place is a locus of ancestral heritage of the Burns Paiute Tribe, which the Bundys knowingly desecrated. They reportedly dug latrines through recognized cultural sites. As a tribal historic preservation officer, my heart broke when I heard they allegedly rifled through some 4,000 cultural items that had been kept in the museum. Some of the sacred objects they destroyed were hundreds of years old.
The Bundys did not reclaim that land. It was never theirs. It is Paiute land.
From the beginning, we at Standing Rock gathered in a spirit of prayer and non-violent resistance to the destruction of our homeland and culture. We came together with our ceremonies, songs and drums. Weapons are not allowed into our camps. The Bundys’ occupation began with threats and guns. It was violent from the outset, and the people they pretended to represent did not even condone it.
Last week we saw how justice works in this country: armed ranchers are treated with compassion and their charges are dropped, while indigenous people are physically attacked and charged with trespassing on our own ancestral lands.
Our resistance has not been met with handshakes.
Both the Bundys and the water protectors at Standing Rock stand for our convictions on what is claimed to be federal land. But that is where reasonable comparisons end. The land they claimed to take back was cleared of our relatives and the buffalo nation so that white ranchers like the Bundys could graze their cattle there.
The Bundys assert a property right which was only made possible through the genocide of indigenous peoples and the continued occupation of our lands by the same government they claim to fight. Their white supremacist ideology is the foundation of the settler state, and their ranching would not be possible without it. Their racist fear blinds them to the fact that they are actually supporting their enemy and fighting themselves.
The Bundy militia were fighting for their right to make money, while we are fighting our children’s rights to clean drinking water.
Our camp reclaims land stolen by the US government in direct violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, which affirmed it as sovereign unceded territory of the Great Sioux Nation.
Right in the path of the Dakota Access pipeline are Sundance grounds and village sites, held sacred not only by the Sioux Nations, but also the Arikara, the Mandan, and the Northern Cheyenne. The day after the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed papers identifying the burial places of our ancestors, Dakota Access intentionally destroyed them to avoid federal regulation. Would you stand by as bulldozers drove through the National Cemetery at Arlington?
Erasing our footprint from the world erases us as a people. These sites must be protected, or our world will end; it is that simple. If we allow an oil company to dig through and destroy our histories, our ancestors, our hearts and souls as a people, is that not genocide?
As indigenous people, we know these attempts to erase us very well, and one of the ways it works is through environmental racism. Indigenous lands across the country are the sites of nuclear waste dumping, toxic mining operations, oil and gas drilling and a long list of other harmful environmental practices, but see very little benefit from these projects. We live in the sacrifice zones. And that is the story here too – the Dakota Access pipeline was rerouted from north of Bismarck, a mostly white community, out of concerns for their drinking water, but then redirected to ours. They consider our community “expendable”.
The national guard and state police have been reinforced by forces from seven other states, to push corporate interests through our home, but together with our relatives, we stand up. We are still here.
We have always welcomed everyone to come stand with us against the injustices of the federal government. Joining forces would be a source of great power – if we stand together to confront racism and destruction of the land. But we will do that with prayer, not guns.
We are the people of this land. We have the roots growing out of our feet. We stand with compassion and prayer. They cannot break us.
Ladonna Bravebull Allard is the founder of the Sacred Stone Camp in Cannonball, North Dakota.
Reprinted “Courtesy of Guardian News & Media Ltd”.
I dropped off my son and his girlfriend, both 17-year-old high school seniors, at the AMC Esquire movie theatre on Clayton Road about 4:45 p.m. Sunday, October 16, 2016.
When they tried to purchase tickets to see the 5 p.m. showing of Kevin Hart's movie "What Now?", they were asked for ID and then told that they needed to be 18 to see any movie starting at or after 5 p.m.
My son then purchased tickets for "The Girl on a Train" (start time 4:45 p.m.), however, this was not by choice. This couple's choices had been unfairly restricted by using all too familiar tactic. After my son and his girlfriend left the movie, they went to St. Louis Bread Company where I picked them up. When I inquired about the movie, they told me about the situation.
Those familiar with this site understand how serious I am about protecting my rights; so you can imagine how upset I was when I discovered that my son had been mistreated, especially while spending his money. I felt as if the clock had been set back and my son was forced into a symbolic back of the bus. My 17-year-old son did not have the legal savvy to challenge the person behind the ticket booth, but that will soon be corrected.
I was also upset because movies about and featuring black people are increasing, but situations such as this dilute the box office numbers for those movies. If anyone knows Kevin Hart, please let him know so his team can investigate if there's an effort to divert box office ticket sales to other movies. Years ago movie-goers who asked to purchase tickets to black movies were sold tickets to white movies. They were allowed to use those tickets to see the movie of their choice, but the ticket sales were credited to other movies. In fact, my last post was about another movie featuring black people, "Birth of a Nation".
I visited several pages on AMC's website including "ratings information", but did not find a policy listed that customers have to be 18 or older after 5. Here's what I found:
"R: Restricted
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age 21 or older)"
"For R-Rated Films: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age 21 or older) and 25 years and under must show ID. And children under the age of 6 are not allowed after 6:00pm."
I will be contacting AMC for their response, but I would like to know if anyone else has had this experienced. Please contact us if you have. We are also asking our white readers to report if they are being asked for IDs when they visit AMC theatres or if white teens have been told 18 or older after 5 p.m. If we discover that this is a systemic form of discrimination, we will organize an information picket outside the theatre on the public right of way.
Update
I contacted AMC using their website contact page early yesterday morning, Monday, October 17th. By 2 p.m. today, Tuesday, October 18th, I had not received a reply, so I phoned the number listed on the AMC Theatre website 888-440-4262. When I inquired about the 18 after 5 pm policy, the person I spoke with gave conflicting and evasive answers and suggested that I contact the specific theatre location and provided me the phone number (314-781-9017) to the Esquire located at 6706 Clayton Road, Saint Louis, MO 63117.
I spoke with the Esquire's manager who directed me to the Esquire's Web Page. When you scroll down near the bottom of that page, there is a boxed off section "Other Policies". The last link in that section is "Parental Escort Policy (Under 18 after 5)" which states:
"Minors Under 18 Must Be Accompanied by a Guardian Over 21 After 5 p.m. This policy is for the safety and comfort of all guests. Picture ID is required for films starting at 5 p.m. or later."
However, the Esquire is the only theatre in the St. Louis area that has this policy. Every other theatre instead of having a "Parental Escort Policy" has an "Age Policy for R-Rated Films" which states:
"Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian (age 21 or older). Guests 25 years and under must show ID. We restrict children younger than 6 from attending R-Rated films after 6pm to improve the experience for everyone. To bring your children younger than 6 to R-Rated films, please visit us before 6pm."
For whatever reason, AMC or the managment at the Esquire believes it's okay to deny patrons of the Esquire the same access privileges that are enjoyed at every other St. Louis area theatre. The manager that I spoke with mentioned how their policy was similar to the Galleria Mall's curfew, but that policy only applies to minors 16 and under not 17.
I purchase AMC movie passes from Sam's Club and insert in greeting card as gifts, but I will end that practice. The next time my son wants to go to a movie theatre, he'll go to one of the St. Louis Cinema locations or 24:1 Cinema. If AMC doesn't believe my son deserves the same access to the theatre closest to our home, they don't deserve our money. I hope those of you reading this feel the same way. If so let AMC know.
Schoolyard fights now a felony.
