Lil Wayne Minstrel Show at Bethel University

Confederacy Controversy "Does Not Amount to Diddly"

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) made the controversial decision to recognize April 2010 as Confederate History Month and initially omitted any reference to slavery. Appearing on CNN's State of the Union on April 11, 2010, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R) said that controversy is making "a big deal out of something that does not amount to diddly." What do you think?

Confederate History Month: It is a Celebration!

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell declared April 2010 Confederate History Month. The declaration states:

WHEREAS, April is the month in which the people of Virginia joined the Confederate States of America in a four year war between the states for independence that concluded at Appomattox Courthouse; and

WHEREAS, Virginia has long recognized her Confederate history, the numerous civil war battlefields that mark every region of the state, the leaders and individuals in the Army, Navy and at home who fought for their homes and communities and Commonwealth in a time very different than ours today; and

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to reflect upon our Commonwealth’s shared history, to understand the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens during the period of the Civil War, and to recognize how our history has led to our present….

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Robert McDonnell, do hereby recognize April 2010 as CONFEDERATE HISTORY MONTH in our COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

The original declaration did not even mention slavery. The Washington Post reported that:

McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because "there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia."

Essentially, slavery was not significant enough to be included in the original proclamation. Under pressure from the African American community, Governor McDonnell issued an apology and added the following clause to the proclamation:

WHEREAS, it is important for all Virginians to understand that the institution of slavery led to this war and was an evil and inhumane practice that deprived people of their God-given inalienable rights and all Virginians are thankful for its permanent eradication from our borders, and the study of this time period should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history…
**This section will be added between the 3rd and 4th Sections**

Belatedly adding a slavery clause does not negate the truth about the Confederacy. Virginia and the other treasonous Confederate States seceded from the Union primarily to protect slavery and white supremacy. Hundreds of thousands of people died during the Civil War. Celebrating Confederate history is a grotesque romanticization of treason, war and slavery. It is analogous to Germany celebrating its revolting Nazi history. McDonnell’s proclamation is an outrageous insult to all African Americans.

Following in the footsteps of his predecessors George Allen and Jim Gilmore, McDonnell is perpetuating the Republican Party’s southern strategy of pandering to the most reactionary, racist elements of the electorate. Instead of uniting the people of Virginia, the Governor has polarized and agitated the people. Rather than simply issuing an apology, the Governor should cancel Confederate History Month immediately.

McDonnell needs to hear from concerned citizens. He can be reached at:

Mailing address:
P.O. Box 1475
Richmond, Virginia 23218

Street address:
Office of the Governor
Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor
1111 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Phone Numbers:
(804) 786-2211
Fax: (804) 371-6351
TTY/TDD (For the Hearing Impaired):
1-800-828-1120, or 711

Making History: President signs Health Care Reform Bill

After a century long struggle, President Obama signed the Health Care Reform Bill into law. I commend the President and the Democrats for a job well done. We witnessed history. In the plain words of Vice President Joe Biden, "this is a big f***ing deal!" Although this legislation is imperfect for the sound reasons articulated by progressives such as U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader on Democracy Now, this legislation provides major tangible benefits to the American people. As stated in Tara Siegal Bernard's New York Times article entitled "For Consumers, Clarity on Health Care Changes":

The legislation .... provide[s] coverage for as many as 32 million people who have been shut out of the market — whether because insurers deem them too sick or because they cannot afford ever-rising insurance premiums.

[Within] six months .... many plans [will] be prohibited from placing lifetime limits on medical coverage, and they [cannot] cancel the policies of people who fall ill. Children with pre-existing conditions [cannot] be denied coverage.

And dependent children up to age 26 [are] eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans — instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19.

And within three months ....., people who have been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition [will] be eligible for subsidized coverage through a new high-risk insurance program.

That special coverage [will] continue until the legislation’s engine kicks into a higher gear in 2014, when coverage [will] be extended to a wider part of the population through Medicaid and new state-run insurance exchanges.

Those exchanges, or marketplaces, [will] provide much more competitive, consumer-friendly online shopping centers of private insurance for people who are not able to obtain coverage through an employer.

In 2014, people with pre-existing conditions [can] no longer be denied insurance, all lifetime and annual limits on coverage [will] be eliminated and new policies [will] be required to meet higher benefit standards.

While this landmark legislation is a major accomplishment, it must viewed as a single step toward the ultimate goal, free universal health care for all citizens.

This is What Change Looks Like!

One Exceptional Negro

As reported in the Washington Post, according to the authors of Game Change, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said “that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

After this statement was revealed, Sen. Reid issued the following apology. "I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans, for my improper comments." In addition, he called President Obama and apologized. In response, Obama stated, "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years. I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."

Democrats such Congressman James Clyburn, former Congressman Harold Ford and even activists like Rev. Al Sharpton accepted Reid’s apology. The Congressional Black Caucus is issued a weak press release regarding the issue. On the Today Show, in an accommodating manner, Ford simply described Reid’s statement as “unusual”, and Gwen Ifill asserted that Reid's statement was not demeaning. Attempting to excuse Reid’s statement, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine contended that the statement was made in the context of praising Obama’s candidacy for president. Similar to Joe Biden’s gaffe referring to Obama as the first clean and articulated African American presidential candidate, Reid’s condescending praise of Obama is an insult to the African American community.

Basically, Reid said that Obama is an exceptional Negro. In other words, he is not like most Black people. He implied that Obama is an honorary white person. In essence, the Senator alluded to the notion that a lighter complexion is superior or preferable to a darker one. Unfortunately, such sentiments may reflect the opinions of many white voters who helped elect President Obama. Obama was raised by his Caucasian mother and grandparents. His background made it easier for white voters to identify with him. It would have been more difficult for white voters to identify with him if had a darker complexion and was raised by Black parents.

Furthermore, Reid insinuated that it was an extraordinary feat for an African American politician to speak standard proper English. He used the antiquated segregation era term “Negro” to imply that most African Americans only speak Ebonics. Furthermore, Reid insulted Obama by suggesting that Obama is a phony who can pretend to be Black when necessary.

Although the book may be closed for Obama and the Democrats, it remains open for the African American community. This is not a Democratic Party or Republican Party issue. While I appreciate Sen. Reid's demonstrated commitment to social justice, his record should not serve as a basis to excuse his racist statement. It is extremely disappointing that no prominent African American politicians or organizations have strongly condemned the Senator’s racist comments. Where is your heart? How many more apologies will the President accept?

War is Peace

Yesterday, President Barack Obama humbly accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. During his acceptance speech, Obama said that his accomplishments are slight compared to other Nobel Prize winners such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former South African President Nelson Mandela. I am proud that the first African American U.S. President received this distinguished award. Barack Obama is the embodiment of African Americans' hopes and dreams. He is a great symbol of American progress.

However, with all due respect, I agree with President Obama. His accomplishments are slight compared to great peacemakers like Dr. King and President Mandela. President Obama has been in office for less than one year. He was in office for a couple of months when he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Aside from giving beautiful speeches about mutual respect and international cooperation, he has done little for the cause of peace.

The timing of this award is ironic and controversial. The United States is waging two wars. Last week, after long deliberations, President Obama announced his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. According to the President, this escalation will cost American taxpayers at least $30 billion this year. During his eloquent and thought provoking acceptance speech, Obama justified his decision to escalate the conflict. He stated that:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified…I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiation cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms…Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of American has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of arms…The instruments of war have a role to play in preserving the peace.

That last sentence reminds me of the slogan "War is Peace" in George Orwell’s novel 1984. Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee's award to Obama is peculiar.

I am no pacifist. In principle, I agree with the President’s general point. Some wars are necessary and just such as the Civil War and World War II. Although I support the President's goal of eradicating Al Qaeda, I do not support his decision to send 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan for the following reasons. First, other great powers such as Russia and Britain have failed in Afghanistan. The U.S. should reflect and learn from those examples. More troops equals more unnecessary American casualties.

Second, the Karzai government is a corrupt, inept regime of warlords and drug dealers. It is unlikely to ever become a reliable partner with the U.S. Without a strong central Afghan government, success is impossible.

Third, instead of squandering billions of dollars waging war and attempting to repair a failed state, that money should be used to address the problems plaguing American cities. My hometown, Detroit, has been devastated by sub prime mortgages, skyrocketing unemployment and failing schools. Many other inner cities face similar problems. This Nation always has enough money for war. But for health care and other social programs, we are told that those programs must be deficit neutral.

Fourth, Afghanistan is only one of Al Qaeda's safe havens. For instance, many of Al Qaeda operatives are in Pakistan. Many Al Qaeda leaders were killed or captured in Pakistan. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.

Fifth, the U.S. does not have a clear exit strategy. The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for over eight years. Despite Obama's assurances that the U.S. will begin to transfer forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have suggested that troops may remain in Afghanistan for years after that soft deadline.

And finally, American military intervention and occupation has not and will not ultimately defeat terrorism and fanaticism. Such policies fuel terrorism and perpetuate the endless cycle of violence and retaliation.