Category Archives: north carolina

All Posts, environment, north carolina

Cleaning Up North Carolina Energy Laws

North Carolina’s Republican legislators have passed energy and environmental laws that impede innovation and economic competition by clean energy entrepreneurs.  They show little regard for the interests of individual citizens and ignore twenty-first century science.  Consider these examples.

In order to build a solar or wind energy installation, the company must own or lease the property where it will be built, comply with local zoning and land use rules, and acquire right of way for transmission of the energy that they produce to customers without use of eminent domain powers or other government authority.  A bill (S-843) recently passed by the State Senate’s “small government” Republicans would add a maze of new regulations and barriers including a 1.5 mile setback from the property line and a 35 decibel (human whisper) noise limit at the property line for wind farms.  Solar farms would have to be invisible from adjoining property.  The bill removes corporate protections for stockholders in wind and solar farms, making them individually liable for damages caused by the corporation.  And it requires the corporation to set aside sufficient money to return the land to its original state after the renewable energy site is closed.

State Law is starkly different for production of natural gas or oil via fracking.  Corporations do not have to own or lease the property under which they drill.  They are allowed to drill horizontally under private property without agreement by the landowner and to put wells on someone else’s land without permission.  Payments to the landowner will be set by a government agency and the landowner can’t refuse the arrangement.  Local governments are not allowed to regulate fracking via zoning, or in any other way.  A government agency can force land owners to accept a pipeline for delivery of oil or gas to market.  Executives who violate laws or rules governing fracking can not be prosecuted for anything more than a misdemeanor.  Owners of corporations are not personally liable for damages that their companies cause.  There is no requirement to return the land and water to it’s original condition after the fracking is completed or set aside money for potential damages.

There is no evidence of substantial or long-term environmental damage by wind or solar farms. Fracking, on the other hand,  is a proven cause of well contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes.  The energy produced by solar and wind farms is as clean as any that is available.  Gas and oil consumption contribute heavily to climate change by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

North Carolina has few earthquakes but we do have inactive geologic faults. Two decades ago those statements were true of Oklahoma but that state experienced 581 earthquakes in 2014.  In that year frackers injected over 64 billion gallons of wastewater under Oklahoma and that is clearly the cause of the earthquakes. (Scientific American, July 2016)   It appears that frackers will not be required to pay for Oklahoma’s earthquake damage. It is clear, however that Oklahoma property owners will need earthquake insurance. The price of that coverage is bound to rise along with the number of quakes.

Why would a state legislature allow local zoning and regulation of wind and solar while denying it for gas and oil?  Why make individual stockholders of clean energy companies responsible for damages caused by the corporation while immunizing frackers from similar claims?  Why is government’s power used to enable environment-damaging industries while discouraging clean energy development?

The success of clean energy producers is visible in the form of solar and wind farms that produce electricity without pollution.  Not everyone likes the changed landscape.  Huge petroleum, gas, coal, and utility companies have a lot of influence with legislators and they don’t like competition from clean energy.

We need to let the market work by applying the same standards across all energy sectors.  If they pollute, they should pay to clean it up.  If they need  a right of way to get energy to the market, the same laws and regulations should apply to all forms of energy.  If they violate safety and environmental standards, criminal and civil penalties should be the same for all businesses.

Legislators who espouse free market principles should be able to collaborate with environmentally conscious colleagues to create fair competition and a cleaner state for all of us.  They will if voters demand it.

 

All Posts, justice, lgbtq, north carolina, public education

THE TRANSGENDER CULTURE WAR

6 Comments

The United States Departments of Justice and Education have notified state governments and publicly funded schools across the nation that they will lose billions of dollars in federal funding if they discriminate against transgender students.  Amidst the flurry of lawsuits, threats, corporate relocations, event cancellations, and propaganda arising from North Carolina’s infamous  HB 2, this is the most meaningful of interventions because it is national in scope and it has big teeth.  I’ll attempt to describe the federal intervention and the rationale behind it.

I was stunned by the brevity and clarity of the federal correspondence.  It’s only 5 pages long. The law is equally understandable and only 9 pages long. The US Court of Appeals decision that documents federal authority to intervene is long and complex but understandable to non-attorneys.  The sample practices raised as many questions as answers, and didn’t seem particularly helpful, but they were distributed only as information not as advice or rules.  My suggestion is that people who are truly interested read the documents for themselves.  Here, in my opinion, are the key points.

From the letter:   “The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.” …  “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”

From the law (Title 20):   Compliance … may be effected … by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance … to any recipient (for) a failure to comply …

The US Court of appeals supported the federal policy that “…a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

All of the interested parties would be better served by calm and open discussion of the issues.  Public policies and laws that protect the rights of transgender people while being sensitive to the modesty, privacy and safety concerns of all parties can best be created when there is mutual respect and trust.  Instead we have threats and misinformation.  Our national behavior is disappointing but not surprising.  It’s consistent with how human rights evolve and social change happens here.  Similar events accompanied emancipation of slaves, reconstruction, women’s suffrage, organized labor, school integration, civil rights laws, and marriage equality.

In every case change began in a few local communities and states.  Then a conservative backlash brought legislation to embed discriminatory traditions deeply into public policy.  Reactionary leaders used fear and traditional prejudices to rally support then used raw power and secrecy to impose their will.  In the case of HB 2, a few Republican legislators cooked up the scheme then called an emergency session of the legislature to pass it without public debate.  The public, the press, and many of the legislators who voted for it were not even allowed to read the law until the day it was passed.

Similar ideas have emerged in several Republican dominated states. That is the environment into which the federal government has stepped – just as it ultimately stepped into the other human rights issues that I listed.  That intervention can create a baseline of fair practices to protect transgender people, but it is far from ideal.  Instead of allowing local creativity and cooperation, reactionary intransigence has forced federal intervention and poured gasoline on the always smoldering American culture war.  Federal action will, at best, prevent discriminatory practices.  It can’t produce ideal local results or tolerance.

The debate is over.  Transgender people are entitled to the same protection of laws as people born to that gender.  As we learn to collaborate on the best ways to move ahead it is good to remember that during war, safe and nurturing places often become battlefields where innocent bystanders are victims of the conflict. That is true of culture war as well as military warfare.  Our best course is to plan and accommodate changes that are constructive and safe for everyone.  We can achieve that if we learn together and collaborate toward that goal.

All Posts, American Foreign Policy, campaign finance, Congress, Constitution, justice, north carolina, war

PRESIDENT WASHINGTON’S ADVICE TO AMERICAN VOTERS

4 Comments

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

I’ve invited an old friend of our nation to compose most of this column.  George Washington served with great distinction as leader of our military forces in the war for independence then gave another eight years of service as our first President.   Approaching the end of his second term in 1796, he published a farewell address that included his assessment of our history and his advice about the future.  Here are some of his words and some questions to ponder.

“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize”… “For the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable.” That hasn’t changed but our perception of who is entitled to the benefits of liberty has expanded to include people regardless of race, sex, or other personal characteristics. Why do so many among us now see government as our biggest problem?

President Washington said that by maintaining our national unity, we could “…derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments…” thereby avoiding … “the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty.”  Why do we have armed forces stationed all over the world and why have we been at war so long?

Regarding relationships with other nations, he said, “nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible…”  Why are we continuously involved in trying to change the internal affairs of other nations?

Washington wrote, “In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views.”  In North Carolina, Republicans designed legislative districts to guarantee their continuous hold on power.  To benefit themselves, they divide citizens rural and religious against urban and secular.  The situation in Washington is similar.

Speaking of associations and political parties, President Washington said, “…they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”  Could anyone better describe how political parties and PACs serve the interests of the very wealthy, huge corporations and other special interests?

Still speaking of factions and political parties, President Washington told us that “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection”

Please think about it.  Need I say more?

CLICK HERE to read George Washington’s full farewell address

All Posts, health, lgbtq, north carolina

Exposing the Republican Bogeyman

8 Comments

A law passed by NC Republicans bans the two transgender Americans in the picture above from restrooms that match their physical appearance unless they can get revised birth certificates. 

READ THE NEW NORTH CAROLINA LAW HERE HB 2

The bogeyman will get you if you don’t watch out!  As a child, I heard that myth from adults who wanted me to be properly frightened of dark places, new ideas and people who looked or sounded “different”.  I never met him, but somehow I inferred that the bogeyman was a lot like the Jews, Negroes, Catholics, and Gypsies that we were expected to fear.  Children learned, without being explicitly taught, that some of “those people” were nice but many of them were dangerous and “we” should avoid them.  When I was a little older, I began to hear about “queers” and the awful things that they did to boys, so if anyone acted “that way” I should stay away from him.  Most people of my age learned some version of the myth.  If not from parents, it seeped in from the world around us.

By now I’ve been fortunate to have personal and work relationships with individuals from those groups. I learned that there is nothing about their religions, race, culture, ancestry, sexual orientation or gender identity that makes them dangerous or threatening.

The City of Charlotte passed an ordinance which extended its non-discrimination policies beyond the traditionally protected groups to include discrimination based on “marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression”.  The new rules apply to public accommodations, public transportation, and the practices of businesses that have contracts with the City. North Carolina’s Republican legislature and governor have called the bogeyman back into service to overturn that ordinance.

With only stories and fear-mongering, the Republicans created the myth of the transgender bogeyman who will “get” you or your children if you don’t watch out.   Then they called an emergency legislative session and introduced him to justify passing a law that not only overruled Charlotte’s ordinance; it also banned local governments from setting minimum wages and took away existing rights of individuals to file discrimination suits in state courts.  By eliminating the role of state courts in protecting many civil rights, they turned discrimination concerns over to the federal government.  They did all that in only one day.  When you’re running from the bogeyman there is no time for thoughtful deliberation.

Janet Mock, a transwoman who was born male is not allowed to use womens restrooms in NC unless she gets a revised birth certificate.
Janet Mock, a transwoman who was born male is not allowed to use women’s restrooms in NC unless she gets a revised birth certificate. The new law allows her to use only men’s restrooms. If she complies, will most NC men be more comfortable with her than with Teo Drake, below?

 

 

In more than 250 American cities that have laws similar to Charlotte’s, there is no evidence of an increase in sexual assaults and no pattern of men pretending to be transgender so they can commit crimes in women’s restrooms. In reality, transgender people are generally the victims, not the assailants.  About half of transgender people have been victims of sexual assaults.

Teo Drake, a transman who was born female is not allowed to use men’s restrooms in NC unless he gets a revised birth certificate. The new law allows him to use only women’s restrooms. If he complies, will most NC women be more comfortable with him than with Janet Mock, above?

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, IBM, Red Hat, and others among the crown jewels of the North Carolina economy want the law repealed.  Because of the law,  Pay Pal announced today that it has cancelled plans to locate their global operations center in North Carolina. The state lost 400 new jobs.  Leaders of these companies are realists who know that discrimination, hate, and fear are bad for business.  But the most serious damage is not to the  economy.  It is to the lesbian, gay, transgender, and bi-sexual people who have been clearly told that they are not welcome in North Carolina.

My niece and nephew are raising a bright, energetic transgender teenager.  He looks like a slender teenage boy but because he’s anatomically female North Carolina Republicans insist that he use the women’s washroom.   His mother shared these thoughts with me,  “As a mom with a transgender child, I feel anything but protected or safe.  Quite the opposite in fact.  I am a mom and he is my child and I worry about something as simple as him walking into a bathroom. Unfortunately, some people think that a bathroom is related to sexual behavior and predators…Predators are criminals who won’t stop because there is a sign on the door that says men or women only. If criminals obeyed signs, we could use them to get rid of heroin! Seriously? Criminals don’t work like that. As you know, my son is looking at a university in NC. Now, we’ll have to consider whether it is safe for him to travel there and stop for a restroom. It’s sad. Very, very sad.”

Years ago, public acceptance of marriage equality left North Carolina’s Republican leadership behind.  Their constitutional amendment to prevent it yielded only unnecessary expenses and animosity.  This Deja-vu law is similar.  It might be funny if it wasn’t so painful.  Sadly, the new bogeyman sports an American flag and a Christian cross on his lapels while he demands laws to hurt people who are different from him.  He’ll get you if you don’t watch out.

 

All Posts, campaign finance, north carolina, race

MAKING DEMOCRACY POINTLESS

1 Comment

“Making Democracy Pointless” should be the new tagline of North Carolina government.  The Republican Party has seized  nearly election-proof and court-proof control of choosing the state’s representatives in Congress.  Their methods were mostly legal, but that doesn’t make them ethical.  The harm they have done extends beyond the actions of the officials they elected.  They have confirmed cynical suspicion that our votes don’t matter – that democracy is indeed pointless.  That is a terrible fate for government of, by and for the people.

Here’s how they did it:

  1. Prior to 2010 elections, the Washington DC based Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) contributed $1.25 million to “Real Jobs NC” an organization launched by wealthy Republican donors including Art Pope.  By targeting about two dozen state legislative races for huge spending and attack ads against Democrats, they won both the house and the senate. That put Republicans firmly in charge of drawing congressional districts after the 2010 census.
  2.  The RSLCs map making team, armed with exceptionally sophisticated computer technology and data, were hired by the Republican legislature to draft congressional district maps.  Some work was supervised on-site by Art Pope, who was retained as co-counsel to the legislature.  The map-making strategy was simple – pack large concentrations of Democratic voters and African Americans into just 3 of North Carolina’s congressional districts. The remaining 10 districts would favor Republicans. The maps were tested prior to adoption by checking how voters in each new district voted in the last election.  The tests demonstrated that John McCain carried all ten of the “Republican” districts in the 2008 Presidential election despite losing the state to President Obama.

2012 election results proved the effectiveness of the Republican maneuvers.  With only 49 percent of the votes, Republicans won 69 percent of congressional races and changed the North Carolina congressional delegation from a 7-6 Democrat majority to a 9-4 Republican advantage.  In 2014 they achieved their desired 10-3 split.  Democrats won the  3  districts into which they had been packed with over 70 percent of the vote.

North Carolina is one example of the national Republican gerrymandering strategy.  Their website brags that,  “Democratic candidates for the U.S. House won 1.1 million more votes than their Republican opponents.  But the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is a Republican and presides over a 33-seat House Republican majority during the 113th Congress.”  How much difference did gerrymandering make? Imagine the last four years with a narrow Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a Democrat as Speaker of the House.  It probably made that much difference.

Republicans defend their actions by pointing out that Democrats did the same thing when they were in power.  It’s true.  Modern computer technology and data may have made Republicans more effective, but there’s no doubt that Democrats gerrymandered. Recently a few states including California and Iowa have implemented non-partisan or bi-partisan redistricting plans as attempts to assure fair elections.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s maps have been thrown out by a panel of  federal judges who ruled that the influence of African American voters was unfairly reduced by packing the great majority of them into only three districts.  The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a Republican appeal.    North Carolina Republicans objected loudly to the court’s decision but they were well prepared for it.  They have proudly presented new maps which they say are designed keep their current 10-3 advantage in the congressional delegation.

The court forbade gerrymandering to disenfranchise a race of people.  But gerrymandering for partisan advantage is merely unethical, not illegal.  Republicans intend to select their voters again, rather than allowing voters to select their representatives.  And it seems unlikely that courts will stop them.

We need new redistricting laws at the state or federal level to preserve our democracy.  There are Republicans as well as Democrats who feel the shame of cheating to win  elections and who want fair redistricting.  Now is a fine time time for all who value representative democracy to do what we know is right by creating  districts without unfair advantages for any group or party.

All Posts, Congress, guns, north carolina, randolph county north carolina

GUNS IN AMERICA – WHAT READERS THINK

3 Comments

In my last column I asked readers what they want from American gun laws.  This column reports back what they said. It isn’t a statistically reliable survey with a controlled sample but 90 readers responded and there is enough self-reported diversity among them to serve as a basis for more conversation on the subject.  For detailed responses including all of the reader comments CLICK HERE.

I asked readers to classify themselves into one of five groups:

Very Conservative = leaning toward tea party or conservative evangelical viewpoints.

Conservative = social conservative and generally Republican.

Unaffiliated = not conservative or liberal or partisan.

Liberal = social liberal and generally Democratic.

Very Liberal = social liberal leaning toward European Socialist viewpoint.

Those are the categories that you will see in charts below.  Green numbers indicate areas of agreement. Orange indicates disagreement with the other groups. It should be noted that the low response rate in the “very conservative” group means that their data are the least reliable.

Table 1 shows high levels of agreement among the groups about who should NOT have guns.

What criteria should a person meet before they are allowed to purchase a gun? Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
No criteria. It should be legal for anyone to purchase a gun. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Only adults age 18 or older should be allowed to purchase guns. 83 75 83 79 95 93
People with felony criminal records should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. 87 100 92 90 91 93
People who have been involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. 89 100 83 90 91 93
Only People who have completed safety training should be allowed to purchase and own guns. 69 25 58 62 86 93

 

Table 2 shows strong support for background checks before purchases in the form of either universal checks or renewable licenses.

How should gun purchasers demonstrate compliance with your criteria? Choose one best answer. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Just sign a form. We’ll take your word for it. 1 0 8 0 0 0
Background checks should be done for purchases from licensed dealers but sales at gun shows should be exempt (current system) 11 50 17 11 0 0
Purchasers must submit a valid ID and there must be an instant background check conducted for every gun purchase. 67 50 58 59 91 77
Gun owners should have one background check then receive a multi-year renewable license so they don’t need a new background check for every purchase. 21 0 17 30 9 23

 

Table 3 shows a substantial amount of agreement on banning certain types of guns and ammunition but that does not include hand guns with large magazines. Many unaffiliated respondents agree with liberals about banning rifles with large magazines.

Are there any kinds of guns or ammunition that individuals should not be allowed to possess?   Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Machine Guns 92 50 83 92 95 100
Rapid fire rifles (like assault rifles) capable of large numbers of shots before reloading 77 50 33 64 100 100
Rapid fire hand guns capable of large numbers of shots before reloading 63 0 33 40 95 86
Guns disguised to look like something else such as a cane or umbrella. 85 50 75 76 95 93
Guns designed to be invisible to metal detectors and other security systems (such as plastic guns) 94 100 92 84 100 100
Ammunition designed to pierce body armor (cop killer bullets) 86 50 83 80 95 93

 

Table 4 shows strong agreement to ban guns from commercial flights. Unaffiliated and Liberals would also ban them at schools and airports but conservatives are divided about that.

Are there places where civilians should not be allowed to carry guns? Check all that apply TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Airports 77 50 55 76 90 92
Commercial airline flights 96 100 91 95 100 100
Public Schools and their extracurricular events 82 50 55 76 95 100
Bars 76 100 55 67 86 92
Public College Campuses 68 0 27 57 86 92

 

Table 5 shows strong agreement to ban shooting near schools and where bullets cross the property of owners who have not given permission. Unaffiliateds and liberals tend to oppose shooting near homes, public buildings and businesses of people who have not given permission. Conservatives said it should be permitted near homes.

What restrictions should there be on where people can shoot guns? Check all that apply. TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Not within a specified distance from a school 95 100 92 93 100 93
Not allowed if bullets cross property where shooter does not have the owner’s permission. 87 0 67 89 100 100
Not allowed within a specified distance from any residence where the owner has not given permission 73 0 28 63 91 100
Not allowed within a specified distance from public buildings, parks or businesses 80 50 67 67 100 100
Limited to designated areas of national and state forests. 51 0 17 48 73 71
Not allowed within a specified distance from highways. 65 25 25 52 95 86

 

There are many areas of agreement across the political spectrum about the content of gun laws but no apparent agreement about which legislative body should make the laws.

Who should make the laws that govern guns and gun ownership? TOTAL

PERCENT

 Very Conservative percent Conservative percent Unaffiliated percent Liberal percent Very Liberal percent
Congress should make national laws and states can add to them. 66 50 9 59 86 100
There should be no national laws. States should do this. 26 25 64 37 9 0
There should not be any laws limiting gun ownership in any way. 5 25 18 4 0 0
Cities and counties should be permitted to create additional restrictions as needed. 59 0 45 44 77 85

 

Those who believe cable news channels won’t hear it reported, but this survey demonstrates many areas of agreement on actions that might reduce gun deaths. If we listen and respect each other’s opinions, we might be able to move forward with ideas that have broad support rather than allowing areas of disagreement to paralyze us. Perhaps the most disturbing disagreement is not about what our laws should be; instead it is about which legislative body should make the laws.

My hope is that this column will encourage conversations among friends and families about gun laws; and that those conversations will lead to mutual understanding. My belief is that most of our legislators do not want to lead on this subject. They are waiting for us voters to make up our minds. The survey says that we have already done that on some subjects. If that is true, we should let lawmakers in on the secret.

 

All Posts, Christianity, justice, north carolina, race

Making Racism Visible

2 Comments

Today I am publishing word-for-word nine responses to last week’s column about “Silent Sam” because they reveal white supremacist beliefs that persist in our community and nation 150 years after our Civil War.  I’m doing this for two reasons.

  1. We can deal effectively with racism only after it is visible.
  2. Our best hope to successfully deal with racism lies in developing personal acquaintances and friendships with people of other races – bonds strong enough to tolerate frank discussion of personal experiences.

Maybe a few readers will share this with friends and use it to begin a dialogue.  If so, I would be pleased to know about your experience doing that.

I must add that there were readers who agreed and others who did not and who made civilized responses.  What follows are only the ones written from a white supremacist perspective.

WARNING:  Much of what follows is both racist and inflammatory.  Continue reading Making Racism Visible →

All Posts, justice, north carolina, race

Silent Sam needs company

1 Comment
The lady justice is depicted urging Sam to drop his books and his studies and go to war for the Confederacy. He looks victorious despite losing the war.
The lady justice is depicted urging Sam to drop his books and his studies and go to war for the Confederacy. Sam looks victorious despite losing the war.

While walking across the University of North Carolina campus, I paused to see the controversial statue of “Silent Sam“, a memorial to students who joined the Confederate army.  Some North Carolinians want it removed because it seems to celebrate the causes of racism, slavery, and rebellion against the United States.  Others want to preserve it and similar monuments across the Tarheel state that recognize those who served the Confederate cause.  They say that removing the monuments is tantamount to rewriting history.  The argument raises two questions.  What is the purpose of the statues?  Why did we fight a civil war?

Julian Carr, a wealthy Civil War veteran who delivered the keynote speech at Silent Sam’s 1913 dedication, made it clear that the monument was erected to honor and perpetuate the cause of white supremacy.  Here are a few of his words.  “The present generation…scarcely takes note of what the Confederate soldier meant to the Anglo-Saxon race…the purest strain of the Anglo-Saxon is to be found in the thirteen Southern States —  Praise God…One hundred yards from where we stand, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted…a southern lady…”  Today, a century after the statue was erected, that speech is proudly displayed on the website of the Durham Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The reasons for the war are evident in the reasons for secession declared by the legislatures of Confederate states:

Texas:  “…the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations…”

Mississippi: “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union…”

Southern state governments claimed slavery as a legitimate social structure that was vital to their economies and they saw the election of President Lincoln as proof that slavery would be ended in the United States.  Underlying slavery and the war was greed that justified ownership of humans, theft of their labor, sale of their children and accumulation of wealth through brutality.

Sons of Confederate Veterans hold ceremonies at the Smiling Sam statue.
Sons of Confederate Veterans hold ceremonies at the Silent Sam statue.

There are “heritage groups”  (a polite description) who regularly honor their ancestors’ loyalty to the Confederacy at its monuments, making speeches and waving battle flags while dressed in Confederate uniforms.  Siding with them this year, Republicans in North Carolina’s legislature made it illegal for local governments and state institutions to remove state-owned memorials; and they rejected repeated requests to stop issuing license plates featuring Confederate battle flags.

It is necessary to acknowledge history before we can rise above it.  Rather than rewriting their Nazi past, Germans acknowledged the holocaust and other horrors of the Third Reich with new monuments alongside Nazi concentration camps and symbols.  An alternative to moving Confederate memorials or preserving them would be to update them by adding a 21st century perspective.  Americans should support victims of Jim Crow laws and descendants of slaves in creating monuments documenting the evils that the Confederacy fought to perpetuate and erecting them beside those of the Confederacy.

Some will deny the comparison of the Confederacy to Nazi Germany, but they have much in common.  Eleven million people, six million of them Jewish,  died in the holocaust.  I can’t find an estimate of how many humans died as American slaves, but approximately four million were  emancipated in the aftermath of the Civil War.  Any estimate of the number who died during more than two centuries of pre-emancipation slavery would produce a count larger than the number of holocaust victims.  Is slavery a fate better or worse than a holocaust death?  I like to think that most humans would fight to avoid either one.

Now is the time to cease government sponsored glorification of the Confederacy, either by removing its monuments or by supplementing them with the values that we have learned in the century and a half since emancipation.  Republican legislators have not yet taken away the authority of local governments and universities to create new monuments alongside old ones.  We are the generation and now is the time for Americans to unite across lines of race and geography into one nation.  If not now, when?  If not us, who?

A victorious Union Soldier looks down in sorrow at fallen comrades

Urbana, Ohio's monument to returning and fallen Union soldiers comrades.
A Midwestern monument to returning and fallen Union soldiers

 

 

 

All Posts, environment, north carolina

DID THE NC LEGISLATURE VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTION?

Buried deep on page 24 of the undebated “technical corrections” bill authored by North Carolina’s Republican leadership is a provision that takes away all authority for local governments to regulate fracking and oil and gas exploration.  My admittedly amateur opinion is that the legislature may have violated the State Constitution which says it part:

Sec. 5. Conservation of natural resources.

It shall be the policy of this State to conserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of all its citizenry, and to this end it shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina and its political subdivisions to acquire and preserve park, recreational, and scenic areas, to control and limit the pollution of our air and water, to control excessive noise, and in every other appropriate way to preserve as a part of the common heritage of this State its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches, historical sites, openlands, and places of beauty.

I hope that one of the municipalities that has restricted fracking will pursue the question in court.  It’s difficult for me, as a non-attorney, to see how the legislature can take away the powers granted to municipalities by the constitution.

 

All Posts, justice, north carolina, race

SHOULD OUR FUTURE BE A HOSTAGE TO HISTORY?

5 Comments

As of July 23, North Carolina law prohibits cities, counties and state institutions from relocating any state-owned monument, statue or “object of remembrance” even if it is on city or county property.  Work on the bill began many months ago amidst growing public demand for removal of monuments to the Confederacy and racist heroes.  Calls for removal of monuments have grown since the Charleston, SC murders.  Rather than having open and intelligent discussion of the concerns, legislators made change nearly impossible by passing a law that denies local governments the authority to respond to the will of their citizens. Continue reading SHOULD OUR FUTURE BE A HOSTAGE TO HISTORY? →