Category Archives: race

All Posts, Christianity, Confederate States of America, justice, race

A SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHRISTMAS GIFT

On December 12, 2018 our nation received an unexpected gift, a “Report On Slavery And Racism In The History Of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary”.  It was commissioned and published by the Seminary itself, not a result of someone else’s investigation.  It seems honest, thorough and unblinking as it describes what was done, by whom and why.

CLICK HERE to read the full report

CLICK HERE to read or hear Dr Martin Luther King’s 1961 address to the Seminary students and faculty Continue reading A SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHRISTMAS GIFT →

All Posts, civil rights, donald trump, race, randolph county north carolina

LET’S MAKE RACISM UNACCEPTABLE

7 Comments

The Washington Post recently published a story (READ IT HERE) that took place where I live , Randolph County, North Carolina.  It features local people but it is actually about President Donald Trump’s support of racism.  Similar stories can be found in towns, cities and rural areas

To enter our historic courthouse for a meeting of the County Commissioners, one must walk past an armed Confederate Soldier who fought to preserve slaveryi. It's perceived as a racist message by many descendants of slaves.
To enter our historic courthouse for a meeting of the County Commissioners, one must walk past an armed Confederate Soldier who fought to preserve slavery. It’s perceived as a racist message by many descendants of slaves.

all across America.  For reasons unknown to me, the writer picked the story of the Trogdon family and our community to make her point: overt racist activities are on the rise; and the President of the United States has encouraged it. Continue reading LET’S MAKE RACISM UNACCEPTABLE →

All Posts, civil rights, donald trump, justice, race

BEWARE OF NOISY BULLIES

Most of the time we Americans are not even aware of our freedom.  It surrounds us in seemingly endless supply, like the air that we breathe.   But if there’s no air to breathe we quickly become uncomfortable and do something about it.  If we see another person choking, we try to help him breathe.  Just as we defend our right to breathe, we should defend each other’s freedom.

Non-conformity is sometimes admirable, but it has consequences.  Others are free to disapprove, dislike, and not associate with you.  That’s their right.  Unless you are protected by a union or employment contract, most states allow private employers to fire you or refuse to hire you for expressing views that they don’t like.  There are circumstances where that makes sense.  An employer might have a policy that prohibits wearing lapel pins supporting political parties, candidates, or causes at work. Its purpose might be to keep everyone’s attention focused on producing good work rather than the distraction or offense to customers that might accompany the pins.

With those thoughts in mind, let’s look at the case of Colin Kaepernick, the NFL, and President Donald Trump.  The controversy began more than a year ago when Kaepernick, a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, didn’t stand for the national anthem.  He had done the same thing before two previous games, but the press didn’t take notice.  On the third occasion, he was asked about it and he gave an extensive post-game interview.

Kaepernick made it clear that he believes America is not living up to our ideals.  He contended that racial inequality is still institutionalized and that abuse of African-Americans by police is often tolerated by our government.  He said he would resume standing for the anthem when those concerns were addressed.  He emphasized that he meant no insult to our flag, anthem or service members; pointing out instead that he wants our government practices to live up to the values that our military defends.

Colin Kaepernick acknowledged that he could be fired for his actions:  Q: “Do you think you might get cut for this?”  Kaepernick: “I don’t know. But if I do, I know I did what’s right and I can live with that at the end of the day.”  He was cut from the team, accepted that fact, and continued working on issues that he thought were important.  To at least some small degree, he was achieving his goal of encouraging conversations across racial lines about inequality.

The conversation exploded when President Trump, behaving as if he was elected Bully-in-Chief rather than President, insulted Kaepernick and other NFL players who had adopted his form of quiet protest, calling them “sons of bitches” and telling NFL owners to fire them or watch their businesses “go to hell”.   Trump lied when he claimed that the protests were against our military and our flag.  Kaepernick and other protesters had made it clear from the beginning that the protests were about perceived racial injustice. Trump ignored concerns about racial equality and changed the subject to patriotism.  When a President of the United States lies some of his loyal base will believe whatever he says.  Others in Trump’s party may simply stay quiet – exactly the kind of inaction that Kaepernick is protesting.

Our President has behaved as a shameless bully and liar, dividing us into factions and urging his supporters to impose their will on others through the power of government and employers.  It’s dangerous to our constitutional democracy when our President uses his power to try to silence others.  At the core of American freedoms is the right to be a nonconformist – to believe, speak, and live according to your own conscience.  Whether I agree with Colin Kaepernick or not, it is my duty as an American to defend his right to speak and to demand an apology from President Trump for his lies and his language.

The President’s actions bring this adage to mind. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”  We Americans need to move ahead with serious conversations about race relations.  It appears that we’ll have to do that in the face of presidential opposition rather than with constructive presidential leadership.  That, perhaps, is why so many NFL players and owners have linked arms – showing the way to honest conversation and teamwork – and standing up to the biggest bully on the block.

 

Read or view Colin Kaepernick interview HERE

All Posts, civil rights, north carolina, race, randolph county north carolina

LEST WE FORGET

4 Comments

“Lest we forget” – That inscription is carved into the stone foundation upon which a bronze Confederate soldier stands, fully armed, at the entrance to the public building where my County Commissioners meet.  A century and a half after the Civil War, it’s time to free this young man, probably a draftee forced to fight for the long defunct Confederate States of America.  And it’s time

Confederate Soldier at Randolph County Courthouse
Confederate Soldier at Randolph County Courthouse

to move ahead in creating the future of the United States of America.  “Lest we forget”, the outcome of the Civil war was preservation of the Union, our nation, and it’s flag to which we pledge allegiance.  The failed purposes of the Confederacy included breaking that Union – treason.

Some argue that we can’t (or shouldn’t) change history.  Certainly they are correct that facts and events of history are what they are.  We fought a long and bloody civil war.  Its events are well documented.  The statue was placed to honor the memory of Randolph County veterans who served the Confederacy.  Those are facts of history that we couldn’t change even if we wanted to.

There’s more to our history than a list of events and dates.  The war arose from a conflicting sense of right and wrong – values – regarding slavery, economics and national unity.  Today our decisions about whom and what our government will officially honor are based on the values of today’s Americans.  Change is part of our history, as it is for every nation and civilization.

When Rome became a Christian empire, it replaced the statues of Greco-Roman Gods with statues of saints and old-testament figures.  They didn’t change the facts of their history or the mythology of Roman Gods.  They did change who was honored in public buildings.

When Germany lost World War II, the Allies took down many Nazi era statues and symbols.  The Germans removed the rest from places of honor but they relocated some and re-interpreted their history.  German schoolchildren are required to visit museums and learn the horrors of Nazi rule – lest they forget.

The slogan “Lest we forget” comes from a Rudyard Kipling poem about the military conquests of the British Empire.  Its original meaning in the poem is similar to the maxim “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”  We should keep that meaning in mind today.

Here in North Carolina, the majority of citizens voted against secession.  In Randolph County, the reported vote was 2579 against secession and only 45 in favor!  They did not want to dissolve the Union or join the Confederacy.  But in order to preserve slavery, the basis of their wealth, legislators seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy – overruling the will of voters.

Then the Confederacy created a military draft.  North Carolina provided more soldiers than any other Confederate state.  North Carolina’s Governor, Zebulon Vance called the conflict “a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight”.  There were so many draft resisters and deserters in Randolph County that the Confederacy imposed martial law.   If our statue represents a Randolph County soldier, there’s a good chance that he was a draftee, not a volunteer.

Surely there were many Tarheel soldiers who fought courageously for the Confederacy, as German soldiers did for the Third Reich.  Today’s values judge that their sacrifices were on the wrong side of history – in support of slavery and in absolute opposition to the proposition that “…all men are created equal.” Confederate statues and battle flags are part of our history but they don’t belong in places of honor financed and maintained by the governments of free people.

Blood has again been shed over white supremacy, and it should come as no surprise to see Confederate battle flags waved by people shouting Nazi slogans such as “blood and soil”.  White supremacy ideology was suppressed but now its advocates parade on our streets carrying clubs reminiscent of the axe handles distributed by racist governor Lester Maddox of Georgia.  Our President’s election campaign was eerily similar to George Wallace’s nationalist/racist campaigns in 1964 and 1968.  Both railed against polite (politically correct) conversation and both helped unleash pent-up racist rage.

We may never be totally rid of supremacists, but our government should not honor their ideas with statues, license plates and flags.   Lest we forget, issuing license plates with Confederate battle flags and honoring Confederate heroes on public property is honoring both white supremacy and treason against the United States.

All Posts, ethics, justice, medicaid, north carolina, public education, race

WHY DON’T PEOPLE TRUST GOVERNMENT?

Did you ever play a game with a child who wanted to change the rules after something didn’t go his way?  As a child matures, parents and others teach him fair play and we expect him to accept fairness, honesty and basic decency as guiding principles by about the age of 10.

The few who don’t learn those lessons generally become known as whiners, bullies or both.  They typically get their next lessons in places lacking adult supervision.  The bullies get put in their place by somebody who stands up to them and the whiners are ignored until they figure out how to socialize. Most eventually learn to succeed without getting their own way every time.

A few folks never learn the lesson, and as big people (I’m reluctant to characterize them as adults) they are still bullies or whiners.  Their behavior puts the leaders of North Carolina’s Legislature in these categories.  (Please excuse the all-male characterizations in this column.  I don’t know what else to do when all of the Republican leaders are boys.)

Phil Berger, Tim Moore and his predecessor Thom Tillis, as leaders of the House and Senate, changed the rules to enable Republican Governor Pat McCrory to politicize state employment.  Specifically, they passed a law allowing him to hire up to 1500 political appointees into various positions in state government.

When Roy Cooper defeated McCrory for Governor, the bullies decided to change the rules again.  The easiest way to do that was to revise state laws before the inauguration so that Cooper could not veto changes.  They arranged a sneak attack at the end of a special session for flood relief by announcing plans to adjourn and re-assemble on the same day for another special session.  It became obvious that they had been gathering signatures to authorize the session for some time.  They allowed about five hours for introduction of legislation.  In that brief time, carefully crafted legislation increasing the power of Republican leadership and drastically reducing the Governor’s authority was introduced.  The plan was conceived well in advance.

Republicans have the votes to pass these bills.  Given their history with HB-2, they may do it before this column is published.  They can do it without serious debate and without time for consideration by the public.  That’s how they passed HB-2, and North Carolina has paid a heavy price for it.

Here is some of what they want to do.

  • Reduce the number of political appointments by the new governor from 1500 to 300. This would also make about 1200 McCrory political appointees into permanent state employees.
  • Eliminate the Governor’s two appointment slots to the boards of state universities.
  • Remove the state’s Chief Information Officer (responsible for information technology across all state offices) from appointment by the governor and have that position appointed and supervised by the Lieutenant Governor (a Republican).
  • Re-organize and merge the State Boards of Elections and Ethics in ways that reduce the Governor’s appointments and guarantee Republican chairmanship during election years.
  • Make the Superintendent of Public Instruction (Republican) independent of supervision by the Board of Education
  • Require that all of the Governor’s cabinet appointments be confirmed by the Senate.

There is a lot more in these bills and there is no way that anyone can adequately understand their implications without time for consideration and debate.  Much like HB-2, there will be unforeseen consequences in addition to the apparent self-serving intent.

There are two ways to prevent this impending train wreck.  One is for enough Republican legislators to stand up to the bullies leading their party by refusing to pass the bills in a special session.  They can insist on adequate consideration by the public and the legislature.  If they fail, Governor McCrory could grow a spine and veto the bills.  Taking such firm action might even create the possibility of resurrecting a political future for him.

Are there enough Republican legislators who value fairness, honesty and decency and who have the courage to stand up to bullies?  Is Governor McCrory, who no longer needs the support of the bullies, willing to stand up and be counted?  If these bills pass, is there any form of cheating that should be off limits to whoever has power?

I’ll close with a quote from one legislator.  “This is why people hate us.”  He’s right.

For those who are interested, here are links to the as-filed versions of some of the bills submitted for the special session as posted on the website of the North Carolina General Assembly

SB 4 :   http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/Senate/PDF/S4v0.pdf  Ethics, elections and court reform bill creates Republican advantage and control of elections Board

HB 17:  http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/House/PDF/H17v0.pdf changes public instruction, UNC and department head appointments and authority of Superintendent of Public Instruction

HB 6:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015E4&BillID=H6 creates independent CIO nominated by Lt Gov

Link to all 21 house bills submitted for the special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

Link to all 7 senate bills for special session:  http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016

 

 

All Posts, civil rights, Constitution, ethics, north carolina, race

Should we stand for our national anthem?

After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal  in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem.  Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.

Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”.  Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality.  Not much happened.  If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or  some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.

Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society.   We don’t.  Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.

It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns.  For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals.  It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.

The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation  … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”

Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law.  In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities.  They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites.  Similar processes were used to determine early voting days,  eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.

North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public.  The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”

The law passed by party line vote.  Every Republican legislator supported it.  I don’t think they are all racists.  Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era.  They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting.  That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.

Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem.  Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election.  It’s time to have a record voter turnout.

 

All Posts, justice, north carolina, race

WHO CAN SEE POLICE VIDEOS?

Gotcha!  That’s the word that comes to mind when I hear arguments about access to body-cam and dash-cam recordings. Advocates for law enforcement agencies and those who think they’ve been mistreated by police both want to use recordings to justify themselves but the “gotcha” blame game inflames tensions rather than improving public safety.

Controversies surrounding who can see the recordings will make our problems worse.  Imagine the following two scenarios, both of which are likely to occur:

  1.  An individual complains publicly about improper treatment by police. Police respond by releasing a recording which demonstrates that their actions were reasonable and appropriate.
  2. A similar complaint is made and a recording exists but police refuse to release it.

Neither truth nor justice will matter after those events converge into one story.  Together they will appear to be evidence of self-serving decisions and bias by law enforcement – a no-win situation for police and for the public.

More than a year ago, I identified some of the issues and urged passage of a law to regulate access to the recordings.  North Carolina legislators, including local representative Allen McNeill who has extensive police experience, drafted and passed HB 972 which addressed several important concerns.   It’s a good beginning but it leaves law enforcement agencies vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest.

The law allows record retention and release rules that are customized to the unique issues surrounding law enforcement videos by declaring that the recordings are not “public records” to be made generally available like minutes of meetings and government correspondence.  Nor are they “personnel records”.   This will prevent:

  • mass requests for videos by those who want to scan thousands of records for instances of certain kinds of behavior by a particular ethnic minority or police
  • “witch hunts” against a particular officer
  • social media posts of half-dressed people recorded while police intervene in domestic disputes.

HB 972 creates a presumed right to disclosure (seeing the video) for anyone appearing or heard in the recording and for their designated representatives.  It also provides more restrictive criteria for release (obtaining a copy) of the video and it includes a list of circumstances where disclosure or release could be denied.

Four flaws in this otherwise reasonable law make allegations of conflict of interest by police virtually  inevitable.

  1. HB 972 requires the head of the law enforcement agency to decide whether to disclose or release videos.  A citizen who is denied access must hire an attorney and go to court in order to appeal. Public confidence could be improved by reversing the burden of proof – requiring police to go to court to justify denying access to the videos.
  2. A provision of the law allowing police to release videos for “any law enforcement purpose” should be tightened to prevent suspicion that police will release videos that make them look good and withhold those that make them look bad.
  3. One criterion in the law allows denial of access to protect “the reputation of an individual”.  That protection should be limited to bystanders.  It should not apply to interactions between officers and the public.  It is precisely because of concerns about behavior of officers and the public that the recordings are needed.
  4. The law does not allow access to videos by news media, advocacy organizations or the public under any circumstances.  They could only obtain recordings from an involved individual who had met  the police-administered criteria.  The ban on public and news media access to recordings should be reconsidered to see if good criteria can be created.  That will be difficult but probably less harmful than making public release totally subject to police discretion.  The levels of suspicion that already exist between police and some segments of our society mean that police will not be trusted to make unbiased decisions about releasing recordings.

Legislators deserve credit for making this first effort and there is much in the new law that can be helpful.  If they quickly fix its flaws, this otherwise promising law may help build trust between police and citizens.  Without changes it is more likely to generate allegations of bias and conflict of interest by police, no matter how hard they struggle to be fair.

Lives are at stake along with mutual trust between police and the public that they are sworn to protect.  Let’s not play political “gotcha” with these videos.

All Posts, economy, justice, poverty, race

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST YOU?

2 Comments

Try Googling  “Is the system rigged?”  I found:  “FBI Director Comey: I need the American people to know the system is not rigged”  “Trump on Clinton FBI announcement: The system is rigged” “71% of Americans believe economy is rigged”  “The System Didn’t Fail Eric Garner. It Worked How a Racist System Is Supposed to”

The stories shared two disturbing qualities.  1)  Each is about an American institution.  2)  Each contended that some “system” is rigged.  Those headlines introduce angry stories that are backed by at least a few grains of truth.

The people who brought down our financial system avoided prosecution and most of them kept their ill-gotten gains. There is energy for deporting undocumented immigrants and their children but very little for prosecuting employers who hire them without mandatory benefits and wages.

The FBI Director didn’t recommend prosecution of a Secretary of State who was careless with national security information because, he says, she didn’t intend to break any law.  But when I unintentionally made an illegal right turn because I didn’t see the sign prohibiting it, I paid a fine.

We’ve seen people of African descent unjustifiably killed by police and the killers walked away.  Black youth are arrested for possession of marijuana in convenience store parking lots but campus police don’t arrest white college students for the same offense.

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”  That one-liner isn’t funny anymore.  Unfairness, whether real or imagined, is a great danger because our freedom and democracy work well only when the great majority of us support the system and see it as fair.

It is the need for fairness, not fear of violence, that should drive our national conversation about these issues.  The violence often comes from one deranged soul (lone wolf) not from Advocacy organizations.   One enraged man (not associated with the Black Lives Matter movement) used their Dallas demonstration as an opportunity to kill five police officers.  One Christian extremist (not associated with the Right To Life movement) shot five officers and six civilians at a Colorado Planned Parenthood Clinic.  The movements express the concerns of substantial numbers of Americans about laws or institutions that they see as unfair. Most don’t promote violence.

During a previous era of dramatic social and economic change, when family farms and the shops of cobblers and blacksmiths were giving way to mechanized industries, America saw similar unrest and even greater violence.  In 1882, Congress passed the  Chinese Exclusion Act banning all Chinese immigration because their cheap labor was perceived as driving wages down.  In 1887 there was a labor demonstration (The Haymarket Affair) in Chicago supporting an 8 hour work day.  Someone threw a bomb.  Gunfire followed.  Seven police and at least four civilians died.  In 1901, President McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who blamed his unemployment on government policies.  In 1920, Wall Street was bombed, apparently by an activist who believed that the financial system was rigged against him.

Recent events are strikingly similar to our history.   Activists and political candidates promise to fix rigged systems with simplistic ideas: Exclude immigrants.  Build a wall.   Block trade treaties.  Hold police accountable.  Enforce law and order.  Many Americans believe that “other” Americans are rigging our institutions (the system) against them, and that does not bode well for our future.

Our nation’s systems for finance, justice, law enforcement, health care, education and others that compose our national identity must be perceived as fair for all of us. We’ll need genuine improvements in fairness, not just slogans and polite listening. Otherwise we will continue to experience demonstrations and rage from those who believe that systems are rigged against them.

After successful efforts to pass civil rights and voting rights laws, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. shifted his attention toward economic justice by addressing financial and wage issues affecting Hispanic and white workers as well as blacks. At the time of his assassination he was in Memphis supporting a strike for higher wages by public sanitation workers.  Nearly half a century later many issues of economic and racial justice have not yet been addressed. Now is the time to improve, not because of fear but because our national sensitivity to fairness has been raised.    It is said that “Most people don’t read the writing on the wall until their backs are up against it.”  I can feel the wall now.

 

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, Christianity, justice, race

WHY HAVE A BLACK HISTORY MONTH?

2 Comments

We’ve all heard the reasonable sounding questions, “Why black history?” Why not a white history month?”  The public school history that I learned went something like this: Slavery was a very bad thing that we ended.  Lots of slaves and their descendants went north where they were free and equal.  The South resisted but the Jim Crow era ended with the Civil Rights Laws so now it’s all good and black folks can succeed if they will do the work.  Unfortunately, that version of history denies the life experiences of most black Americans.  The reality of history exists in those experiences, not in laws and textbooks.

To see the difference, come with me on a short trip to my home state and town, New Albany, Indiana.   Founded in 1813, it was once the largest city in the state and being directly across the Ohio River (which belongs to Kentucky) from Louisville, it was the first “free” stop for many fugitive slaves.  The Second Baptist Church, built in 1849-1852, sits on Originally built by a Presbyterian congregation and later sold to Baptists, this church has a long history as a first stop in a non-slave state on the underground railroadMain Street, not more than 300 yards from the slave-state waters of Kentucky.  The beautifully restored church features a marker describing its history as a stop on the underground railroad, a respite where refugees could hide in dirt floored rooms  or escape to the street through a tunnel before making their way to other states or to Canada.  Helping fugitive slaves was illegal but New Albany’s free blacks and anti-slavery whites risked violence and arrest to do that as early as 1821.

Also on Main Street, about four blocks away, is another historic marker. image It describes mob violence against blacks in the summer of 1862, about 15 months into the Civil War.    White mobs responded to a fight between white and black men with two days of attacks on black people and their property.  The historic marker is placed at the site of the Israel Boarding House, whose owner saved one black man by barring her door against the mob.  Similar mob attacks were reported that same summer in Cincinnati, Chicago and Toledo.

In 1851,  Indiana voters approved a new state constitution that banned black migration into the state and denied blacks the rights to vote, serve in the militia, bear witness in trials involving whites, and attend public schools.  Despite those provisions, more than 11,000 blacks lived in the state.  Thus began the tradition of “Sundown Towns”.  Northern states had very small black populations; and a majority of whites wanted to keep it that way.  Historian James Loewen lists nearly 300 suspected Sundown Towns in the Hoosier State.  Black folks steered clear of them and many remain mostly white to this day.  Some passed ordinances and posted signs such as “Whites only within city limits after dark”.  Other warnings were far more graphic.  Through the mid-1920s about 30 percent of white Hoosier men were Ku Klux Klan members.  So were the governor and the majority of the legislature who had learned that it was hard to get elected without a Klan endorsement.

Alabama Governor George Wallace (“Segregation now, Segregation forever”) received 30 percent of the vote in Indiana’s 1964 Democratic Presidential primary.  By 1972, the solid Democrat/Dixiecrat segregationist south abandoned the newly pro-civil rights Democratic Party.  Southern states have favored the Republican Party since it abandoned Lincoln’s legacy  in a quest for populist votes.  In that political turmoil the legal protections that black Americans had gained were inconsistently enforced. For example, despite laws requiring equal employment opportunity,  I recall a manufacturing plant tour in the late 1960s.  It was a thriving unionized company with excellent wages and benefits, but the union didn’t accept blacks so they could only have non-union manual labor jobs.  The black men who packed and loaded finished products were known as “bagger boys”.

The details that I’ve described won’t make it into history texts but they are the experiences that black grandparents can describe for today’s youth.  It appears that two generations from now, black children will be hearing about jobs with few benefits and wages too low to support a family, police shootings of unarmed black boys and men, fathers in jail for non-violent crimes, lead tainted water, and racially gerrymandered  voting districts designed to keep the creators of the status quo in office.

The flow of black history continues today.   It is closely related to the rest of the American story, but always distinct because of barriers that separate the two.  It is said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it; and few of us want that.  If Americans of all races learn the realities of black history, we may finally be able to join it fully to American history.  And that is why black history matters to us all.