“This glorification of States Rights Doctrine—the right of secession, and the honoring of men who represented that cause, fosters in the Republic, the spirit of Rebellion and will ultimately result in the handing down to generations unborn a legacy of t Continue reading NO TAXES FOR CONFEDERATE MYTHS
Tag Archives: racism
LET’S MAKE RACISM UNACCEPTABLE
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
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
Follow Dr King out of Trump’s shithole
President Trump’s remarks about “Shithole” nations and his desire for more immigration from (white) Northern Europe are a perfect contrast to our January 15 national day of recognition for Dr. Martin Luther King Junior – born January 15, 1929. Except for an assassin’s bullet, he might have celebrated his 89th birthday today. Instead he was killed before reaching the age of forty.
Click below to hear singer-songwriter Patty Griffin’s reflection on Dr King’s final speech and what his final prayer might have been before he died
Dr. King is rightly remembered as a principal leader of the civil rights movement that brought legal equality for Americans of African descent, at least on paper. The struggle to fully achieve the promise of equality under the law continues to this day.
Today, I think it is important to remember that in his final years, Dr King had expanded his mission and ministry to encompass two additional concerns: He supported and expanded the peace movement that sought to bring American troops home from our military incursions into the affairs of other nations, principally Vietnam. The second new subject was economic justice. He saw, even in the 1960s, the concentration of extreme wealth among a few privileged Americans while laborers were unable to support families. On the day that he was killed, he was in Memphis to support the demands of sanitation workers for improved wages and working conditions.
Dr King was not abandoning his civil rights mission. He was expanding it. The war affected everyone, regardless of race, through unnecessary killing and through the waste of economic resources that could have been used to improve American lives. Economic inequality and injustice to working Americans affected minorities disproportionately but it was abundantly clear that a permanent, generation-spanning economic underclass existed in every race. Insulting labels from that era such as “poor white trash” and “nigger” have not lost or changed their meaning in the half century since Dr King’s death. They still refer to people who have had few opportunities for economic and educational advancement. They are the victims of an economy and a nation that has no need for their limited skills and little motivation help them find opportunities. How different, really, are the problems of the white Appalachian coal miner, the rural southern black, and the small town and urban workers of all races who lost jobs to automation?
Dr King saw clearly that we can all succeed together by creating opportunities for personal and economic growth through education and social safety net programs. How ironic is it that Norway (the nation from which President Trump would like to have more immigration) has done what Dr King suggested? Proponents of creating those programs here in the US are often derisively called “socialists”. It is precisely because of those socialist programs that very few people want to leave Norway. People like it there. Not only do they share their wealth, they have more to share. In Norway, the average economic output per person is $70, 392 compared to $57,436 for Americans. What a surprise! A nation that strives to provide opportunities for everyone is more productive than one which ignores the needs of its poorest citizens.
Americans have responded to our problems by forming a circular firing squad – shooting (sometimes literally) at each other rather than lifting each other up, as Dr King would have taught. Now we have elected a President and a Republican congressional majority who have cut taxes on corporations at a time when corporate profits are at record highs; cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans at a time when they already own a greater share of our national wealth than at any time on record; and will borrow money that we all have to repay in order to fund their gifts to the wealthy. They also plan to drastically increase military spending for the longest and arguably least justified wars in American history.
Unfortunately, I must agree with President Trump that there is indeed a “shithole”. He and the Republican congress are pushing us into it. We’ll have to climb out using the remaining resources that they haven’t wasted. We can do that if we will quit blaming the victims of poverty for their condition and begin focusing our efforts on creating opportunity for every American to achieve her or his full potential. Success in that endeavor will be the measure of a great nation.
Real Christmas Light
In a conversation about the state of our world, a friend asked what my subject would be for a “Christmas column”. My immediate reaction was cynicism. It seemed unfitting to celebrate Christmas in a world where borders matter more than starving refugees, where the wealthy get a tax cut paid for with borrowed money, and where self-professed Christians in movements like Aryan Nation Church of Jesus Christ and Westboro Baptist Church preach racism and intolerance in Jesus’ name.
A day passed by before it occurred to me that Jesus was born, lived and was crucified in a world not so different from our own. His teaching, preaching and example were about living in a flawed, unfair and sometimes hostile world. What better time and place to celebrate his birth, life and sacrifice than here and now, in our own darkness? The light that he brought to his world can brighten our own.
The land where Jesus lived was ruled by the most powerful military force of its time, the Roman Empire. They allowed significant local autonomy as long people paid taxes to the empire and didn’t attempt insurrection. Regional government was based on Jewish religious laws under Roman supervision. Political and financial power were often abused. The temple tax, owed by everyone, enriched the high priests. It also paid temple employees including musicians, janitors, decorators, guards and those who sold animals for sacrifice. They sustained the mystique of the temple and the belief that High Priests could influence God through rituals. Little tax money trickled down to the poor.
There were a lot of itinerant preacher/teacher/rabbis in Jesus’ time. People were angry, especially in rural areas where taxes were collected to support Rome and Jerusalem while poverty reigned locally. Jesus directed his ministry to the poor, the working class, the disenfranchised, and much of the time he simply ignored Rome and Jerusalem. He recruited fishermen, laborers, and other common people as followers.
Stories of his work include miracles to benefit the sick and poor. The lepers who were healed were outcasts under Jewish law. The prostitutes (identified as “sinners”) with whom he reportedly dined at a tax collector’s invitation are thought to have been hired as after-dinner entertainment – women who had only their bodies to sell.
Jesus did far more than heal and feed people. He taught a better way of living that became a movement. It was based on two principles – love God, and love your neighbor as yourself. Today people sometimes debate what “God” and “neighbor” mean. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching is so clear that we can apply it to our 21st century lives.
It’s almost as important to recognize what Jesus didn’t do as what he did. Did Jesus ever pray for rain in the desert, military defeat of the Roman invaders or other intervention in daily life? He taught others to pray for enough food to get through the day, forgiveness of sins and recognition of temptation – nothing more. He never tried to enforce his values through civil laws. People were free to follow or not. He never asked for contributions to build a cathedral, a megachurch or even a small one. Nor did he urge placing a monument to the Ten Commandments at every courthouse.
Jesus cared about individuals but he also spoke to and about government when he overturned the money changers’ tables where the poor were legally cheated by a government sanctioned religion. He engaged in civil disobedience to save the life of a woman caught in the act of adultery. The prescribed penalty was for her to be stoned to death. Jesus halted the stoning with this challenge, “Let anyone who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Who was this man who changed our world so much? Once, when he was asked, he replied with a question of his own, “Who do you say that I am?” Do you say he is Son of God, Messiah and Savior? Or is he a teacher whose powerful ideas will, if we follow them, allow us to live peaceably together?
Regardless of our 21st century answer to his question, his birth, his life and his sacrifice are worthy of celebration. By applying his teaching today we can bring light to a dark world.
Are we willing?
Permission for use of this Hugh Haynie cartoon was granted by the Special Collections Research Center, Swem Library, College of William and Mary
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.
LEST WE FORGET
“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
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.
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.
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:
- An individual complains publicly about improper treatment by police. Police respond by releasing a recording which demonstrates that their actions were reasonable and appropriate.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST YOU?
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.
WHY HAVE A BLACK HISTORY MONTH?
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 
Main 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. 
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.