I Always Wondered Why.....

I always wondered why the Weekly Reader; that cool little newspaper we used to get in elementary school; was sometimes confusing to me as a kid. I mean, there was the time when the Weekly Reader was loudly lambasting South Africa for Apartheid at the same time as we were experiencing the events of Selma, Alabama here in the United States. 

But the Weekly Reader had nothing to say about that. Accordingly, I raised my hand and asked what the difference was between South Africa and Alabama. I was told to be quiet and sit down. So I’ve always wondered about that little newspaper.

Well, decades later while reading about the Bush family in Russ Baker’s “Family of Secrets” I came upon the astonishing fact that Allen Dulles; head of the CIA; was on the Board of Directors of the paper, acting as a sort of ghost editor in determining what stories got printed; or not. Kind of makes you want to rethink some of the things you’ve been told…

"Selma" with David Oyelowo and Ava DuVernay (2014)

I barely finished watching this film. I grew up in a household where Martin Luther King was as revered as JFK. He was seen as the the primary hope for the future of those who were then termed "Negro" Americans. Selma and the events which took place on the Edmund Pettus Bridge were seen as righteous and necessary steps in the fight for integration. It is a primary event which was a turning point in the the struggle for Civil Rights. 

I'm not going to review this movie. It's too important to too many people for me to knock it. I will only say that I was deeply disappointed in the treatment of then President Lyndon Johnson, who; although hardly a favorite of my generation due to the War in Vietnam; was nonetheless a shrewd and effective partner for the Civil Rights Movement and the Right to Vote. Here's why;

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed it did not address the Voting Rights aspect adequately. The choice was to get a Bill passed acknowledging the Civil Rights problem and demanding equality under the law. The strategy was that since the Southern states would not vote a law into effect that included the Voting Rights provision before the Presidential election, then the smartest way to go about effecting that change was to pass the overall bill first; and then take it to court for the Voting Rights aspect. 

Of course this meant that the 1964 Presidential election would be up and gone by the time the voting issue was dealt with, but the reality was that; either way; African-Americans were going to have to sit that one out. If the 1964 bill had failed to pass then the next election African-Americans could hope to vote in would be 1968. The risk was in "overreaching" and failing.

The bill that passed offered the best way to ensure that they would get to vote by the 1968 Presidential election. Johnson had been a member of Congress and the Senate for almost 20 years before becoming President and knew how to work Congress and get what he wanted. By the time Selma rolled around Johnson was working Congress with his usual mixture of charm and threats to get the Voting Rights Act passed. The conflict in Selma was a necessary step to that end. 

Here is the President's speech after the murder of Viola Liuzzo on March 26, 1965. Pay attention from 2 minutes and 26 seconds into the recording for the meat of this thing. Here is the President of the United States labeling the KKK as terrorists and hoodlums. He lets them know in no uncertain terms that the times they are a changing. 

And for a little bit more information about Violo Liuzzo I have included this short but very informative little video about her, lest she get lost in history.

.

Q is for Queer? Don't Blame Me!

Color me thick; or just plain stupid; but I don’t understand why the Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual Transgender group has added the letter “Q”; as in “Queer”; to their organization’s name.  I am going to stick my neck out on this in the hopes that someone can explain to me why this is a good idea. Or, even simply how did this come to pass? And, of course, what the aim is.

“Queer”, we have been taught by the GLBT group, is the most vulgar term that can be used to describe another person’s alternate sexual identity. The word “queer” became the equivalent of the word “nigger”, which we have all learned to avoid; that is if we ever used it to begin with. Then we went from that to Negro; to African-American; to “black” and now, in some circles; particularly the field of entertainment; nigger is back. And that confuses me as well.

Note: I use the words “Queer” and “Nigger” in this post because I am writing about the words nigger and queer. I will not do as Alan Dershowitz did in his book; he used all the ethnic slurs imaginable for every race except African-Americans; for which he used the euphemism “the N- word” to de-note it; all while lauding his belief as an “absolutist” on the subject of free speech. I agree with Clarence Darrow who said that “there are too few words as it is. I think we should use them all.”  (He really did say that. Check the court transcript if you don’t believe me.)

As to the LGBT use of the word Queer, I have the following questions;

If Queer was so offensive to Gays and Lesbians, then for whom is the term now appropriate; and why?

If the people who consider themselves to be “Queer” can call refer to themselves as such, and even join an existing political lobbying group using that term, then is it okay for others to use that term again when describing people who live a lifestyle which may seem queer to them?

Further, if the people in this category seem queer to themselves; as well as the LGBT group; are they bigots in the same way as the people who used to call gay people queer because they found homosexual behavior to be, well, queer?

This is the same conundrum many of us have faced with the African-American use of the term nigger, nigah, nigga, etc. If such a vile word is now simply tossed off as being a part of entertainment, then the whole struggle to rid society of the racial prejudice which spawned the term to begin with has all been in vain. All those people who stood up to Bull Connors and the police dogs in Selma and Birmingham were wasting their time. Their own grandchildren would bring back the word with pride.

Now we have the GLBT movement telling us that they have a group of people whom they consider to be Queer. I’m wondering if this means that they’re straight. If so then I am offended. I don’t like being referred to as queer just because I have a different sexual identity than they do. I am proud to be a heterosexual. Where’s my parade?

The people who were beaten at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in 1969; considered to be the birth of the Gay and Lesbian movement; must be appalled by the re-emergence of this term.

Women are another group who have presented a conundrum of sorts over the years. They had a big “revolution” in order to detach themselves from the rampant sexual exploitation of the media, and now they market shirts for women with the word “Bitch” on them. And women snap them up!

Just as I do not understand the GLBT community being willing to go back to the term Queer; in any form; and am equally appalled by the use of the term nigger in any of its incarnations (literature excepting); I am also dismayed that women have been reduced more than ever to “sex objects”; enough so that they would buy millions of these shirts. You can buy one at;

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS410US411&q=bitch+tee+shirts#q=bitch+tee+shirts&tbm=shop

So, not only am I confused about all these things, but I still haven’t got a clue as to why the LGBT group considers queer an acceptable term for any group under their banner. I must be getting very old.  And, finally, why do all reform movements seem to end in some sort of insanity? Now, I just have to find a picture “queer” enough to illustrate this post…

Addenda: 7-31-14 11:30 AM A few individuals have expressed their beliefs; in a rather crude fashion; that I am either a racist, or homophobic. I assure you that neither is the case. I feel that everyone should have the right to be called what they please. That is why we have names. But when you adopt a derogatory term which is applicable to a whole group of people who may be offended by that choice, I have to opt in favor of the most aggrieved party. That message is the intent of this post. You can put the pitchforks and torches away now, thanks!

John Lewis and the Voting Rights Act of 1964

There’s lots of talk about repealing the Voter’s Rights Amendment to the Constitution lately. The photograph above was what I saw in 1965, when I was barely 11 years old. In the foreground is future Congressman John Lewis being beaten by an Alabama State Trooper for daring to exercise his rights of peaceful protest and free speech. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was brand new; and it was the law of the land; but the Southern states were dragging their feet on enforcement of it, which led to the Selma-Montgomery marches of March 1965.

The first march took place on what became known as “Bloody Sunday”, March 7^th, 1965, which is when the photograph above was taken; 45 years ago yesterday. The marchers were attempting a peaceful protest by marching from Selma to Montgomery; and the state capitol. But first, they would have to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. This was; for some arbitrary reason on the part of the police; the line of demarcation which they could not allow the protesters to cross. To aid them in their cause they enlisted fire hoses, police dogs and tear gas; as well as billy clubs; to prevent the protesters from reaching their goal.

The initial march, on Sunday; by about 600 protesters  grew out of frustration over the inability of African-Americans to register and vote; as dictated by the 1964 law. The march was organized by the Dallas County Voter’s League and the SNCC, who both enlisted the help of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The second march grew out of the brutality of the police in preventing the protesters from crossing the bridge. That march was held the following Tuesday as 2,500 protesters turned out and forced their way across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, making their way to the other side before being turned back by a tidal wave of state and local police who were waiting.

It wasn't until March 16^th that the protesters  now stronger in numbers than ever; and backed by over 2,000 soldiers and federalized National Guardsmen, were able to begin the 40 mile march from Selma to the state capitol. At a rate of 10 miles per day, they arrived at their goal on March 24^th, where they were able to formally lodge their protest.

The move in the Congress and Senate today, which is based upon the assertion that the protection of the law is no longer needed to protect the rights of minority voters, is specious on its very face. It is nothing more than an attempt to turn back the clock in America. One of the more unusual aspects of this whole charade is the clamoring by the Right for the addition of the Voter ID requirement.

Democrats; who alleged widespread fraud in the 2000 election; are opposed to a National ID card of any type, including a Voter ID card. Republicans; who contend that there was no fraud in the 2000 election, and no problem in general; are adamantly for one. Neither side is consistent in its reasoning; therefore both positions are suspect.

Simply put, too many people have fought too hard and for too long to attain the Right to Vote for us to turn back the clock now. For us, as a nation, to return the sanctity of the voting process back to the Sates is an invitation to return again to the days when such a law was necessary, and people were beaten in the streets for asking for one.