the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress or the courts provide
relief, dissent in America will soon find itself relegated
to a kind of underground, driven to the margins of the "public"
airwaves by a corporate class that is intent on devouring
all civil society. Since political
action is unthinkable absent the means to communicate effectively
among the people, the FCC's diktat is absolutely unacceptable.
The opposition to America Inc. must either begin in earnest
the Corporate Media Like the Enemy" - the title of
our May 1 commentary on media consolidation - or dust off
old pamphlets written by (dead) Latin American guerillas.
Somehow, we don't think American progressives are cut out
for the underground, so they'd better rise up with an innovative
and very public set of strategies, quickly. Modern money moves
at the speed of light.
May 1 commentary was subtitled, "& no free pass for
Black radio." Black America faces an unsolved dilemma,
the product of glorious successes in the Sixties that were
hijacked by a small clique of super-beneficiaries. As we wrote
in last week's Cover Story, "Who
Killed Black Radio News?"
Americans were caught between two valid sets of demands
- Black community access to the airwaves, and Black ownership
of broadcast properties. With the enthusiastic support of
the entire Black body politic, the entrepreneurs won great
victories, increasing their properties seven-fold in the
space of a generation, and their net worths by far more
than that. They were empowered to join the game of consolidation
that began in the Eighties and reached fever pitch after
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ....
a betrayal that, we believe, has been a major factor in
the relentless decline of Black political power, many Black
radio owners have adopted business plans identical to their
white corporate peers.
result has been the near-extinction of local news in Black-formatted
radio outlets, with 66-station, Black-owned Radio One the
biggest offender. For example, Radio One's four stations dominate
the Black Washington, DC market, but employ "not a single
newsperson." The corporation declared revenues of nearly
$300 million last year.
we have learned to our despair and horror, Black ownership
guarantees nothing and, in the case of Radio One, ensures
that entertainment, disc jockey chatter and syndication
become standard fare. Most importantly, the absence of news
operations at Black radio stations results in atrophy of
existing Black political groupings and the stillbirth of
new organizations. Talk shows do not empower communities,
vibrant grassroots organizations do. And these organizations
can only flourish when their activities are given proper
coverage in the media that their constituencies listen to
- Black radio.
took selective issue with a commentary by James E. Clingman,
a distinguished and very hard-working Cincinnati educator,
businessman, activist and talk show host. Professor
Clingman's piece warned that further radio consolidation
threatens African American ownership gains, and called on
fellow talk show hosts to "turn Black talk radio into
Black action radio." Although fully aware that Professor
Clingman is one of the good guys in this story, we chided
him for leaving Black news out of the equation. Professor
Clingman replied with characteristic grace.
though you took me to task for failing to paint the entire
picture of our demise vis-a-vis Black radio news, your piece
is enlightening, educational, and just plain old outstanding!
I Love it!
I wish I had the space to have put all
of my thoughts in the article I wrote. But suffice to say
that I understand that "corporate mentality" that
infects our people when they "move on up." I see
it everyday right here in the home of Procter and God, oops,
I mean Procter and Gamble.
I also understand and have written many
times about the fact that merely being black (small "b")
is not an indicator of doing what is right for Black people
and, thus, I certainly do not cling to that notion. I'd
love to see it, but I know better. As a matter of fact,
I have had the experience of being treated terribly by blacks
(small "b") in this town, because of my unwillingness
to capitulate to the corporate way of doing things.
My piece was written out of frustration
at what I hear daily on our local talk programs, so I guess
I was lashing out about that. However, the article caused
many readers to respond from across the country and piqued
the interest of some of our "Black Talk" personalities.
I was a guest on three radio shows last week to discuss
our state of affairs in the industry. I hope they read your
piece and get you on the air to share the information you
pointed out in Black Commentator.
Nonetheless, please accept my deepest appreciation
for your excellent piece. If it doesn't wake our people
up, I don't know what it will take. Keep up the fine job
you are doing of informing our people.
Clingman can be contacted at his excellent website, www.blackonomics.com.
His show airs on WBDZ-AM, Cincinnati.
teamed up with Pacifica Radio for a live broadcast of last
month's FCC hearings in that city - all in a days work for
"the only African American owned and operated non-commercial
radio station west of the Mississippi and the first Black
station in the country to be on-line."
J. Chastang III is news director at KPOO, and also finds time
to read .
good analysis on the state of Black Radio news. I'm one
of the very few Black radio news directors in the country
(the Radio & TV News Directors Association says that
less than one percent of radio and TV news directors are
Black) and I am often disappointed by the number of black
radio reporters at important events like the political conventions,
where the number of reporters from radio stations with mostly
Black audiences could be counted on two hands with room
left to make a peace sign. See this article
I wrote a while back on the lack of discussion of the Black
perspective of the war on Black commercial stations.
co-publisher Glen Ford discussed the coming
battle for effective local Black radio news operations on
KPOO's On The Spot program, Tuesday night. American Urban
Radio Network's Jerry Scott and syndicated talk show host
Bev Smith have also conducted interviews with
on the subject, "Who Killed Black Radio News?" Black-owned
Major Broadcasting Cable Network featured
in the "Other Voices" segment of its evening news,
researching the commentary, we were reminded how destructive
the past 30 years have been for Black news. In 1973, three
Black-oriented Washington radio stations - only one of them
Black-owned - fielded 21 reporters. Today, six Black-oriented
commercial stations - five of them Black-owned - employ just
four newspersons to serve the people of DC.
lights have not gone out for Black news, nationally - yet.
Cephas Bowles writes:
you for the very insightful and thoughtful commentary. While
I was aware that Black news was becoming harder to find,
I wasn't aware of the impact that radio consolidation was
having in this area.
those who haven't heard, about one year ago, NPR, the non-commercial
network that is based in Washington, D.C., launched an African-American
targeted and focused daily news show hosted by Tavis Smiley.
The one-hour Tavis Smiley Show is broadcast by various NPR
affiliates, including many of the NPR system's African-American
owned and managed stations. Throughout the hour, Mr. Smiley,
the former host of "BET Tonight", explores various
issues of importance to African Americans from his well-informed
perspective. For those craving meaningful and significant
review and analysis of issues from an African-American perspective,
this is a daily news program worth hearing.
also applaud Tavis Smiley, and have been pleased to appear
in his unfettered airspace.
Wetherbee signs all his letters,"Peace, freedom &
keep your word." Here are his words:
a fat, old, white, southern lover of
my only beef with you is that you (understandably) concentrate
on black issues. This BS is happening to all of us
and we need to stand together. As an ex rock & roll
musician, I see my young friends making $50 a night unless
they get on the corporate plantation.
On every major station it's the same 3 or 4 stories. Argentina
& Zimbabwe have dropped off the map. Are they still
murdering people in Guatemala? Who knows? Mega-media has
decided that they don't count. I don't want more laws. I
trust "people power."
think white people can speak for themselves, and will not
patronize them by attempting to speak in their stead. As for
the need to "stand together," we stand where we
are and expect others to grow their own spines. But
we will take Mr. Wetherbee's word that he is one of those
M. Brown is one of many who are far too quick to blame the
"people" for the assault on local news. His argument
is based on false assumptions, but here it is:
we as a people care enough about local & world events
to demand that our media outlets keep us informed and provide
alternative opinions to the mainstream? It's the same question
that people have had about BET for years, especially when
Robert Johnson owned it - everybody cries about the number
of videos that are played featuring disgusting lyrics and
booty-shaking hoochies, but does the news and public affairs
programming draw the same numbers? We cry about the lack
of "serious" Black film, but when a "Rosewood"
comes out, do we go to see it in the same numbers as we
flock to see the "Booty Calls"? It's a simple
economic matter of supply and demand - if we were clamoring
for Black radio news, we would get it. I enjoy your weekly
commentaries, and I guarantee, if you add a dating or entertainment
component to the website the hits would skyrocket, it's
a sad fact that more of us want to be entertained than informed.
owners of Radio One and Clear Channel would appreciate Mr.
Brown's framing of the issue as "a simple economic matter
of supply and demand." Nothing in there at all about
public policy, as if the airwaves were the rightful property
of corporations. Even Michael Powell doesn't make that claim.
It is the wrong place to begin the discussion.
are the facts, both political and economic: Many Black people
did demand that radio stations reflect their political
and social realities and aspirations, in the Sixties and early
Seventies. In addition, the FCC at that time read its mandate
as requiring licensees (station operators) to fulfill their
obligations to specific communities through news and
public affairs programming. Since all stations serving
these communities were under similar obligations, they were
compelled to compete with one another to create the better
news product. This is how it came to be that 21 reporters
from Black-oriented radio served Black Washington, 30 years
ago. (This does not include the much larger number of reporters
from non-Black radio, who also often covered Black events.)
It's called competition in a regulated market.
is a necessity. Rich people make sure they get all the news
they need to remain in power. Black people need news to climb
out of powerlessness. These essentials cannot be made subject
to market decisions or plebiscites. Mr. Brown's logic would
lead to the conclusion that non-voters or wrong-headed voters
should lose their rights (and their children's rights) since
they do not choose to use or defend them, or that people have
the right to sell themselves into slavery - which is still
illegal in the U.S.
is a political organ for "influencers"
- movers and shakers. We don't do barbershop conversation.
Leadership mobilizes people to make demands in the people's
interests. Mr. Brown should stop despairing, and start shaking
and moving. He's lost his rhythm.
on the other hand, has never lost her compass. She writes
am an "elder" in the movement. My contemporaries
and I have been active in "the struggle" for more
than 30 years, and remain hopeful regarding positive social
change for our people in this country. We listened to Malcolm
and Martin, and watched them die. We heard Stokeley, Huey,
Eldridge, and Angela, and hoped. We saw the movement turn
the corner, and knew, indeed, that the next phase of the
revolution would "not be televised." Yet, we continued
to hope. There were many antecedents of the civil rights
movement of the Sixties, including blatant prejudice, roadblocks
to health care, voting rights, the corporate ladder, and
more. These roadblocks gave us the fire, the passion for
a movement, a revolution, and pointed us to charismatic
leadership, who stuck their necks out and lost their lives.
of us don't think we have to be concerned about which blacks
don't broadcast black news on the radio any more. Attaining
corporate capitalistic comfort could not help but cancel
out any compassion, could not help but deaden the desire
to serve and lift up the masses.
brothers and sisters, you just keep doing what you are doing,
which is huge! The Lord will take care of the rest,
for as the Bible says: "the heart of the king(s) is
in the hands of the Lord." Let us not make the mistake
of leaving the Lord out of the revolution this time 'round.
Referring to the enemy, the Bible also says: "one can
put ten thousand to flight." Go ,
you be that one, and put ten thousand to flight!
bold (or bald) assertion
his May 22 Guest Commentary, "Fault
Blair and the Times, Not Affirmative Action," journalist
Amos Jones wrote:
New York Times erred in its handling of Mr. Blair, but the
vexing culprit, in light of the facts, is neither affirmative
action nor Mr. Blair's blackness: It is an unprecedented
instance of faulty recruitment and development that oversaw
the commission of a conspiracy of one. Nothing more.
practice is to forward readers' comments to the authors. Mr.
Jones chose to reply to this letter, from Tom Emmert:
read your views on the Jayson Blair episode and I think
you have correctly assessed that the Times should have (and
had good reason to) removed Blair many months ago. I think
this is without question. What you evidently have no experience
in, however, is the process of removing an employee. For
a white-dominated enterprise such as the Times to discharge
a Black employee is a nearly-impossible task, given the
labyrinth of law in this field.
Jones, a more patient and conscientious man than either of
the publishers of ,
breathed deeply and composed a response to the assertion that
Black people are untouchable in the workplace.
you read a commentary different from the one I wrote; I
never called for the discharge of Blair from the New York
Times. I wrote of the management: "They should have
taken Blair off the job long ago, as they now seem to acknowledge."
of black reporters and editors to less-prominent positions
by and within white-dominated newspapers is not an impossible
task - and does not appear to be even "nearly"
impossible, as you claim. In fact, black journalists at
the New York Times and similar newspapers have been moved
(not even demoted, necessarily, but "taken off the
job," as I recommended for Blair) regularly and without
incident, said Carla Baranaukus of the New York Times's
national desk, speaking recently at Columbia University.
have not thought much about the possibility of discharging
Blair prior to April 29, an entirely new idea introduced
in your e-mail to me and not contained in my commentary.
That's probably because your premise is unfounded: Under
acts of Congress and within New York statutes, there is
no "nearly" absolute job security for blacks at
white-dominated firms. The New York Times/Blair scandal
would be unmistakable if blacks had such security, which
you imply is in place: Howell Raines's obvious defense would
have been, "I wanted to discharge him, but the law
would not allow it."
inform your perspective, you could consult an authority
such as my uncle, a Yale lawyer who, since 1961, has written
much of the employment-discrimination public policies that
underpin employers' hiring and promotion practices. He would
assure you that white employers like the New York Times
are empowered in their hiring and promotions. With this
empowerment, the New York Times chose to send Blair to cover
the sniper attacks and Jessica Lynch's homecoming, notwithstanding
the reporter's documented errors of the last three years.
The editors' laudatory reassignments are contrary to the
actions of an employer aware of the need either to relocate
or discharge a wayward worker.
since the newspaper's leaders saw no need to discharge Blair,
my commentary does not attempt to suggest a strategy by
which the newspaper could have discharged him. My commentary
is concerned, instead, with pointing out the reasons never
to have hired and promoted Blair in the first place. You
should read it.
commend Mr. Jones on his detailed rebuttal of Mr. Emmert's
fantastic delusion. Emmert is, of course, neither interested
in nor deterred by facts. But we bet he won't test out his
theory of Black invulnerability in the workplace by attempting
to pass for Black.
E. Fowler, of Columbus, Ohio sees quite a different reality
than the one that exists in Emmert's head. It's a mad world,
but the one we actually live in, where skin privilege acts
as a Teflon that even the most public disgrace cannot tarnish.
must be relied upon for a "reality check." This
time it's regarding the rancorous diatribe perpetrated by
mainstream media over the Jayson Blair story. Has any one
noticed the revival of reporter-liar Stephen Glass, as covered
by Newsweek (5.19.03, pp.70-71)? This white former
writer for The New Republic was fired in 1998 for
concocting outrageous lies that were printed as news. Maybe
I missed it, but I don't recall much of an uproar over Mr.
Glass's serial lying and his subsequent demise as a reporter.
Maybe his being a white boy had something to do with that,
Glass episode is the most scandalous of all. This pathological
liar finds an affinity group at the New Republic, where they
love his lies; finally tells ten or fifteen too many; goes
home to write a book, "The Fabulist," about a liar
like himself - and is rewarded with a fat advance and a publisher's
dream: 20 minutes on "60 Minutes"!
yes, the whole concept of justice in America turns on a racial
Blair, the person, should be judged in the context of an industry
and "profession" steeped in corruption and enriched
by fraud. John Stewart writes:
comments on the NY Times' public performance (a sort of
self-conceited victim of "Jayson Blair's illness")
are on target and I've passed your column on to others.
It is important that Black people - especially the young
among us - be supported in the understanding that while
we may feel for Jayson Blair as a brother, we bear no responsibility
for his particular "opportunity," or for the particular
way in which he dealt with what must have been an agonizing
situation. We would have counseled a different direction
to his creativity. In one way or another we are all challenged
in our everyday lives to perform in situations designed
to put us on demonstration as failures. This is a serious
"sport" in some rarefied quarters of the society,
and we have to be careful about the roads to success designed
for us by others.
Wise is a talented and busy man, a dissector of racism in
America. We plucked a few paragraphs of his Znet article,
Jason Blair: Reflections on White Privilege and Hypocrisy"
for last week's issue, including this gem:
to the National Center for Career Strategies, more than
85 percent of all jobs are filled by word-of-mouth as opposed
to merit-based competition through open advertising. What's
more, nine in ten executives got their jobs through networking.
So just who do we think are the folks in these networks,
and who are those persons disproportionately left out? To
ask the question is to answer it.
was right on target," wrote Dan Pryzbyla, of Milwaukee.
also why jobs in government public services (including public
school teachers) had the jump start of having more people
of color in employment than the worshippers of the marketplace
private sector - especially because affirmative action law
was implemented by federal, state, and local governments.
By no means perfect, but way, way, way ahead of the "private"
sector because of the real ways people got jobs - word of
mouth. Although now retired, every single job I ever got
in the private sector was by "word of mouth,"
beginning at 14 being a "caddie" on a golf course.
That, obviously, was before golf carts.
"doormen" in demand
last week's e-Mailbox, a reader from Canada requested clarification
position on the Blair matter. We responded, in part:
believe that white institutions use affirmative action as
a cover to continue the kind of Black hiring they have always
practiced - if they have hired Blacks, at all. White managers
choose Blacks they believe will reflect well on their institution's
racial image. (Black managers at white-dominated
institutions often use the same criteria, re: Times managing
editor Gerald Boyd, whose presence appears to have no effect
on the paper's corporate culture.) This kind of "double
standard" - a self-serving white invention - rejects
Blacks who make whites uncomfortable (a helluva burden to
overcome) and elevates Blacks who possess white people-pleasing
is clear that Jayson Blair was found pleasing to some white
people in high places at the New York Times.
Shelby used our comments as his own point of departure.
response is Absolutely Correct!
And I would like to take it one step further,
with your permission!
The Black Mindset today is in a shameful
condition. Thinking back just a little more than a generation
ago (40 years), blacks were at the bottom of the American
economic and social scale. After the great sacrifices of
many blacks and a handful of our white American brothers
and sisters, blacks today accept a leather chair, Oak desk
set, and an invitation for morning coffee (at work) as black
success. Being the Only Negro In The Office (ONITO). Well
trained, and well disciplined in knowing not to carry the
conversation at work or in meetings. And what's even more
regrettable, this is a well-known fact in the black community!
Essentially, blacks have been sold by their
own people once again. When the gates of Affirmative
Action opened in 1964, many blacks took off like greyhounds
at the races to be accepted, anxious to prove that they
were different than what was stereotyped as the Negro.
It's forgiven to be a fool once, but when
the same game can be run on you over and over again; it's
time to stop blaming the Con Man. Since the Negro landed
in America, Negro male and female have been presented with
the Golden Cookie of betraying his brother and sister for
a better personal life!
Rather than say blacks have been successful
since Affirmative Action and Civil Rights, I believe it
is better suited to say, "A black can now become successful
if they know how they should act!"
We blacks are not being conned, we're being
hoodwinked, deceived and tricked by our own people! We push
for blacks in upper level positions and that's exactly what
racism gives us - A black, and that's all we end
up with, A black! The same ole House Negro, but this
time dressed in a suit and tie, or business dress and pumps!
We complain about blacks not getting hired,
blacks not getting promoted, blacks not getting educated?
Then we get Black Superintendents, Black Justices, Black
Police Chiefs, Black Mayors, Black Governors, Black Managers,
and Black Leaders in the White House - right? And no more
blacks are getting it now than they were before! We've got
just as many ghettos and just as many unsuccessful blacks
today. Blacks today are as poor as they were 40 years ago,
but today they are at a higher level of the poor scale.
Today, the guard at the gate of success
looks just like YOU!
Many successful blacks today, value the
Privilege of being successful in America more than they
value the Principle of Equal Opportunity. But as our 34th
President of the United States Dwight D Eisenhower so eloquently
stated: "A people that value its privileges over its
principles will soon lose both."
have so many Blacks with suspect motives, and having no organic
relationship to any Black institution, been placed in front
of Blacks to speak on Blacks' behalf? Maybe it is time to
examine the legacy of this institution to understand the nature
of those Blacks who so proudly wear its brand." - "Harvard:
The Strange Career of a Troublesome Institution."
we published Shelton Amstrod's Guest Commentary, last December,
the piece elicited a modest, yet highly charged, response
from readers, then faded into the archives. In recent weeks,
however, Mr. Amstrod's denunciation of Harvard and a large
portion of its Black alumnae has stirred renewed passion on
Glenn, a doctoral candidate at Harvard's Department of the
History of Science, sent a letter intended to "add some
balance to the discussion (e-Mailbox
Carter G. Woodson tried to teach us as far back as 1933,
it's not the institution or any inherent evil on the part
of people who attend them that produces racism among whites
and self-hatred among Blacks, but the content of the textbooks.
If the texts are the same, it doesn't matter where the student
went to school. What does make the difference is the perspective
with which a student reads those texts. If you know the
texts you are reading are the ones used to validate and
legitimize the current world system, and replicate - generation
after generation - the set of behaviors that keeps that
system in place, then you read those texts with the purpose
of deconstructing them, not as the truth that would make
Harvard doctoral candidate joins the discussion. "I read
with great interest your article on negroism at Harvard University
and the response by brother Jason Glenn," wrote Kwame
Zulu Shabazz, of the Department of Anthropology. "I would
like to offer my rebuttal to the observations of brother Jason."
imply that the article is uncomplicated and unsophisticated.
If we were discussing an essay for a scholarly journal you
MIGHT be able to persuade me but we are not discussing a
"scholarly" piece--which by the way is too often
an excuse for opacity. The genre is journalism and the rules
of engagement are necessarily different. The primary task
of a journalist is to inform and, as you readily concur,
the essay was informative. I do not disagree with your premise
that racism exists in white institutions generally. And
I too have been known to argue that HBCU's can sometimes
be more conservative than their white counterparts - but
there are some important caveats or complications to that
argument also. Woodson himself points out the black institutions
should not be imitations of "harvard, yale, columbia,
or chicago" (Miseducation of the Negro, p. 31). This
presupposes that there is something uniquely problematic
with black folks who attend elite white institutions--precisely
the point of the essay and a point I will return to below.
rather think that it is not the article that lacks sophistication
and complication; it is we, the readers, who must interpret
the essay in a complicated and sophisticated manner. For
example, we might observe that the authors of the essay
are being polemical, a time-honored tradition in black expression
ranging from David Walker to Queen Mother Moore to Malcolm
X. To impose a literalist reading on the essay would be
to miss its polemical point - I doubt that the authors really
think that every black person who goes thru Harvard
is a sell-out. Further, I am surprised that you would suggest
that Harvard "is no different" when it comes to
producing house negroes. Harvard is different because
in the minds of many people it is the premiere academic
institution in the world. It has power! The production
and perpetuation of white supremacy at Harvard is and has
been far more egregious than anything produced at say Grambling
or Howard (see, for example, Lee Baker, From Savage to Negro).
Thus, when Randal Kennedy speaks authoritatively about black
folks he's got the Harvard juice and everybody listens.
there is little in the article that Woodson would contest.
I think you simplify Carter G. Woodson's very comprehensive
discussion of miseducation and institutionalized academic
racism. Institutional academic racism is much more than
racist textbooks. Woodson offers an incisive critique of
the educational PARADIGM. This includes its political, psychological,
social, religious, economic, and juridical aspects. Tellingly,
the article concludes with a Hamer quote of which Woodson
is in accord.
observes that "one of the most striking evidences of
the failure of higher education among negroes is their estrangement
from the masses (Miseducation of the Negro, p.52)."
This is in perfect agreement with the article's observation
regarding spokesmen for the black experience who have no
organic connection to the black masses.
Glenn is ready with a rebuttal:
would like to thank Mr. Shabazz for taking the time to write
such a passionate and well put together response - it demonstrates
how much both of us care about this issue. I do not think
that our disagreement is that substantive where we cannot
find common ground. To perhaps demonstrate my point, let
me offer this:
Shabazz is a great colleague, scholar, and, perhaps, one
of the most revolutionary-minded brothers I know. He makes
you scratch your head and say to yourself, "How did
such a whitey-hating, dashiki-wearing, iconoclastic brother
like that get into Harvard?!" The answer lies in the
fact that Harvard, as Mr. Shabazz rightly points out, is
recognized as the premier academic institution in
the United States. However, because Harvard enjoys that
status, it will often take chances on progressive or transformative
scholars that other institutions - trying to emulate Harvard
- will be much too conservative to consider. The point is,
if we want to have a discussion about the racist thinking
and the number of Black 'Uncle Tom', sell-out scholars that
emerge from American academic institutions, it would be
a bit unfair to single out Harvard without taking these
kinds of nuances into account. The fact that Harvard allows
a man like Mr. Shabazz to have a voice - and let's not forget
that both Du Bois and Woodson come out of Harvard! (not
to suggest that their time here was easy or that Harvard
accepted them with open arms!) - forces us to acknowledge
that it is difficult to try to pin down the seat of racism
to one place.
brings me back to the point I was trying to make in my first
response, which is that I think it is more useful to engage
in a discussion about how all American academic institutions
help perpetuate racism and "ruin more negroes"
as a condition of their very nature. Understanding that
nature and, hopefully, emerging not ruined depends on us
having this discussion and realizing that the purpose of
the academic institution is not so much to educate (as in
teaching students to think critically) but to socialize
us all to see the world from a (White) Western perspective
and to act in it accordingly. As such, all academic institutions
potentially can and often do ruin many 'negroes.'
my purpose here is not to defend Harvard, and Shelton Amstrod
did a great job compiling an impressive amount of research,
but I write because I would hate to have any Black person
out there thinking that because they do not go to Harvard
that they can let down their guard and not actively challenge
and think critically about the education they receive. That
is something upon which I think that Mr. Shabazz, Mr. Amstrod,
and myself could all agree.
again, for providing the forum to have this discussion.
good to hear the sound of minds at work in the many corners
of Black America.
out at the Free RepubliKKK
was visited by hordes of barbarians last week, thousands
of them, drawn to our site by the scent of Khalil Bendib's
cartoon featuring Condoleezza Rice.
Condoleezza Rice...is arguably the most trusted National Security
Adviser in the history of the position. The broker of the
war cabinet, she is the one Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Secretary of State Colin Powell and Vice President Dick
Cheney must visit to express their views with Bush. - San
Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, April 15, 2003.
turns out that Mr. Bendib's work had been posted by far-right
FreeRepublic.com, the "premier conservative news forum",
associated with the foulest foundations and think tanks in
the land. The reactionaries' reactions ranged from apoplexy
to amusement. Here's a sample of their chatter:
sexual implication is clear. The papers are marked URGENT,
etc, and Condi is dressed to kill. Do Not Disturb sign on
the door. Condi not allowing them to see into the room."
it could be implying that G.W. is a racist and is using
Dr. Rice as his slave mistress .... "
contains a pretty good rendering of Rumsfeld."
it could be just the way the cartoonist views Condi in all
settings. She is an attractive lady."
resemble that remark. I view her as a very attractive lady
and a major part of her attractiveness is her intelligence."
has definitely drawn Condi in an attractive manner. He likes
her! Can someone tell me who that is behind Rummy?"
me of my favorite Saturday Night Live skit (the early years).
JFK was in the Oval Office with Marilyn discussing foreign
policy. Every time someone would come in, he'd throw
her across the desk in a passionate embrace .... "
the worst Dick Cheney I've seen. Looks more like 'Spy v.
someone tell me who that is behind Rummy?"
is supposed to be Colin Powell. I originally mistook the
Rummy character for Ted Kennedy. Great caricatures, Khalil
with the caption at the website, that cartoon looks to me
like a suggestion that Dr. Rice and Mr. Bush are engaged
in adultery. I just can't read it any other way. If the
cartoonist is suggesting that, then I suggest that
the cartoonist is a vile, reprehensible toad."
is a mirror image of how blacks view black women. They are
first and foremost sex slaves. The number of single black
mom's bears this out."
the cartoonist is black, it indicates (to me) that he has
a poor self image of Blackness. This is probably the result
of a public school education."
just jealous since Condi's so hot."
have made the the entire mess available on our Website at
location if you choose to read it.
way is up?
end with this column with a note from the person called MediaT3RR0R:
guys are doing a great job as usual. I may be wrong, but
I feel a subtle loss of media momentum for the conservatives,
almost as if the Pigs have gorged themselves at the feeding
troth, and now they're feeling drunk on themselves. Maybe
the pendulum is about to swing the other way. When the liberals
get on top again, we have to remember to kick the living
shit out of the Pigs.
against truth is hard, even for the corporate media, some
of whom must be profoundly embarrassed by the constant betrayals
of fact in which they are complicit. However, the "liberals"
still don't know which way is up, which makes it very difficult
for them to even begin to get on top.
T3RR0R also reports: "I've been working to create a multimedia
project to deliver the most deeply offensive insults I possibly
can to the Bushies."
wholeheartedly endorses the project, because ... well, just
gratefully acknowledges the following organizations for sending
visitors our way during the past week:
Final Call (Nation of Islam)
Prince's Journalisms (The Robert C. Maynard Institute for