MY VERSION - Commentary of September 14, 2005

Pouncing on the Elkridge Club; Never enough blacks; Lots of things worse than Amos 'n Andy; Prohibiting white pride; and We've lost the deed to Capitol Hill

Gregory Kane's words were like a blast from the past -- a past when proud blacks railed against the forced integration of white institutions. Shouted down and finally shunned by the stampeding hordes of eager liberal missionaries, laden with whole new concepts of "civil rights," dissenting blacks in an earlier era could no longer find a place even on the sidelines.

And now comes black pundit Kane, in his Baltimore Sun column of July 20, sternly admonishing Maryland's Lieut. Governor Michael Steele, to "mind your business" about the admission policies of the private white-owned Elkridge Club. He repeated his admonition to Governor Robert Ehrlich and to Montgomery County Executive Douglas Duncan. They are "none of your business," he intoned.

Duncan had expressed outrage upon learning that Gov. Ehrlich had held a fundraiser at the all-white club, and called the Governor's presence at the affair "a slap in the face to fair-minded Marylanders." In ridiculing Duncan's hyperbole, Kane described it as "classic political posturing masquerading unsuccessfully as righteous indignation."

Of course, as expected and on cue, both the Governor and Lieut. Governor belched out the usual apologies, with Steele, a black, pontificating that the "paucity of black members" in the club did, indeed, "bother" him. The Governor's spokesman came out with essentially a "me too." So, Kane offered the politicians some observations:

The Elkridge Club -- which is private and whose members happen to be white -- is not fair because it doesn't have any black members. But the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus get to be not only, by definition, exclusive, but they get to do it on the taxpayers' dime. Those police officers and firefighters who belong to this black professional organization, or that one, aren't called on to be more inclusive. Apparently, that's required only of private, all-white organizations.

And what might happen, queried Kane, if County Executive Duncan ever gets to be "Governor Duncan?" Would the new Governor describe racial exclusivity, like that practiced by those all-black organizations, as a "slap in the face?" Kane reminded Duncan, a Democrat, of the racially skewed and outrightly biased programs, like affirmative action, that were conceived and are supported by his party. He made special reference to the notorious University of Michigan case where white law school candidate Barbara Grutter was rejected purely on the basis of her race.

Giving the back of his hand to both political parties, Kane's final words were: "Until they change their tune about that, the Doug Duncans of the party should leave the Elkridge Club alone. And so should two Republicans by the names of Steele and Ehrlich."

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

Still not enough blacks

In the mid-1980s, officials of the national NAACP engaged in several sessions with various Hollywood producers and other bigwigs in the industry. As these representatives of the country's "official" civil rights organization had done many times before, in other venues, they came to cajole, and, if necessary, to threaten and intimidate Hollywood's powerful entertainment figures into opening up more roles for blacks in front of and behind the camera. Once again, the NAACP was playing the muscle man for a constituency determined to get their "piece of the pie."

As we all can attest, their efforts certainly bore fruit. Today, where is it that you cannot view black faces in every form of entertainment? Is there any time of the day or night that the TV screen is not filled with an abundance of them? Blacks are in sitcoms -- black-oriented, as well as those whose principal characters are white. They are in dramatic series, and they are bountifully represented in variety shows. They are in commercials, on talk shows, some of which they host. They are pseudo "judges," featured in reality shows, and they are news anchors. And then there are the many films broadcast on TV, which feature black actors.

All that Hollywood seemed to need was that intimidating push by the master intimidators, and studio owners set about outdoing one another in their mission to prove just how un-racist they can be. In many cases, it is obvious that black characters are self-consciously inserted into plots. However, we're not supposed to notice story lines that are actually spoiled or rendered foolish by the intrusion of another race. But, hey, who cares about make believe, anyway?

In spite of what appears to be a myriad of doors that have opened for blacks, it still is not enough. Complaints can be heard in some quarters that blacks do not play as great a role in television entertainment as they "rightfully" should. You see, no black has been gifted with a Leno/Letterman type nightly spot. In fact, last year, when CBS was auditioning, live and on air, prospective hosts for their Late Late Show, one of the candidates, a black comedian, publicly complained when the job was finally given to white comedian Craig Ferguson. After all, the disgruntled loser reasoned, it's "time" for a black man to host such a show.

And now we have this mini-controversy that was instigated by a Newsweek magazine reporter. In the film, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, all five of the principal children are, horrors!, white. Since this is a remake of an earlier film version, it has been noted that the five children are "still" white, as in the original film -- as if some kind of "progress" has failed to take place.

Tim Burton, the film's director, was battered with questions from the reporter about why he failed to "diversify" this film. He explained how, in cases where attempts are made to make a story line interracial, the result is often "more offensive." Sometimes, he claimed, doing the politically correct thing rings false. Well, the undaunted correspondent was not going to let him get away with that. Working to make something out of nothing, she pointed out that the Roald Dahl book, on which the film is based, does not specify a race for the main character -- dismissing the fact that the book's illustrations clearly depict Charlie as a white boy.

Even the phenomenally successful Seinfeld show has not escaped criticism for its all-white cast. Again, a black comedian took aim at Jerry Seinfeld, claiming that a black principal character should have been written into the show. His reasoning? It is highly unlikely that Yuppy types, like the four main characters, working and living in New York City, would not include people of color among their circle of friends.

Who knows where this will lead? Obviously, all those "diversity casting committees" that sprang up after the NAACP's initial visit to Hollywood, are still not doing the perfect job. It might be time for a return visit by those monitors of multicultural correctness.

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

The world of John Johnson and Amos 'n Andy

In an August 11th New York Times column, "Black and White and Read All Over," John McWhorter pays homage to the recently deceased black publisher John H. Johnson, who created the popular magazines Ebony and Jet.

With the advent of his publications in the mid-1940s, Johnson possessed the means to depict, in articles and full-color photographs, striving, upwardly mobile blacks engaging in the "normal things in life" generally associated with white America -- graduating school, getting married, working at jobs, giving parties, running successful businesses. The attractive people who filled the pages of Ebony were on the road to social and economic success, or had already arrived there.

Of the many interesting sociological observations that might be made of Johnson's influence, a great many of Ebony's faithful readers shared the values of the bourgeoisie, even when their salaries put them well below middle class status. While immersed in the stories within the pages of Ebony, every black could imagine him/herself living a grander lifestyle.

In recent years, writes McWhorter, Johnson's "upbeat tone" carried a whiff of another time, that is, black America "before the black power era in the late '60s." The 1965 Watts riots was a turning point in the conventional civil rights assimilation philosophy. "The new way," McWhorter explains, "elevated separatism and supporting that argument by showing whites the plight of blacks who had it the worst." Under the new mentality, "black success was often treated as an inconvenient sideshow, best publicized as little as possible."

In the 1950s, McWhorter observes, the NAACP had decried the Amos 'n Andy sitcom "for not paying enough attention to successful blacks." But by the 1960s, "black pundits ganged up on Diahann Carroll's sitcom Julia [about a striving black nurse] for not paying enough attention to poor blacks."

It's hard to believe (or maybe not) that the supposedly prestigious NAACP could have had a beef with the satirical Amos 'n Andy show, and today grants awards to rapping, hip-hopping fools, who are among the creators of some of the filthiest forms of entertainment. About this vulgarity, McWhorter writes, "Today many writers celebrate even the nastiest gangsta rap as a vibrant reflection of black culture." Given the nature of much of black popular music, and the often raw sexual innuendo of some black sitcoms, Amos 'n Andy never came close to the lows of today's black entertainment.

Amos 'n Andy 's main characters did speak in black dialect, or "Ebonics," and the "Kingfish" character, always seeking ways to make a quick buck, fell in and out of trouble. Yet the people who inhabited Amos 'n Andy 's world lived in what appeared to be a stable mixed-class black neighborhood. Most of the characters who came and went were married men with wives and families. There were black professionals (doctors, lawyers, business people) who showed up as walk-in characters, and many others who were clearly working, tax-paying citizens -- speaking straight, comprehensible English. In fact, it was not unusual for the less industrious characters to be excoriated as "lazy" or "shiftless" by the more responsible ones.

Too many ironies abound here, but one that stands out is the current emphasis on the use of black dialect. Today, many black performers cultivate this speech pattern, since they believe it gives them a distinctive edge over non-blacks. That which brought calumny to Amos 'n Andy is now rewarded with honors and mega bucks.

Copies of the Amos 'n Andy program have been commandeered by those who would keep the series from public view. A rumor, which might be an Urban Legend, claims that it is entertainer Bill Cosby who bought the rights to the television sitcom and is responsible for keeping it off the air. Embarrassed by the "uncouthness" of some of the characters represented in the story lines, many blacks are pleased that the obstreperous Kingfish's shenanigans can no longer be viewed. Still others would welcome the substitution of this light-hearted TV series for some of the current entertainment fare.

Let's hope that one day, this sitcom is liberated from the control of embarrassed, pretentious black elites. Mr. Cosby, are you listening?

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

White Pride

Did you know that the terms "Black Power," "Black Supremacy," and "La Raza" (The Race) are all trademarks that have long been approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Even the Black Panther Party's slogan "Burn, Baby, Burn" (which still evokes the threat of rioting and mayhem), had no problem winning official trademark recognition.

And then there's "African Pride," "Black Pride," "Chippewa Pride," "Cuban Pride," "Indian Pride," "Jewish Pride," "Red Pride," and lots more -- all aimed at acknowledging a race or ethnicity. And all terms approved by the U.S. government.

As Reported by American Renaissance and Free Republic, when Justin Moritz, a former law enforcement officer, applied to trademark the phrase "White Pride Country Wide," he was rejected in no uncertain terms. Registration of the words was not only denied, but the phrase was ruled "offensive" and "immoral." More succinctly, the trademark office claimed, "... the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter."

Incredulous, Moritz's next step was to appeal the decision and give trademark officials a chance to reconsider his request. He first did some homework and accumulated a list of all the trademarks given to terms that acknowledge pride of race or national origin. He came up with over three dozen relevant terms or slogans, many referencing people of color, which objectively could be deemed close relatives to "White Pride Country Wide." All to no avail. Rejection of his registration was upheld, and to add to his vexation, his $1,300 trademark application fee was deemed non-refundable.

Moritz next turned to the ACLU, which, unsurprisingly, refused to petition the trademark office in his behalf. He then contacted the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm. CIR did not take the case, but did place it on the website of the Federalist Society, where lawyers sometimes choose cases to handle pro bono. As of August, Moritz had not been contacted by a willing attorney.

Let's face it, it would be surprising if Moritz found support, especially among whites. After decades of inundation about the evils of "white racism" coming from all directions, and most especially from the media and education establishments, the average white is programmed to avoid anything that smacks of conscious endorsement of his own race. In the current social climate, to display favorable regard towards that which is white, not only is forbidden, but is viewed as an automatic disparagement of non-whites.

A "White Pride" T-shirt is deemed a threatening symbol, whereas a "Black Supremacy" slogan on a button or garment is viewed as an understandable, albeit angry response to undeserved past abuses. Any public effort to promote a white theme is doomed to failure, even if the proper bows to racial diversity are adhered to. Whites learn early to censor themselves, in order to comply with the rules of the race game.

The white who does not learn how to keep his head beneath the radar could wind up smeared with the "racist" label -- a potentially ruinous accusation. He who slips and fails to follow the politically correct race protocol could find himself in a turbulent situation. Given the existence of "hate crime" laws -- ambiguous statutes conceived primarily to entrap whites -- it is best to keep any socially unorthodox thoughts to oneself. As several cases demonstrate, punishment for Thought Crime has arrived in America.

Knowing that whites are on the defensive in this peculiar, one-sided shadow play, self-appointed "watchdog" groups, i.e., the professional "anti-racists," are quick to target a slogan like "White Pride Country Wide" as an arrogant manifestation of white supremacy. Honest intentions do not matter, since this is a "Gotcha!" game. Once the taboo "supremacist" has been applied, other whites will run for cover, eager to dissociate themselves from anyone who might bring on "race" troubles.

In a society now immersed in identity politics, where the education system and a reinforcing media work overtime in pummeling young minds with racially correct propaganda, there is little prospect that fairness will prevail in the near future.

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

They've taken over the deed to Capitol Hill

What's to become of our government? Are some candidates for political office running for Congress, not to be representatives of the people, but to acquire the appropriate credentials and inside influence needed to become future lobbyists for corporate interests? Is the prize that their eyes are on, not in the legislative body for which they are competing, but in a far, distant executive suite? How can a member of Congress, who has an eye on eventual employment in the pharmaceutical industry, and is befriended by aggressive lobbyists from that industry, objectively deal with legislation concerning drugs and pharmaceutical issues?

CNN's Lou Dobbs talks about "corporate supremacists," and the kinds of issues that true conservatives used to care about. There is little question any more about the inordinate power of corporations over our country's institutions. In an August 12 commentary, "Lobbying against America," Dobbs observes:

There's no denying both political parties in Congress are now owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests. Our nation's elected officials in Washington have formed a partnership with the corporate supremacists and special interest groups in an effort to drive profits to the bottom line of U.S. multinationals at the expense of hard-working Americans . . . . Not surprisingly, there's a serious correlation between the dramatic increase in money spent by special interest groups on lobbying and corporate America's taking over the deed to Capitol Hill.

Let's be clear about this: Calling these greedy people "lobbyists" simply because they convene in the hallowed lobbies of Washington is akin to calling parasites "bodyists" or viruses "blood-streamers." What they're really doing is selling out American workers and hastening the decline in our nation's standard of living and quality of life. Corporations, entire industries and other special interest groups spent a record $2.14 billion on lobbying members of Congress and 220 other federal agencies last year, according to Political MoneyLine, a nonpartisan research service that tracks campaign contributions. That figure represents a 7% increase over 2003 and an astonishing 34% jump from the amount of money spent on lobbying in 2001. . . .

The corporate lobby has become more effective recently because it's hiring more experienced players, in effect creating a "revolving door" between Capitol Hill and K Street. In fact, 43% of the eligible congressional members, who departed government, have become lobbyists, while half of all eligible departing senators have become lobbyists. Nearly 250 former members of Congress and federal agency chiefs have become lobbyists since 1998, while more than 2,200 former federal employees have registered as federal lobbyists.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel claims that Congress is no longer the "people's house," but looks more like an auction house. Again, what's to become of our nation, if those who serve in the most important branch of government already have one foot out the door, even as they run for political office?

Elizabeth Wright
Issues & Views - editor@issues-views.com
http://www.issues-views.com

The hurricane

As to Hurricane Katrina, the stories, articles and op-eds have only just begun and, no doubt, will be filling newspapers, magazines, and the Internet for years -- along with the countless books that soon will be rolling off the presses. Well underway is the deluge of analyses of this gargantuan human tragedy, leading with the apparent government incompetence and the visions of blacks behaving badly.

Of course, lots of pundits and others got it right concerning the implications of what we all saw after the storm. So many of the consequent events of the calamity were, indeed, attributable to the nature of the welfare state. More insights on the subject in the next I&V Update.

One more thought . . .

Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others -- with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.

-- Henry Grady Weaver, The Mainspring of Human Progress, 1947. (Thanks to the Future of Freedom Foundation)

Copyright © 2001 Issues & Views