Fact. There are many Americans who simply refuse,
under any circumstances, at any time, in any place, to consider the prospect
their country in general, and especially themselves in particular, ever
tolerate even the hint of a suggestion that they harbor the most remote
scintilla of racist thought, deed, or action in exercising their life’s
functions. In fact, if you happen to
suggest that one of these people is racist, that person will deny it, quickly
and robustly, and then just as speedily and fervently, insist that by the mere
introduction of such an idea, you, in fact, are the racist.
While I
firmly believe this to be true of Americans as a whole, it is in my opinion
super-turbo-fied for white Americans. Take
a moment to breathe deeply before opting to just go directly to your neutral
corner and employ searing eyes and an angry heart to throw shade at such a
bodacious premise, or at me for displaying the temerity to author it.
The thing
is, there is well-documented, widely accepted American history that explains,
at least in part, why so many otherwise intelligent and reasonable Americans
think that way, even in the 21st Century. There are, in some people’s mind, perfectly
logical events that underpin the fundamental structure of this premise. Like it or not, this is a thing, a very inconvenient
American truth. Let’s take a walk back
in the historical annals of time and space.
Meet Dred
Scott! Dred Scott sued for his freedom,
on the grounds that he and his wife had for years lived in a free state. His
case eventually went to the Supreme Court. In his March 6, 1857 ruling, Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court Roger Taney declared that Scott had
no right to sue because as a black man he was never intended to be an
American.
Speaking of
the clause in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal,”
Taney wrote:
“It
is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to
be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this
declaration.”
Taney went
on to say the following:
“The negro has no rights which the
white man is bound to respect”
"It is difficult, at this day, to realize the
state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in
the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the
Declaration of Independence, and when the constitution was framed and adopted.
But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too
plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as
beings of an inferior race, and altogether unfit to associate with the white
races, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they
had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro
might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
Chief
Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion. The court held that Scott was not
free based on his residence in either Illinois or Wisconsin because he was not
considered a person under the U.S. Constitution–in the opinion of the justices;
black people were not considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted in
1787. According to Taney, Dred Scott was the property of his owner, and
property could not be taken from a person without due process of law.
In fact,
there were free black citizens of the United States in 1787, but Taney and the
other justices were attempting to halt further debate on the issue of slavery
in the territories. The decision inflamed regional tensions, which burned for
another four years before exploding into the Civil War.
Now most people would read the aforementioned and undoubtedly be prone
to say, that was a 159 years ago. The
United States fought a war (the Civil War) that exorcised the stench of the
demons of that ludicrously inhumane ruling.
Without a doubt America and black Americans, yes we are Americans, were
freed from the heinous circumstances that made such a reckoning by the foremost
jurist in the highest court in the land even possible. And you would be right…as it relates to most
people.
But most is not all, and in this instance, it is particularly important
in the case of one among those numbered in the some, not in the most. Mike
Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, former Fox News Host, & 2016 GOP
Presidential Candidate articulated a belief last summer, while he was pursuing
the 2016 Republican nomination for President, that the Dred Scott Decision,
rendered by the Taney Supreme Court…is still the law!
Interestingly enough, he made this argument
while defending an individual’s right to ignore a Supreme Court ruling. While defending Kentucky Clerk Kim
Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to
same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said:
“The
Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which held that all
blacks, free or enslaved, could not be American citizens – is still the law of
the land even though no one follows it.”
“I’ve
been just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s
not the law of the land? Because that’s
their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of
1857 still remains to this day the law of the land, which says that black
people aren’t fully human. Does anybody still follow the Dred Scott Supreme
Court decision?’”
And lest you
feel compelled to dismiss this Troglodytic comment as a mere aberration by this
pillar of contemporary Republicanism, the former Governor, former Fox News host,
and former Presidential candidate has somehow convinced himself that federal “enabling
legislation” is necessary in response to
court rulings, or they don’t count.
Further, he’s also endorsed pre-Civil War nullification
schemes and suggested he might deploy federal
troops on U.S. soil to prevent women
from exercising their reproductive rights.
But I digress.
This, all of
this, from Robert Taney’s legalistic machinations, to Mike Huckabee’s political
ramblings explains, in no uncertain terms why Black Lives Matter (BLM). Almost anyone who follows the Movement,
either as a an activist/member, or from an intellectual and/or academic perspective,
can tell you that neither the Movement nor the acronym BLM is intended to
convey the sentiment that Black Live Matter and others do not, or that Black
Lives Matter more than others, or that Black Lives Matter because they are more
important than White Lives, Asian Lives, Latino Lives, Native American Lives,
or any other lives.
Patrisse
Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza founded #BlackLivesMatter in 2013. The movement began with the use of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter
on social media,
after the acquittal
of George Zimmerman
in the shooting
death of African-American teen Trayvon Martin. Black
Lives Matter became nationally recognized for its street demonstrations
following the 2014 deaths of two African Americans: Michael Brown,
resulting in protests and
unrest in Ferguson, and Eric Garner
in New York City.
#BlackLivesMatter
is an online forum intended to build connections between Black people and their
allies to fight anti-Black racism, to spark dialog among Black people, and to
facilitate the types of connections necessary to encourage social action and
engagement. All in all, I think that is
a noble endeavor.
BLM’s Home
Page footer includes the following defining language:
#BlackLivesMatter
is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are
systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an
affirmation of Black folks’ contributions to this society, our humanity, and
our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
BLM, in an
effort to help familiarize interested parties with their operational objects
shares a list of Guiding Principals on its Home Page. Those ideals include:
·
Diversity
·
Restorative
Justice
·
Unapologetically
Black
·
Globalism
·
Collective
Value
·
Transgender
Affirming
·
Black
Women
·
Black
Villages
·
Empathy
·
Black
Families
·
Loving
Engagement
·
Queer
Affirming
·
Intergenerational
I’m not a
#BLM activist. However, as a black man
in America, born and raised in this country, I absolutely understand why the
Movement is not only justified it is essential.
I unequivocally reject the notion that #BLM is racist. In fact, the Movement is a direct response to
disparate treatment on its face. In
addition, just in case anyone actually needs to be reminded, it is necessary
because of a daunting history of minimizing and denigrating responses to Black
Life.
That history, in and of itself
would justify such a Movement. However, as
I noted above, there is also a contemporary mindset that embraces the notion
that Black Lives are not equal, and have no rights that need not be respected
(by White men). In an America in which
an individual counted among our nation’s thought leaders (Pease do not suggest
a man who has served as Governor of a State is not a significant molder and
shaper of public opinion) can openly hold, project, and promote those views…“Black Lives Matter: Of That I Am Certain!”
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog
anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.
Find a new post
each Wednesday.
To subscribe,
click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home
Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated
space, and click on “Sign me up.”
Subsequent
editions of “Break
It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
Consult the links below for more
detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-inherently-racist/index.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment