Survival of the Fittest: the Trump Years

When next you hear someone claiming that "We will survive" or "I will survive" the Trump years because others have survived worse in the past consider this: 'we' certainly will survive but 'we' won't all make it to the other side. 

Here's how I know......

1. Thirty years ago, there was the piss poor HIV/AIDS response, and still we survived
HIV positive people survived Ronald Reagan's cavalier attitude to the early appearance of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Reagan himself is said to have laughed off the growing crisis and Mrs. Reagan turned her back on longtime friend Rock Hudson when he was diagnosed.

St. Ronnie and his administration laughed off the crisis, kinda like the President-elect laughs off climate change. The world was slow to recognize the gravity of the situation (then as now) or to begin working on treatment and prevention protocols. The greater 'we' certainly survived, but we haven't all made to the other side have we? The AIDS quilt is proof of that fact.

2. Thirty years later, there's Flint & Standing Rock, and we will yet survive
In Flint, as in Standing Rock, calls for a potable water supply have been shrugged off. In Flint, early alarms raised by pediatrician Dr. Mona Hanna-Atisha were shrugged off as "data" (which apparently is a bad thing). It was more than twelve months before anything like an admission was forthcoming from the powers that be. That probably explains why there are now public officers facing felony charges.

Ultimately, the greater 'we' will survive the Flint crisis, but the children of Flint will not survive unharmed. Lead poisoning has lifetime consequences and we can be assured that they won't get the financial, emotional and/or educational support they will need. 

Thirty years from now, Flint's children will be struggling to find their way, Governor Snyder will be long gone, and we will all have conveniently forgotten what malfeasance and classist + racist Republican politics visited upon them.

So yes....
The greater 'we' will survive, but some of us won't make it to the other side: lives will be shortened, prospects will be dimmed or lost, families will be destroyed. 

We are entering an era of conservatism. Remember where the last one left us? 'Compassionate conservatism' my ass. There's an ox and a moron (oxymoron) if ever I heard one!

Did Black folk survive Jim Crow and slavery? Yes they did, but ask the good people at EJI (Equal Justice Initiative) how many people were murdered by mobs. How many lynching sites are they now trying to recognize? How many victims are they trying to remember and recognize? How many Neil deGrasse Tysons did we lose? How many Hadiyah-Nicole Greens?

Did Jews survive the Holocaust? Yes, they did, but ask any Jewish friend how many of their relatives didn't make it. How many Elie Wiesels did we lose? How many Anne Franks?

Did Native Americans survive the Trail of Tears? Yes indeed, but talk to an elder about the stories of loss. How many Joe Medicine Crows did we lose? How many Elouise Cobbells?

When we say "We will survive" we're also saying that a survival of the fittest approach is acceptable. It isn't; we're saying that entirely preventable human losses are acceptable. They aren't. 

Preventable losses are a criminal waste of human potential. We're in a compassionately conservative time. Brace yourself. This version of 'compassion' will leave some of us dead. We will not all make it. Sorry to be the harbinger of those sad tidings. 

Hereafter Hustlin'

Since June, when Jesse L. Williams dropped serious lyrics on the BET Awards stage, I've been trying to find the words to write about Hereafter Hustling a term I got from him. 

In his speech, Williams referred to the hereafter as a hustle and that really resonated with me. Because my faith is not a Timex (it took a licking but did not keep ticking), I had some thoughts. But since I live in a universe full of Christians I thought I'd just hol' meh han' (keep my mouth shut).  Folk would not understand, and I didn't have the energy to fight. My biblical swash-buckling days are pretty much done.

But then........... 

But then, Walter Scott's murderer got a mistrial and his mother stepped up to the microphone to preach a sermon of "Jesus will set this straight" right after the verdict was read. There she was, singing "Oh Rest in the Lord, Wait Patiently for Him (Mendelssohn)" and I could only cringe and squirm and swallow the bile in my throat.

O Rest in the Lord - Elijah (Mendelssohn) - Cheryse McLeod Lewis

Honestly, I weep for us. Have we so lowered the bar for the recognition of our humanity in the world, that the best we can claim is "Jesus gon' get him"? Have we so bought into the religion of those who took us captive - both physically and mentally - that the best we can do is use that very religion as the path to our ultimate victory? Have we so misunderstood God that we really believe that the ONLY place where there will be peace for us is in a pine box or "Heaven"?

Ladies and gents, the Black Kumbaya chorus does not help. It does not advance our cause. While we are yet singing, another will be shot dead and we will be called upon to sing still one more verse.

I appreciate that you are a believer. I appreciate that you can set aside all the times when God chose not to intervene in mankind's affairs (Free Will and all that). I understand. But seriously, the "God is in control" line of reasoning strikes me as dangerous. God may well be in control in Heaven, but who's in control on the ground? Cuz it ain't lookin' much like it's Him.

The theology of "Let go, let God" doesn't work when you're in a car racing down an incline and your brake line has been cut. Letting go is the very last thing you want to do. America's brake line has been cut and we are careening downhill but y’all wanna holler "Jesus take the wheel?!?" Um, k. I guess. Me? I'm grabbing the wheel.

The people in the neighborhood

My original intent was to wax philosophical on this topic. I changed my mind.

I present: The People in Our Neighborhoods. Have some fun! Sing along.

Verse 1: Sing with me
Kelly Forostiak's a school teach-er
Who says her kids are not like he-r
She says that they are all assholes
I think it's time for new job goals!

Kelly Forostiak's a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!
A teacher is a person in your neighborhood (school)
A person that you meet each day!

Verse 2: 

There's Teacher's Aide, Jane Allen Wo-od
She posted something real un-go-od
She called Michelle a go-ril-la
The school board had to fire her!

Jane Allen Wood is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!
A teacher's aide's a person in your neighborhood
A person that you meet each day!

Verse 3:
Diane Amoratis was a nurse in Philly.
She dreamed of running down a Black rally
She posted on Facebook one night,
Before long she was out of sight!

Oh Diane is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!
A nurse is a person in your neighborhood (hospital)
A person that you meet each day!

Verse 4.
Med students spend long years in scho-ol
They learn all kinds of stuff that's co-ol
But some of them think Blacks don't hurt,
That thinking is as dumb as dirt!

Oh a med student's a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!
A med student's a person in your neighborhood (ER)
A person that you meet each day!

Verse 5.
Josh Doggrell is a White suprem-acist
That means that he's a real rac-ist
But he is also a beat cop
Let's hope he never tells you "Stop!"

A policeman is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!
A policeman is a person in your neighborhood (police station)

A person that you meet each day!

Bonus verse!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Verse 6.
John Roberts, is the Chief Supre-me
I don't know what you think that mean
He's always hated the VRA
One day he made it go away!

(verse addendum)
He supported Plessy v Fergus-on
Which encouraged school segregati-on
He thinks that we're post-racial now,
He's wrong and this pic shows you how!

John Roberts is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood,
In your neighborho-od!

These people are the people in our neighborhoods.
They're the people that we meet, when we're walking down the street.
They're the people that we meet EACH DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And that's just six examples. Think there might be more? I sure do. U-biq-ui-damn-tous. Erry-damn-where.

The Race for Ramekins

Have you read Ashley Owens' ramekins story? You really must! Go here, I'll wait til you're all caught up. No seriously, I'll wait.

Now that you're caught up, here are my quick takeaways:

1) Ms. Nice White Lady (NWL) was your typical "I'm not a racist" racist. 

She started off with slightly left of center comments about hair - always a bad place to start, but our hair seems to draw 'em in like honey does flies. Instead of recognizing an unwilling combatant in Ms. Owens, Ms NWL continued on along a path to perfidy.

Shortly thereafter, all the fake bonhomie fell away when Mistress NWL discovered that *gasp* Ms. Owens had something she wanted but could not have.

At this point in my reading, I realized that this story was not about ramekins. It never was. 

If there is one thing people of color have come to learn the long, cold, hard way, it's that what NWLs are apparently screaming about ain't ever what they're actually screaming about. We learned that about 400 years ago and we have not failed to teach it to our children ever since. 

Substitute the ramekins in Ms. Owens' story for land; homes; jobs and what you have is a story that any person of color can tell. Ramekins are just about every damb thing in the universe that a person of color might want and set their eye or hand upon first. 

For example, this story reminds me of a (former) NWL colleague who complained mightily that her son had been futzing around in the 11th grade, but wanted to go to college. A year later, when he finally got around to straightening himself out, he couldn't magically undo the crappy outcomes of his 11th grade year. This, naturally, had consequences for him when he was applying to schools and he didn't get into his first choice school. His first choice was the flagship campus of his state school, a place where competition is stiff on any given day. But here he was, trying to get in with some sketchy ish in his transcript. He didn't. Naturally. But what was his reaction? Was it annoyance at himself for having slacked off at the critical point in his academic career? Nope. Instead of taking personal responsibility, he claimed instead that he'd paid the "White boy tax". Some Black kid had taken his ramekins. Where's the manager?

His mother repeated this to me casually as if, "Ho hum, he's entitled to a space there because....White boy". I blinked several times and said not a mumbling word. 

2) There is a reality at play in this story of the ramekins that we would do well to heed

Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, a person could apply for citizenship as long as he was "a free white person, being of good character and living in the United States for two years." 

This is germane because in the 1790s there were free Negroes, persons entitled (more on this word anon) to the rights of citizenship but the first Congress excluded both women and people of color from those rights. Frankly, people of color haven't yet recovered from that slight. Since then, the details of our exclusion may have changed, but the consequences of it have not. We are still made to feel, as Ms. Owens was, that what is ours is only ours if someone allows us to have it, if someone more deserving, more entitled, refuses to part-take thereof. More importantly, the inference continues to be made that whatever has come into our possession has done so only via gift. You got reservation land? We gave you that! You got a job because Affirmative Action forced us to consider you? We gave you that too. Integration rather than segregation? Civil rights laws? An end to domestic terror? We gave you these things! The majority has given minority populations these things and anytime they want 'em back, like those damn ramekins, they will either take 'em out our shopping basket or tell the manager we took 'em out of theirs. "Where's the damn manager?!"

3) Ultimately, the fight is for or with entitlement

A few days ago, I went back and forth with someone on Twitter, trying to get her to understand that I did not deserve rights but was entitled to same. She had a lot of trouble understanding the difference between the two. I tried very hard to explain that in much the same way that she was entitled to (or in Constitution-speak 'endowed with') rights under the Constitution, I was and am too. She could not say the word. Could. Not. Would. Not. Did. Not. Not even after nearly a dozen tweets. The best she could manage without being shoved across the finish line was "should have", not even "you DO have" but "you SHOULD have".

The notion of a person of color, being entitled to something same as she seemed to be a bridge too far. 

There is embedded deep down here a fundamental rejection of equality, which in turn signals the belief in supremacy - White supremacy.  Not only do NWLs believe we cannot have anything unless they - as the owners and givers of all good things - allow it, we also should never have as much as they, and definitely not more.  It's not just that Ms. Owens had something this NWL wanted, but also that by having something she did not, the NWL's sense of cosmic order was disrupted...hence her hot run to the manager's office.  Owens could not have ramekins that she did not have.  “Manager fix this!”

The NWL seeking Ms. Owens' ramekins has this problem. She feels that she is entitled to ramekins, land, jobs, education, access, opportunity, security, whatever, but we, not so much. It's that "I'm not a racist" racism. It's that Orwellian "some animals are more equal than others" racism. Yes, we're both entitled to shop in this store, but if you see something I want, then equality goes out the window and I'm one of Orwell's more equal animals. 

Don't ask me what it will take for us all to be equally entitled. I have no idea. After several tweets back and forth I barely got my NWL on Twitter to agree that I was entitled to rights under natural law and the Constitution. I do know that if you think these incursions into our space stop at ramekins, you are very much mistaken. In September 2016, the federal court ruled that mainstream approval of your rights has limits. It has been decided that you can be terminated for wearing locs if NWLs or NWGs don't like 'em in their office. Your hair you see, is not an immutable characteristic ergo, an employer is free to regulate it. 

Hair: the next round of ramekins. 

There really is nothing new under the sun. The battlegrounds may change, but the war itself remains ever the same. 

Follow me on Twitter @truthwriter65

Making America great (no, not 'again')

I saw a note on FB this morning which was very interesting but included a line that confused me. The writer said that what we are watching is the deterioration of a once-great nation. My question is simply this: when was it great? No, I'm serious. I just want to know. How are we defining greatness because I'm starting to think that word doesn't mean what we think it does.

Bear in mind that I'm an immigrant so my perspective is different. I'm not wedded to any of the notions of American  greatness and exceptionalism that native-born sons and daughters are, and it's therefore far easier for me to look dispassionately at the history of this Great Country*.

I come from a formerly colonized nation, so questioning the colonizer is what I do. Forgive me.

The root of American - and European - greatness needs to be questioned and looked at with a clear, unflinching gaze. I've said this before, and will likely say it again, only the truth will set us free. So the question has to be asked: when was America great? Give me a date. How did she get great? What war did she win? What new territory did she conquer? How did her greatness come to be?

As far as I can tell, the America of the founders' imagination is a fabulous idea but betwist idea and implementation, is a long road of death, destruction and damnably persistent exploitation. Are we there yet, at implementation I mean? Are we at the full implementation of the founders' idea: equality, liberty and the right to pursue one's happiness? And if we aren't, what will it take to get there? And, given that there are folks who are constitutional originalists among us, do we even know where 'there' is any more? Seems to me that to a constitutional originalist like Clarence Thomas, 'there' might be a place where his learning to read was against the law. Just sayin'.

Based on what I've seen and heard, America was great when the Native Americans were walking the Trail of Tears courtesy Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal policy. Indian Removal: great for America, not so much for the Native Americans.

When America was great, the slaves were arriving in Jamestown in 1619. Slavery: great for America, not so much for the slaves.

When America was great, newly emancipated slaves were being forced back into sharecropping and de facto (version two) slavery. Only the stories of the sharecroppers can give a real sense of how exploitative these conditions actually were. History books tend to lay the continuing poverty of sharecroppers at the feet of the vagaries weather and crop yields, but in many cases there was far more to it than that. Sharecropping: great for America, not so much for the sharecroppers.

When America was great, domestic terrorism was a thing keeping newly freed people of color from getting too big for their britches. Lynching: great for America, not so much for the n*ggers.

When America was great, Black people could be used for medical experimentation. Medical research and advancement: great for America, not so much for the guinea pigs (aka Black human beings).

When America was great, discrimination in lending and home sales was OK; unequal resourcing to schools was OK; disparate treatment in any and every sphere of life was OK; discriminating against persons on the grounds of the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender expression was OK; and using disparaging language as we spoke to and about each other was perfectly acceptable. Discrimination: great for America, not so much for those being discriminated against. So I ask again: when exactly was America great? Or perhaps the real question to be asked is, for whom was this great America great? And in our quest to regain this apparently lost greatness, who are we going to put in a box, because clearly, someone's gotta be the guinea pig, the sharecropper, the slave, the n*gger. Who's it gonna be? I'm not volunteering. I guess that leaves you? Oh wait, not you either? Hm. We seem to be running out of candidates.

We have long confused the ideas of greatness and prosperity. The two words are not synonyms, not even close.

Belgium is wealthy, but that wealth is built on the bones of millions of Africans in the Congo who were brutalized for rubber, which makes a response to the events in Brussels complicated. We repudiate the violence but we must also be mindful of the history. Does wealth make Belgium 'great'? If so, then surely the source of that wealth makes Belgium something far less than great? Great Britain is also wealthy but that wealth came at the expense of both the East and the West Indies,  the Triangular Trade, colonization and its attendant brutalities. Great Britain was made wealthy through the stripping of people from their culture and stripping of culture from its people. That certainly made her wealthy, but great?

America is wealthy. The Founders' idea is a great one. The Bill of Rights is fantastic, but even as that was being crafted, Thomas Jefferson was exploring/exploiting some kind of connubial relationship with Sally Hemmings and George Washington and several others were slaveholders. They were tacitly, if not actively, supporting the rape and torture of the female slaves on their plantations and while ain't nobody ever talk about it, I'm pretty sure some of the male slaves were being raped as well. Was the slave-owning version of America great? What about the Trail of Tears and Native American genocide version? Was that one great? How about the current version of America, where unarmed people of color too often do not survive even the simplest encounters with agents of the state? How great is that?

Perhaps rather than toss the word great around we need to figure out what greatness looks like and then hold America up against that standard and see where we come out? Before we talk about making America great again, let's do the gap analysis, see how it comes out and then get to working on closing the gap because I'm not feeling the 'again' bit. The first time around wasn't so good for my people.

If you want me to sign on, let's talk about finally making America great; finally realizing the promise of the founders’ vision. I could get on board that train. The Trump train? Not so much. 

* Don't you feel like the words Great Nation should always be capitalized or bolded, the way folk say it? I do.