suzyblitz

May 31, 2008 The Demise of the White American Male

Three months ago the Dallas Morning News ran a story about a family who relocated to Garland after Hurricane Katrina. Supposedly their house had been burglarized and the "N" word spray painted on the walls of their home. This prompted a former black Plan Commissioner to write an email to Councilman Jeffus expressing outrage.

We should all feel outrage when innocent people are victimized. But why did this former Plan Commissioner consider this incident a city wide problem of "regional bias and bigotry" that Councilman Jeffus was somehow responsible to change?

The question the writer posed to Jeffus was, "how do you propose we address what appears to be a recurring cancer (racist behavior) that has surfaced in our city over the last few months?" This is an unfair question because it implies that Jeffus was closing his eyes to racist behavior by not doing more about this alleged "recurring cancer" even though the incident was being investigated by the police. To the writer of the email it did not seem Council, and Jeffus in particular, was doing enough.

It's unfortunate that this incident happened but in my opinion racism, whether these acts be directed against whites, blacks or browns, may never be entirely eradicated until Jesus comes back. There will always be people who hate and discriminate. Nobody in our society condones it. We have passed laws that punish the guilty, but that does not mean the problem will ever completely disappear.

Whatever Happened to Equal Opportunity?

It was Martin Luther King who called for a colorblind, less race-and-gender conscious society. Unfortunately his "I have a dream" vision has evolved into a government-mandated group spoils system. Over the last 50 years laws have been passed making it a criminal offense to engage in the kind of behavior described in the Dallas Morning News article. Yet, the problem still exists because what society needs is a change of heart, something only God can bring about.

What is very freightening these days is that hate-filled and incindiary sermons are coming from some black pulpits fanning the flames of hatred against people who are not considered minority.

Laws are on the books prohibiting discrimination in employment, in housing, in education, and other areas of life. Is it any wonder that white folks are asking why, all things being equal, a minority with a lower score on a police sergeant's test is hired over a white man who scored higher?

These days if one is a white male trying to get into college, character and a high grade point average do not count for much except getting bumped to the bottom of the list in order to accommodate someone whose skin color carries priviledge. With inclusive victimhood, everyone on campus can be entitled to special compassion and programs except white males who are acutely aware that their institutions have demonstrated little interest in them as a group.

It was the 1964 Civil Rights Act that created the EEOC and Section 703(j) of that act states: "Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group . . . on account of an imbalance." Section 703(a) forbids employers to "limit, segregate, or classify" employees based on their "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

If this is the law, how did the Clinton Administration get away with making a statement that "a white male will not be considered for attorney general?" Hello, Janet Reno!

And how about the statement made by Clinton appointee Mary Francis Berry, that "civil rights laws were not passed to give civil rights to all Americans"—only to "disfavored groups," such as "blacks, Hispanics, and women." Is it fair that white males in our society today are being disenfranchised and discriminated against? Are white men only needed to toil and pay increasingly higher taxes in order to pay for more entitlement programs?

I applaud the work of MLK, but look what's happened over the years to his dream of a level playing field for everyone regardless of race or gender. We've come a long way since the 60's, yet today the white person is constantly being challenged to prove he is not racist. Our Council could not vote to raze Eastgate without a black man speaking before the Council and pulling out the race card. The white man cringes at the thought of such an accusation and is constantly turning himself inside out trying to prove something he may never have been in the first place ... a racist.

When I think of where our society is going I feel frustrated and angry. What started out as a demand for equal opportunity in the 60's has evolved into ongoing affirmative action, quotos, entitlements, and reverse discrimination and a mentality that says, "let's blame the white man for all our problems." When will this end? Whatever happened to individual responsibility and accountability?

The way I see it, over the last 50 years politicians have created a monster that frequently rears it's ugly head in the form of "race baiting." MLK's vision of society was one in which every person would be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. MLK's vision has morphed into something he never intended.

Over the last 50 years our "guilt ridden" and/or self serving politicians and educators have pushed hiring quotas, affirmative action programs, dumbed down education, bussed kids out of neighborhood schoools, increased entitlements to astronomical proportions, and offered incentives in every area of life to help minorities improve their standard of living. And with all this, the white man is still being blamed ... blamed for deliberately spreading AIDS into the black community, blamed for WW2, blamed for not supporting the PLO, blamed for the drug epidemic among minorities, blamed for the high drop out rate among black high school students, blamed for 9-1-1, blamed for incarcerating too many black criminals, and despite all the entitlement programs there is always the underlying accusations that white folks are not doing enough. It's never enough .............. never enough .............. never enough.

DART Board Appointment

Is it understandable that today some of us are wondering why the Mayor is pushing Council to appoint his friend and campaign supporter to the DART Board before a search has been made seeking the most qualified individual? Doesn't this smack of cronyism?

I can only hope that the Council does the right thing and appoints the most qualified person to the DART Board. This was the dream MLK expressed many years ago when he publicly opposed preferential treatment for anyone. In keeping with MLK's dream, let this Council insist on a level playing field where everyone has an equal chance based on qualifications. That will take guts on the part of this Council -- a refusal to be pressured into making appointments based on anything other than objective criteria.

7/3/08 PROCLAMATION FOR UNITY ... MORE EMPTY WORDS ???

Recently the Multicultural Commission presented the Mayor with a Proclamation that referred to the "insidious disease" of racism that would not be allowed to threaten Garland's diverse community. Furthermore, it denounced all forms of communication that, in someone's opinion, inferred bigotry. It declared a zero tolerance for race-based behavior which would be appropriately punished. Although the Proclamation had no enforcement power, it was a subjective document based on the perceptions of 10 individuals, none of whom were white. The Proclamation appeared to reflect a belief that the insidious disease of racism is thriving in Garland. Is there any documentation to substantiate such a belief?

This Proclamation came on the heels of a recent email sent to Councilman Larry Jeffus by B. J. Williams, a former black Plan Commissioner, who was convinced that the burglary of a home in Garland on April 2, 2008 was racially motivated. It read in part:

Councilman Jeffers: (name was misspelled)

Subject: Cancer Continues - Offspring of Jim Crow laws

".... the criminal and racist incident that occurred targeting a family in District 4. If the account given in Richard's article is correct (and I have no reason to believe it is not), this incident reflects not only a racial bias, but also an undercurrent of a regional bias that exists toward citizens who were displaced and relocated to Garland due to Hurricane Katrina.

How do you propose we address what appears to be a recurring cancer (racist behavior) that has surfaced in our city over the last few months?"

Following a police investigation, two individuals who committed this crime were apprehended. One was Hispanic the other black. Nothing in the police report indicated this burglary was a racially motivated crime. Nonetheless, the writer of the email could not wait for the police to investigate and, instead jumped to the conclusion that this crime was "racially motivated" sending his email to 30 people including one newspaper reporter. Which brings me back to the original Proclamation which the Mayor thankfully rewrote, deleting language that was subjective and offensive.

Has the Multicultural Commission found Garland to be a "cancer infected" community where ongoing racist behavior is tolerated? Where Jim Crow laws are tolerated causing a continuing cancer in our community? What did the Multicultural Commission mean when they stated in their Proclamation that the "insidious disease" of racism would not be allowed to threaten Garland's diverse community? If this problem exists in Garland, how is this cancer being addressed? If this is not the case, why are these incindiary remarks being made?

Perhaps we should first establish if there is disparity on the makeup of the Multiculural Commission itself. According to the City of Garland website, the mission of the Multicultural Commission is as follows:

The Community Multicultural Commission is appointed by the City Council, and consists of 13 members of various cultures and ethnic backgrounds representative of the city's demographics. The primary focus of the Commission is to serve as an advisory commission, addressing the needs and concerns of the citizens and City Council in the city of Garland.

THIS STATEMENT IS A LIE! The present makeup of this Commission is not representative of the city's demographics having totally excluded the largest segment of our population, namely WHITE FOLKS, who make up over 50% of Garland's demographics.

According to the City staff, Garland's current demographics are: 56% White, 11% Black, 25% Hispanic, 7% Asian, and .6% American Indian.

So why is it that of the 13 slots, (3 were still vacant as of Monday) 4 members of this Commission were African American (40%), 4 were Hispanic (40%), 1 was Asian (10%) and 1 is American Indian (10%) and there was not a white face among them? As of Tuesday night, those numbers changed. On July 1, Councilman Jeffus appointed a 17 year old girl by the name of Xiomara Viera to the Commission and the Mayor appointed Kaushalya Siniwardana. What's wrong with this picture? Who is representing the culture and ethnic background of white people? Are we so short of mature white people that we have to appoint kids to this Commission?

Is there racial bias in Garland? I maintain there is, not only in Garland but in the nation as a whole. White people are increasingly being marginalized, denied employment because they do not belong to a protected minority while brilliant students are being denied acceptance to colleges because some arbitrary minority quota has not been met. At the local level, emails are sent to multiple recipients charging racism in the commission of a crime where none was found. And white folks are being overlooked for appointment to a Commission whose vision statement specifically claims to represent various cultures and ethnic backgrounds representative of the city's demographics. What kind of horse pukey is the City of Garland feeding us?

Although the Proclamation submitted by the Multicultural Commission had no teeth, it reflected a mood that I found intolerable because it blatantly violated freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. If unity is the Mayor's goal, the Proclamation read on Tuesday evening might have included language to encourage each person to take responsibility for their own behavior, stop blaming others for their own bad choices, stop blaming teachers when their kids fail in school, stop blaming society when someone is incarcerated for breaking the law, and stop depending on taxpayer funded entitlements as if it were somebody's God-given right to a never-ending handout. If a community truly desires unity, every person must pull their own weight. People of every color must stand together on a platform of responsibility and self control.

The Mayor's present Proclamation promotes unity on paper, but it's nothing more than empty words if he does not have the grit to address the many causes of disunity in the first place.

Perhaps the Mayor can start by answering this question: Since white people make up 56% of Garland's population, why are they being excluded from serving on this Multicultural Commission. There is one slot left. Who will be Garland's token white?

THE RED, WHITE AND BLUE

Singer Rene Marie, subs 'black anthem' for 'Star Spangled Banner'

'Can you imagine what it would be like if we had a white national anthem?'

Posted: July 02, 2008

1:46 pm Eastern

A singer who was to perform the "Star Spangled Banner" at the presentation of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's State of the City address yesterday substituted the "Black National Anthem" without notifying anyone, because she says as a black, she just doesn't feel American.

"I pulled a switcheroonie on them," Rene Marie said in a report in the Denver Post.

In a video of the event, Marie had been introduced by city council president Michael Hancock, who said she would sing the national anthem. Instead, she sang "Lift Every Voice and Sing," also known as the "Black National Anthem," to the tune of the "Star-Spangled Banner."

Audience members were bewildered, council members outraged and the mayor expressed his disappointment.

"We were as surprised as anyone that jazz singer Rene Marie did not sing our national anthem at today's State of the City ceremony, as our staff had requested. As I listened to her sing, I assumed she would eventually move into the traditional Star Spangled Banner," Hickenlooper said in a statement.

Council member Charlie Brown said, "There is no substitute for the national anthem. Period. This is the State of the City address. It's not an NAACP convention."

Some of the strongest reaction, however, came from Denver area residents who were participating in the forum page on the controversy at the Rocky Mountain News.

"Can you imagine what it would be like for whites if we had a 'white national anthem'?" speculated "Jan8." "I heard someone saying this had nothing to do with race? What?"

"Was she asked to sing the Black National Anthem? Obviously her color is more important to her than this country. Is it a 'black pride thing'? Is she trying to tell us she wished the U.S. were a black country?"

The newspaper reports said the singer explained she had decided months ago not to sing the "Star Spangled Banner" anymore.

The Post reported she was being interviewed by a Russian broadcaster who asked her what it was like to be American.

"And I realized I didn't feel like an American, and that bothered me a great deal," the singer said.

The singer told the Post she deliberately didn't tell anyone her plans, "because I don't think it is necessary for an artist to ask permission to express themselves artistically."

Hancock said the stunt was "inappropriate, and he's been getting hate-filled e-mails over her actions.

"As if I made the decision to do this – I'm receiving a lot of hate mail," he told the paper. "I've received quite a few e-mails that are quite nasty."

Also on the Rocky Mountain News forum page, "Dinty," concluded, "A total lack of respect for the occasion."

Among the hundreds of comments, "scotterjag" added, "all i can say about her, and anyone who supports her, is CLASSLESS! when given the chance to sing The National Anthem, it should be considered an honor, and not one's personal platform to express their views. if you want to express your views like that, I'll buy you a one way ticket to any other country you want to live in, and you can get the hell out of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"