LET IT BE KNOWN!
I WAS A PART OF CHANGE!
Here is to today and here is to tomorrow!

Today I Make History

Today I will vote for all that is just and right. Today I will vote, not only for myself, but also for my mother Fannie Belle (Mackey-Meredith) Turner and her mother Ethel Mackey Vedder-Green and her mother as well, and her husband - my grandfather who I never knew. I vote for my paternal Grandmother Mrs. Helen Adele Freeman Turner and Grandfather William Josia Turner I - he too was layed to rest before I was born, and their daughters Henrietta Adele Bradley and Helen Hoban. I vote for my mother's brother Leonard Meredith and my maternal Great Uncles Joseph and Zedebe Mackey.

I vote for all of my kin and all of those who lived a particular existence that denigrated theirs. I vote for every black man, woman, and child who lived and died in oppression. I vote for every one of my people who were enslaved or born into slavery. I vote for a new America which will struggle to learn a new kind of governance, I vote with a good concious for all Americans.

Most of all I vote for any peoples in the world who have known injustice, oppression, racism, genocide, or famine; the rode's end might be faraway; jarring, asperous, and unequal - and you may never know the calm that comes after a stormy sea, but someone of your kin, like me, will see that day finally ushered in. And although, there will be many more storms to endure, I vote today to become stronger for what may come. I vote today so that someone of my kin will know a better humanity, and better world.

On The Path to Lasting Change

Notes on the Populist Movement (circa. 1850-1900)

The Populist Movement grew out of the Farmer's Alliance and alliances between them and Railway Unions. For the Farmers the need to come together cooperatively grew from the unfair and unscrupulous practices of monopolized banks, monopolized transportation and equipment companies, and their ties with and cooperation of Government. In every business direction a farmer turned, he faced the squeeze of his limited money. It is worth noting that during this period greenbacks (printed paper monies) were in high demand as the U.S. population grew rapidly, yet no new money entered into the system.

Ways the farmer was squeezed for money: Typically, in a farming town in the Midwest or in the South one or two wealthy individuals who had a monopoly on the different aspects of the farming business such as owning the land, bank, farming supply; seed, jute bags, weighing, equipment, and the general store. Farmer's could get various necessities on credit, loaned out with exorbitantly high interests rates (25%). Farmers would have liens placed on their properties and eventually would see them repossessed. The Government regulated prices a farmer could get for his grain etc, however, monopolized railway companies could charge as much as they wished to transport those grains.  Farmers allied as many aspects of business as possible in order to buy and sell together to get the best prices on both ends.


As the Alliance grew, the Movement became political realizing that for true liberty they must change the way government favors wealthy Robber Barons. In the Midwest the Alliances fought to include Negroes, however, this was a harder battle in the South. Faced with just as much resistance for equality the South began to give way. One of the reasons was that Negroes generally did not own their land; conflicts arose within the Alliance when Black farm laborers would strike for higher wages – they were striking against farm owner members of the Alliance. In addition, in the Railways, they chose not to allow Black railroad employees into their Unions. When the Railway Union called for a strike and the boycott of Pullman cars, they did not have the support from the multitudes of Black laborers and therefore lost effectiveness.  Playing to a two party political system, the Democratic Party eventually absorbed the Populist Party. 


There is much learned from the Populist Movement that grew out of the Farmers Alliance. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to form a movement I would be weary of affiliating or having too many ideological roots with the Populists. Digging for the truth, in this case, involves discovering not only the purpose of such an association; understanding why it came to be in the first place, but also how it evolved. And especially if its existence is not noted in recent history; understanding why an organization created to defend the equal and fair treatment of the working class no longer exists. Reasons I give are simple on their surface; however, grow more complex when contemplating man's existence as being in constant flux; ever evolving towards that which is unclear for most of us.
 
Historians site a Populist backlash, one can say, brought on by the Populist. Early on leaders of the Alliance sought to include Blacks in its mission statement and member ranks. However, as the Alliance grew out of the more liberal Midwest, using the terms more and liberal loosely, and progressed into the South, they faced a population still struggling with their Civil War defeat, the end of Slavery, and Blacks as equals; the white male ego had a strong hold of its notion of superiority. The tenacious South refused black equality. The eviction of White tenants of the crop-lien system replaced with black tenants, caused racial tensions to ignite, and hence alliances between whites and blacks eventually withered. Recall most Blacks and poor Whites were laborers or tenant farmers (Sharecroppers) a legalized form of slavery. This modus operandi would never be a way to improve one's life; this system never meant to profit the tenant, it kept him in a circle of credit and debt; always owing to the Owner, "The Man".

White men like Tom Watson of the Georgian Populists sought racial equality, at first. ("You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings…" A People's History of the United States. H. Zinn, p291) But as Watson came against uncomfortable opposition he eventually became a supporter of racism. Now, as the Alliance became the Populist Party, this want of racism, the belief that all men are not created equal, became a playing card for the Democrats. The Democrats knowing that many of the Farmer's were good ole' boys of the South, still hanging on to the hatred of racism, used this to sway farmers away from the Populists Party. Eventually voting laws put into place kept Black citizens out of the voting process. However, these same devices – the requirement of land ownership, poll taxes, and literacy tests, also worked against the poorest of whites, and that was no oversight.

The Alliance and hence the Populist Party was a chance to align the desires of, in contemporary terms, Upper Middle, Middle, and Poor Classes – both black and white - against the monopoly of the rich elite who had the government's cooperation. Howard Zinn in his epic history book "A People's History of the United States", states that the Democratic Party played on the racism that they knew already existed amongst farmers of the Populist Party, winning them away from the Alliance. And if you consider the terms Modernity and Post Modernity (et.al.) to demarcate times of notable human evolving, you can see in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration's influence American Constitution's Bill of Rights claims of equality both the growth and limitations of human's thoughts and feelings. "All men are created equal…" excluded women and people of color considered with no higher regard than a farm mule.

This documented contemplation of equality amongst humans is a point in the evolution of our thoughts and feelings, however, as an exclusionary device shows the limitations of this advance. But if these men had not been so forth right in their ignorance, spelling it out in the Declaration and later in the Constitution, instead of letting it exist as an unspoken doctrine – would we then have had something so specific to aim our desires of evolving further? Real history documents that before the ink was even dry critical voices from women, blacks, and the poor masses arose.


Divested by personal interests the Populist Movement eventually lacked strength in numbers. What could have been an inclusive tour de force representing every working class citizen was whittled down to a small voice in the cacophony of the Democratic Party. The chance to stand as one against the tyranny of aristocratic monopolies was lost to man's inability to see equality over personal gain. The mind obviously not evolved enough. They failed to see that the wealthy elite had created the room of the Golden Calf with floors bedazzled with emeralds, ceilings clustered with diamonds, and walls of mirrors. The promise of utopia was in that room. They couldn't understand that just as they were being tempted by all that glitters and promises, and wanted to pass through that door, that others too would want to come in.

The promise room of the Golden Calf isn't big enough to fit us all. Yet we'll keep pushing and pushing, because we're starving outside that door, because everything is devoted to making that room bigger for the ones inside. But there are not enough emeralds and diamonds in the world to grow that room, and those glass mirrors keep shattering from the crush of reality.

Had things gone differently, had the white farmers, tradesmen, and laborers seen the truth – the belief of inequalities bringing about a tiered system of oppression; that their worry was bound with the worry of all people regardless of sex or the color of skin – would this Yoke, that feels here but distant and shrouded, be with us today?

The truth was never widely publicized, why the historians hired by the government educated the children of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries based on a selective history. To do otherwise would have unveiled those shrouded Yokes you are wearing, it would have implied that the country with Lady Liberty as her mascot was just as much an oppressor as any of the regimes we claimed as enemies of liberty, justice, and democracy.
To tell the truth to the people would have awakened them to the fact that working as one we could accomplish as much, but most likely more. Divided, as we were, blinded by hatred and misunderstanding - our weaknesses preyed upon, they knew that they could separate people, convincing them of their individual interests as being something separate from the interest of every American citizen.

Oration & Public Discourse on 'Race'

Part II. 'Race' Within the Political Sphere

The topic of Obama, his pastor and Obama’s speech on 'race', in the media had quieted. That is until Hillary took the opportunity at a Pittsburgh news conference - she had stayed silent on the touchy subject, however, when the question was posed she addressed it rather than saying it is unfortunate, and then move on. Later, she replied at a news conference reading from prepared notes.

I have already raised two questions here. First, why should Hillary Clinton avoid discussing the issue (especially when I just espoused, why we need to talk about it more.)? Secondly, what is at risk when a politician “takes sides” on a matter that reaches beyond the surface of a “what is right and what is wrong debate”?

The foremost reason why Hillary should stay off the subject is her motives. She suffers from “campaign convolution”. Her motive is to spell political disaster for Obama. "I think that given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor…” says Hillary, her remarks almost sound childish, too impish to be dealing with a subject that bares the weight of the conscience of American people. She should have resisted the temptation to use this to her political advantage, instead she would forsake a serious matter in order to grab votes.

The politics of tactics should never be the tactics of politics,

it is morally and civilly wrong. Had she denied to comment on the situation - her silence acknowledging that further antagonistic commentary could prove to be unsound political tactics for an America that desperately needs to come together - Hillary may have garnered much more respect in that form. Her objective is not to understand the situation, but to scheme away to use it to her advantage. Once again Hillary Clinton has given us another shining example of her polarizing practices.

The votes she would gain in this particular situation are the votes of white people who are on the line about actually voting for a black man. She might just as well say, “Don’t vote for a black man, because deep down he doesn’t like you, just listen to what his Pastor preached.” Her comparison of Imus' remarks and the sermon clips of Wright only further helped to misinterpret the situation. The portrayal of Wright as this hate mongering black religious-militant harks back to the fear imbuing rhetoric of the Jim Crow Era.
Clinton's proselytistic design is to divide and conquer for her own personal success, rather than the success of society. She is jaded with desperation in her pursuit to win the democratic nomination - this is her campaign convolution. She is thick headed with lust for control.

Hillary is only addressing the outer layer of the subject. The matter, which lay beneath, is the issue of 'race' - not only the history or the Pastor Wright’s words, but the reality of how American’s feel about different 'races'. It is an issue that we stay away from because it is too hot to hold. Or we ice it for daily unity but the ice melts away and reveals the hotness. The debate; the reality that we have yet to put out the fire that heats the topic of “Race”. We haven’t dealt with the lasting influence, the enduring feelings, and as we stand under one flag and sit at the same counter, and pray with and marry at the same church, we are still divided. We are divided deep within. We are tolerant but not understanding. We are aware of the issue and entwined with avoidance. This is the American way; we are passive aggressive to a fault and this is what Hillary forsakes.

Obama has opened the door, America has the opportunity to begin anew in an open public discourse in which our politicians are actively involved, functioning as they should – as leaders of our foray into the realm of the public “mind”. One candidate is looking for the opportunity to partition, while the other is searching for a path to unity.

Oration & Public Discourse on 'Race'

Part I. Talking 'Race' in America

It was not my intention that my blog entries stay within the context of the upcoming election. However, as I easily predicted in my last entry, 'race' was going to inevitably become a bigger issue in the current political sphere. Just the same, to have the opportunity to ground my discourse on 'race' within the context of current events as they unfold is too irresistible, and academically unwise. In addition, I feel that more discussions need to be taking place in academia and in public discourse on how destructive political tactics can be and all for the sake of grabbing votes. Scheming marketing tactics forsake the lived reality of Americans; party unity is put at risk in the process, more importantly the unity of American people is at risk.

Predictably Senator Obama would have had to address some issue revolving around 'race'. 'Race' is still a touchy subject in America and that is precisely why direct discussions up until now have been at a minimum. It would have been nice if straight talk about 'race' arose out of something more positive. But when something sits unresolved and within the civic sphere is tacitly perceived as a touchy subject, and avoided for that reason, it becomes more likely because of its passive nature that a negative pressure will cause the subject to come to surface. That negative pressure was the controversy surrounding Obama’s Pastor. I don’t know if my reactions to Wright’s sermons would help the argument here, I would save that for its own addressing.

In a recent speech Obama has publicly denounced his Pastor’s harshest words, however, not his ties to the Pastor or the church. Despite the negative pressure that has forced this American burden to the forefront of public discourse, it has not fully succeeded, rather Obama seized the opportunity to address the issue of 'race' in America in a positive framework. He took the wise opportunity to open discussions as to why the “Pastor Wrights” of America preach such fiery sermons condemning “America”, and how many white Americans preach their own fiery sermons.

Barack Obama's speech will be seen as historically significant. Not since Eisenhower, and the days of the Kennedys has 'race' in America been directly addressed.

America’s political sphere has been under the influence of Ronald Reagan’s dastardly tactics of blaming black people for the downfall of American values and fiscally overburdened local and federal governments.

In order to grab democratic voters Reagan knew he couldn’t use the tactics of men like Governor George Wallace. His new ultra conservative politics gave Americans something and as it turns out someone to blame for their economic woes. It didn’t take a fool (or did it?) to realize hidden in Reagan’s speeches was the persons to blame. A smart man, Reagan stopped just short of leading the rabbit to the carrot – two words were omitted from his dialogue: Black People. Demographic factors like teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, AIDS, and prison statistics have always been a focus of democrats, not all but enough. And black people have continually, since the end of segregation, been at the top of those lists, but racial inequalities as the direct cause has been avoided in national debate. We all know that 'race' relations are a problem in this country and while we address the issues that have tumbled head long out of an era racist genocide, and I deliberately use heavy terminology, we fail to discuss how you and I and our thoughts exacerbate the problems.

As the black population in America continues to dominate the high side of disparaging national statistics and the low side of statistics that demonstrate growth, you can simply ask why?, or, digging deeper, you can ask a second question: What is the one thing we haven’t done enough of? We haven’t talked about it, directly, squarely in the eyes, and the it is how “race” dominates public space, employment space, and most importantly the space within our minds. This is a proposition to all people not just white people. Black people too have to ask themselves: Why do some of us succeed and many more languish? Why were some of us able to beat the odds and lift ourselves up and far away from an era of hate and injury?, and why do some of us live in the “backwoods” of New Orleans poor as poor can be with a 5^th grade education or even with a high school diploma? We can start by understanding how ethnicities today perceive the other - 'Race' Relations.

While it is true Obama’s speech was a political move nevertheless with the intention of “band-aiding” something forced upon him. Whereas Hillary’s motives were purely selfish (And, how would she tackle the issue?) what would be the perceived level of the orator’s sincerity? Furthermore, who better to address such issues? Perhaps Obama has the advantage, considered a black man even with a white mother, however, the advantage is not unfair it just is. What Obama’s mother and father created was a human being, society and science created his racial identity. So perhaps his speech was motivated by politics, but I have no doubt that at the heart of the subject matter Mr. Obama’s heartfelt sincerity lay entangled with it.

Barakometer

Barack Obama sweeps the Potomac primaries. Thats what the headlines read tonight when I got home from a lecture entitled "Race & National Politics in America" at The New School, given by Greggory Keith Spence, Professor in Professional Practice at The New School (Milano Faculty).

The lecture began with the idea that "Race has played a major role in national politics since the founding of the United States." A historical perspective approach was applied which led us to, of course - and the main reason that most folks attended - the possibility of a black democratic Presidential candidate.

As it turned out, as I had expected it to turn out, what was discussed was aligned with my intellectual fascinations - the idea of re-telling history as it really were, which lends itself to unraveling the social, political, and cultural conundrums of the 21st Century here in America.

Talk of "race" thus far from or about Obama has been at a very minimum, however, be assured that it is coming. Particularly, from those politicians and political archetypes right of center, you can expect open talks, or behind the curtain rumor mills. They will stop at nothing to cause divide amongst us, Americans.

Does it come as any surprise that I support the candidate whose campaign slogan, from the beginning, speaks of change and hope? But, change means a lot of things now. For example, not every black person is voting for Barack, not every black politician is voting for Barack. Many of these Washington politicians have close ties to the Clinton's, and they are not about to sever them. Favors received, are debts unpaid, now they're paying their debts to Hillary. The same goes for a few black organizations and churches here in New York City. Hillary and Bill were very visible politicians, especially in Harlem.

The lecture much like my blog entries ended segments and its entirety in positivist fashion. The focus was not here is the bad news, and that means more bad news. Mr. Spence simply discussed how things really were, and how they really are today - sending folks home with knowledge to spread so that we may avoid repeating mistakes from the past (i.e. the"Bradley Effect").

I close this entry repeating an idea Greggory Spence closed his lecture with, which is a thought I had written in my own journal when Obama won the Iowa primary. Regardless if Barack succeeds in getting the democratic nomination or does not, regardless if he does and then does not get elected president, he has already made history. The fact that a black candidate has garnered support from Americans of all backgrounds, has earned 1,242 Delegates, and shows no signs of waning is progress that can not be erased!
We are making history, we are changing what we want changed.

Introduction

I write this blog as a means of continuing and increasing dialogue about what it is to be an American in this 21^st Century. Through my eyes, I explore what it really is to be. And in this knowing, it is then that I will understand the meaning of being an American in the 21^st Century and the role we play around the globe. Grounded on a solid foundation; understanding the good, bad, and indifferent, it is my hope that I can be of some use to the World at large. Most of all I write this blog because change starts with one, me.

I am a 21^st Century American, I have my very own American past and have also inherited an American history. These are two different ideas. My American past I know to be true, whereas my inherited American history, in its entirety, has a validity that is highly questionable. For example, in America we have yet to resolve our issues with “race”. Ethnicity and diversity are one of our longest standing hang-ups which impedes our path to ensuring a just life to be lived by one and all. This, I believe, is because the absolute truth about America’s history - before and after the States became United – has yet to be told by our historians and public education system. Our government should lead the way to finding truth and reconciliation, an act which would implicate itself as progenitor of inequality.

We live in a country where our government is much more comfortable living behind a lie, than exposing itself with truth. You see if the government where to expose itself with truth, not only would wrong doings, mystified in history books, be admitted to, this gesture would open the flood gates leading us up to the later half of the 20^th Century, and onto today, the 21^st Century. Blaming the dead would only be of use up till the late 1800s, through to Nixon's era (with the exception of Reagan), and then they would reach those still living, and those still honored for their brilliant leadership. The government dare not allow this public shame to be caste upon it. Those who run the show would rather live safely behind lies. I personally would have much more confidence in our government, overall, if our leaders would allow the “coming clean” dialogue to finally have its place. I can wait no longer, and feel it is time that we demand the truth.

In a theoretical system of justice, if an eye witness cant be found, or if the witness refuses to divulge what they know, an investigation takes place. The system doesn’t simply shrug its shoulders, let the accused criminal go free to potentially rob, maim, and kill again – they investigate. We as Americans need to demand the truth and begin investigating.

When necessary I will reference historical information, however, it is not my intention to use the majority of this blog to re-tell American history as it really were. Although it is necessary to show concern for history – and I do hold steadfast to the brilliant idea of re-telling history as it really were as opposed to what suited historians – I would like to train myself to be “always looking at the here and now and then tomorrow”. I look to today and then ahead, not to assure that one’s story serves him justice when he is dead and gone, but so his life, my life, or anyone’s life, is experienced as a just life.

It is my intention to be “always looking at the here and now, and tomorrow”, my course of study at the New School, on the other hand, often keeps my focus on the past reviewing history. The knowledge I have gained is crucial and indispensable. And although enlightening, I am often forced into a obligatory state of judgmental thinking. (Often I find myself walking around brooding about how rotten this world can be). It is a necessary evil - searching for and then discovering the truth when you’ve been lied to - and is time and again the devil’s advocate of information. Because of all of this I need to find a positive outlet for today. This blog is my opportunity to bring balance to my life.

I see this introduction as a set of basic guidelines for myself. I could just as easily say I will write about whatever topic of the day, and in whichever tone I please, and with whatever attitude I wish, much like many other blogs. But if I could wish for, if I could choose one commitment for the rest of my life it would be, it is, the commitment to finding a path to peace. No matter what I discuss I hope my blog is a means to inspire hope in today and tomorrow for myself and for whoever reads it.

My thoughts are concerned with how good things can be, ought to be, and will be, if only we decide so. Change starts with one, you.