cstonepost

[cstonepost]

First 100 Days of Trump: I’m Rethinking the Bush Years

By C. Stone Brown

After watching a member of congress calmly spew white supremacist ideology to a national audience without any fear of reprimand from members of his own party,  I have to admit, I long for the ‘good old days’ when a republican, such as George W. Bush would stand up in opposition to overt racism by a member of his party.

Indeed, I never thought I would utter these words:  I want to ‘Make America great again’ like the George W. Bush years, I think.

Trump’s America has brought me to rethink the Bush years, especially after reading the tweet of Iowa republican Rep. Steve King, who took to twitter to let the world know he aligns himself with white nationalist Geert Wilders, who lost his bid to become Dutch prime minister. “Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny,” King tweeted. “We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies.” No, that wasn’t a David Duke quote, but from a current member of Congress.

Apparently, King couldn’t wait to get an opportunity to explain himself on CNN’s Chris Cuomo show the next morning.

Pulling from Trump’s playbook, King didn’t apologize. In fact, he doubled-down.

“Well, of course I meant exactly what I said as is always the case. And to expand on that a little further, I've been to Europe and I've spoken on this issue and I've said the same thing as far as ten years ago to the German people and any population of people that is a declining population that isn't willing to have enough babies to reproduce themselves. And I've said to them, "You can't rebuild your civilization with somebody else's babies. You've got to keep your birth rate up and that you need to teach your children your values. And in doing so, then you can grow your population and you can strengthen your culture, and strengthen your way of life. That's not happening in any of the western European countries.”

Before I get jumped on by progressives for the blasphemy of putting “Great” and “George W. Bush” in the same sentence, I’m not attempting to re-write the history of the Bush years.  

In fact, there are no “alternative facts” that would change the Bush administration’s fabrication of Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction,” the illegal secret prisons overseas, the innocent lives lost from drone strikes – creating more terrorists, the massive tax cuts for the top 1 percent, the Wall St deregulations that put our economy on the brink of a depression, and the millions of Americans who lost their homes to foreclosure. I could go on.

But as an American, and 60+ days into the Trump presidency, I don’t ever recall questioning Bush’s loyalty to America. And as an African American, I never wondered if the country elected a racist demagogue, sexist and xenophobe to live in the White House. And if given the choice, I would take the personal flaw of Bush’s arrogance, over Trump’s narcissism because the latter puts us all at risk.

I’m comfortable with this assessment because I observed Bush for eight years. And while I didn’t agree with most of his polices or world view, he didn’t have a white nationalist (Steve Bannon) advising him every day. In fact, I watched Bush select blacks, Hispanics and women to powerful positions in his cabinet- a cabinet that resembled America.

I also remember his forceful statements and press conferences to the American people that despite our military actions in Muslim countries, Muslim Americans – are Americans, and should be treated with the same respect as any other Americans.

Bush also faced a similar “Steve King” moment during his presidency, when he was faced with the Trent Lott controversy. It underscores a common refrain repeated in political commentary that the “republicans” of today, aren’t really “republicans.”

In 2002, Lott, the Mississippi Senator was majority leader when Bush took office. While attending the 100th birthday party of good friend Sen. Strom Thurmond, Lott gave a speech praising Thurmond’s 1948 segregationist platform presidential campaign.

''I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,'' said Lott [who then dropped the mic].

That “mic” drop echoed throughout the halls of Congress. For weeks, both Republicans in the House and Senate were feeling the heat to make a statement condemning Lott, while civil rights leaders were calling for Lott to resign. Kweisi Mfume, then CEO of the NAACP was one of them, calling the remarks (NYT 2002) the ''kind of callous, calculated, hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of this Congress.'' Ultimately, it wasn’t civil rights leaders or Lott’s colleagues that would determine his fate; it would be the leader of the Republican Party. Would Bush give Lott political cover or rebuke him?

While speaking in Philadelphia, Bush addressed the controversy. "Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong," said Bush. "Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. He has apologized, and rightly so.” What was most striking about Bush’s comments is he mentioned Lott by name, which is unusual in Washington. The lack of support from Bush would ultimately lead to Lott stepping down.

When Trump was asked why he supported King in 2014, he had nothing but praise for the congressman. “I’m here to support Steve King—a special guy, a smart person with, really, the right views on almost everything."

Although we will never know, I can’t help but wonder how George W. Bush would have handled Steve King. 

[cstonepost]

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country

Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda

[cstonepost]

African Americans were 12 percent of the US population during Vietnam, and were 11 percent of the troops. The highest proportion of any race/ethnicity.

[cstonepost]

http://bit.ly/20PzEhA

[cstonepost]

A Man is literally what he thinks, his character being the complete sum of all his thoughts

James Allen

[cstonepost]

Could Donald Trump’s Secret Weapon be Seinfeld’s George Costanza?

By. C. Stone Brown

Donald Trump’s style and strategy to win the presidency is the complete opposite of the people he repeatedly refers to as “losers,” specifically John McCain and Mitt Romney, which brings us to an episode of the hit comedy television show Seinfeld.

Trump’s candidacy is eerily similar to an episode of Seinfeld when neurotic self-loathing George Costanza has an epiphany. While sitting at their familiar cafe, George tells Jerry and Elaine that he realized every instinct he’s ever had in life was wrong, and going forward he would do the “complete opposite” of everything the “old George” would do. Jerry then suggests he do the opposite of “old George” and approach a woman sitting nearby and ask her on a date. George slowly walks over to her and bluntly says “Hi I’m George, I’m unemployed, and I live at home with my parents.” It worked.

Trump had a similar epiphany, when he realized he could belittle an American war hero, and have no political price to pay. It was July last year when Trump told an Iowa audience that Sen. John McCain, a former POW was “not a war hero,” adding, “he’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured” Instead of extolling reverence for McCain’s military service, Trump displayed utter disrespect, the complete opposite of what one would expect from a presidential candidate who could lead our military.

Looking back, however, nearly every controversial moment of the Trump campaign, he reacted by doing the complete opposite of what his predecessors Romney or McCain did under similar circumstances. For instance, when a Trump supporter earlier this year in New Hampshire stood and addressed Trump. “We have a problem in this country called Muslims. We know our current president is one. You know he’s not even an American.”

Trump never corrected the supporters falsehood that Obama is a Muslim, which is the complete opposite of what occurred at a 2008; John McCain Town Hall . McCain, despite a chorus of boos, corrected a supporter who said Obama was an Arab. “I have to tell you. Senator Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

When Romney ran for president he didn’t seek or want the support of Sarah Palin, which is the complete opposite of Trump, who has not only embraced her endorsement, but is open to having her in his cabinet. Moreover, Trump has refused thus far to release his tax returns to the public, but in 2012, he advised Romney to release his taxes, the complete opposite of what he’s doing.

Trump, who is losing Hispanic, and women voters by double-digits pulled another George Costanza and did the complete opposite of what pundits would expect, when he blasted New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (hits back at Trump) a popular Hispanic republican on her home turf when she refused to attend his Albuquerque rally. “Since 2000, the number of people on food stamps in New Mexico has tripled, Trump told a raucous crowd. “We have to get your governor to get going. She’s got to do a better job. Okay? Your governor has got to do a better job. She’s not doing the job.”

According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, only 21 percent of female voters have a favorable opinion of Trump. While 80 percent view him unfavorably, and just 18 percent view him favorably.

Trump has an impending major decision to make in picking his running mate. If Trump was a normal candidate his short Veep list should include a regional candidate(Southern Strategy) or a woman to close the gap with women voters, except Trump will probably do the complete opposite.

If Trump follows precedent, he will pick his valet, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as his running mate. As crazy as that might be, Christie would be the complete opposite of expectations because he’s everything Trump doesn’t need to win. No pun intended, but Christie certainly doesn’t balance the ticket. And similar to Trump, Christie has no experience in Washington, he’s also under a federal probe for the Bridge Gate scandal, and is wildly unpopular in his state.  All of which makes him the ideal running mate.

I don’t know if Trump ever watched a single episode of Seinfeld, but after winning the republican nomination and baffling the political pundits on his every move, you have to wonder if he looks in the mirror every morning and repeats ‘I’m going to do the complete opposite of those two losers (Romney & McCain) and see if it works.

�����B��;U$

[cstonepost]

Mitt Romney’s Trump Take Down: It takes a Fraud to Know One

By. C Stone Brown

 There is a glaring irony about Mitt Romney's blistering speech of republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump as a “fraud” and “con-man,” because Romney, too, is a fraud and con-man. The difference between Romney and Trump is Trump knows he's a con man and so do his supporters, while Romney is a version of fairytale “the emperor has no clothes” wanting the public to pretend we don’t remember he’s a two-time loser, and that he was peddling in the same fraud that he now accuses of Trump.

Trump, no doubt has a laundry list of flaws as a presidential candidate, he’s unprepared to be commander-in-chief, and he’s a racist, misogynist, and xenophobic. But for Romney to warn us about Trump is like an episode of Batman, when the Penguin (Romney) warns us about the Joker (Trump), they are both villains and neither one should ever be president.

When Romney ran for president against Barack Obama in 2007, he sought and won the endorsement of Trump. "Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to show how our economy works to create jobs for the American people,” Romney said during the 2012 endorsement. “He has done it here in Nevada; he has done it across the country. He understands that our economy is facing threats from abroad."

 Romney is the embodiment of hypocrisy to shamelessly appear now attacking Trump. The New York real-estate mogul is the same con-man today, as he was in 2007, when he made a name for himself race-baiting as "birther-in-chief" promoting himself and the falsehood that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. This is an important context to the evolution of candidate Trump, because Romney, the republican front-runner at the time was tacitly endorsing “birtherism” when he graciously accepted Trump’s endorsement. This is something Romney failed to detail in his speech on Trump, because he too is a fraud.

 But Romney’s biggest fraud of all had to be his strategic decision to do something unprecedented in modern presidential politics – reject his own political accomplishment, the Massachusetts Health Care plan or RomneyCare.

 President Obamas' Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare, was a blue-print of the state mandated health insurance plan Romney created while Governor of Massachusetts. But instead of embracing the success of his health plan, Romney conned the republican primary voters by attacking ObamaCare, which was his state plan elevated nationally. So when Romney referred to Trump as a "fraud” and a “phony,” and playing republican voters for suckers, was he really talking about himself?

 Romney’s father, George Romney, was elected governor of Michigan in 1963, and was former chairman and president of American Motors Corp (1954-1962), which gives his son unique ties to the state. However, when the Detroit auto industry was on the brink of collapse during the Wall Street financial meltdown under the Bush administration, Romney, famously wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” advocating for bankruptcy instead of government loans. Was this Romney being self-serving or just plain insensitive to the people of Michigan?

Given his sentiments about saving Detroit’s auto industry, it’s no surprise that as Flint, Michigan is facing a lead contaminated water crisis befitting of a third world country, Romney, who grew up not far from the crisis has little to say. If he really cares about the direction of America, why not have a national press conference about the poisoning of Flint instead of Trump?

Romney attacked Trump as a failed businessman that hasn't created jobs. “Look, his bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who work for them. He inherited his business, he didn’t create it,” Romney said.

 As a businessman, this is where Romney might outshine Trump as a con-man. Romney made his wealth as the CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, which leverages investors’ money to target companies vulnerable for takeover. 

 Think of Bain’s core business as flipping real estate, except Bain Capital flips companies with little regard for its workers. Put another way, think of Romney as Trumps worst nightmare. He was the guy waiting for one of Trump’s hotels to fail so he could buy pennies on a dollar.  It may be the reason why Trump wasn’t a fan of Romney’s before the 2007, endorsement, telling CNN "He'd buy companies. He'd close companies. He'd get rid of jobs.”

 So again, the difference between how Trump and Romney made their wealth off the backs of working-class people, is like picking who do you want to be your executioner, the Joker or Penguin?

ic_p']'Hy�

[cstonepost]

Remembering Civil Rights Icon, Julian Bond, My Interview in 2000

C. Stone Brown August|2015

Civil Rights icon, Julian Bond, one of the founding members of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and former chair of the NAACP has passed at the age of 75, after a brief illness.

Bond had a considerable resume of public service spanning nearly 50 years, starting in 1960, while a student at Morehouse College he led the Atlanta sit-in and anti-segregation organization, and was Communications Director for SNCC, where he was active in protests and voter registration drives in the South. In 1965, he was elected to a one year term in the Georgia House of Representatives, and would later be elected to the Georgia State Senate. At the Democratic National Convention in 1968, Bond, at age 28 became the first African American to be nominated Vice-President, but withdrew his name because he was too young.  

I had the privilege of spending several hours interviewing Bond in January 2000 at his American University (AU) office where he taught courses on the civil rights movement. The interview was conducted for a cover story published in the New Crisis Magazine, Jan/Feb 2000 edition.

When I interviewed Bond 15 years ago, he was Chair of an NAACP that was in turmoil. The organization was ridden with debt, and frankly, its brand was viewed by young people as antiquated and disconnected from the problems plaguing the black community.

It wasn’t long, however, before Chairman Bond, along with new NAACP president Kweisi Mfume brought the NAACP back to prominence by increasing its membership and turning around its debt. But where the NAACP really started to reestablish its footprint in the black community under Bond was addressing issues such as “driving while black” and the battle over the Confederate Flag in South Carolina. If nothing else, it had people talking about the NAACP again – for the right reasons.

“In a number of places we are pushing for police to adopt studies identifying by race, people stopped in traffic stops, because we think this will demonstrate that this is a fairly common practice,” Bond said back in 2000.

I didn’t have the opportunity to talk with Bond after the Confederate Flag was brought down from the Capitol State House in South Carolina this year after the murders of nine African Americans at Emanuel AME Church. However, Bond and I discussed the issue back in 2000 at length. Bond took a very passionate stance on the issue. “It is a symbol of slavery and it belongs in a museum, not flying over the state capitol,” he said.

What strikes me about the Bond conversation on the flag in 2000 is how long the effort had to be sustained and the lives lost before change would ultimately happen.

The NAACP brought the issue front and center briefly in the late 1990s, and then it went into incubation until the church murders. But as Bond pointed out, the battle over the flag for the organization started before the 1990s.

“We have done this for decades …this has just caught national attention now,” he said, pointing out the focus wasn’t just on South Carolina. “We have battled against the Confederate flag as part of state signs and this whole flag flying over the South Carolina state Capitol …our Alabama state president Tom Reed was arrested trying to take the flag down from the Alabama state capitol years ago.”

Having joined the movement while a student, I asked him what’s the difference between young people today, and when he and his contemporaries founded SNCC?

“The difference between my generation and this generation is that my generation was willing to challenge authority. I don’t believe this generation is willing to do it,” he said.

Since that interview in 2000, the Confederate Flag has come down, a young African American Bree Newsome challenged authority by climbing the South Carolina, and Black Lives Matters is full-fledge movement.

Perhaps this young generation and the Black Lives Matters movement heard Bond’s call or perhaps were pushed into this moment of history with the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and countless others. Regardless, I believe it made Bond hopeful for the future.

C. Stone Brown is a former Senior Editor/Crisis Magazine, and Washington Bureau Chief/DiversityInc. He can be reached on his blog at cstonepost.tumblr.com

[cstonepost]

Is Donald Trump Running on Rush Limbaugh’ Platform? By C. Stone Brown August |2015

In the latest Iowa poll, Donald Trump continues to lead the Republican field at 17 percent, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s 12 percent. The “talking heads” are scratching their heads - puzzled by Trump’s lead in the polls, especially after controversial remarks about Sen. John McCain, and Fox’s Megyn Kelly. 

Contrary to expert opinion, the Trump phenomenon isn't some mysterious aberration occurring in the Republican primary. Trump’s lead is a predictable turn of events at this stage of the process and here's why: Trump is offering the Republican base (low information voters) what Rush Limbaugh feeds them every day on the airwaves: a crass, un-distilled, unadulterated stew of lies, rants and misinformation, skewing their views on the rights and humanity of blacks, Hispanics and women. 

Trump, however, is a bold and audacious version of Limbaugh - running for president. Trump is willing to say to a reporters’ face, what Limbaugh would only say behind a microphone. A common observation from Trump supporters is ‘he’s not afraid to speak his mind. 

Think about it. Trump and Limbaugh are followed by the same demographic. “Trump's support is strongest with Republicans in the Midwest, (same as Limbaugh) conservatives across the country who do not have a college degree and those who report the most negative views of immigration and Mexican immigrants in particular, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week. The poll found that only 8 percent of Trump’s supporters have a college degree, compared to 32 percent with a high school diploma. 

Both Trump and Limbaugh have made outrageous statements about immigrants. Trump announced his campaign attacking undocumented Mexicans calling them “criminals and rapists.” Limbaugh once accused Mexicans of bringing a measles epidemic to the U.S. "We have a vaccination problem for one reason: Barack Hussein Obama and his open borders immigration policy, which opened the southern borders to children sick, healthy, you name it, poor, ill-educated, just tens of thousands of kids flooded the southern border all of last year.” 

Trump and Limbaugh have both forced Republican leaders to kiss their rings if they felt slighted. The absurdity of pandering to Trump prompted the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put up a Web site—I’m Sorry, Rush .com a pre-written letter for Republicans to apologize to Limbaugh.

As for Trump, in 2011, the Republican field was fawning over his support prompting the Daily Beast to ask: Is it time for Donald Trump to add “Republican kingmaker” to his resume?  “I have a very big following,” he told The Daily Beast. “I think a lot of them depend on my endorsement.”

In 2012, when a University of Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified in Congress on the lack of women’s access to contraception, Limbaugh went misogynistic, asking Fluke on air “who bought your condoms in sixth grade? Limbaugh later referred to Fluke as a “slut” and “prostitute.” Of course, this is lite fare compared to Trump’s record of misogyny.

When Fox’s Megyn Kelly took Trump to task in the first Republican debate for past comments calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals” Trump fired back telling CNN’s Don Lemon "You could see there was blood coming out of her[Kelly’s] eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon . "Blood coming out of her wherever."

The reason Limbaugh is in studio, and Trump is on the campaign trail is Trump doesn’t shrink in the limelight, it energizes him. Limbaugh prefers the protective bubble of the studio, where callers are screened and he’s never challenged. In contrast, Trump brings “you talkin to me” bravado. But that’s where the separation ends. Trump is saying everything Limbaugh has been saying for years, he just took the circus on the road.

[cstonepost]

Blacks, Hispanics Were Canary in Coal Mine GOP Ignored on Trump

By C. Stone Brown|July 2015©

“We're seeing the real Donald Trump now," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, On Meet the Press Sunday. Here is my response to Rick Perry: If the Republican Party had cared or paid any attention to Donald Trump and his racist attacks on President Obama, and Mexican Americans, they would have known “danger lies ahead.

For many African Americans, Trump has been donning a “hood and strait-jacket" when he started peddling in conspiracy theories about Obama’s birth place. So it’s hard to comprehend that Republicans couldn't foresee Trump eventually turning on them.  

When Arizona Sen. John McCain referred to Trump supporters as “crazies” Trump responded with his classic straight-talk, and said McCain was “no war hero … he was a war hero because he was captured,” adding, “I like people who weren’t captured.”

In an apparent disrespect of McCain, who spent 6 years as a POW during the Vietnam War, a media firestorm ensued, with many commentators and politicians questioning if Trump had “finally” crossed the line.  

This very public feud between Republicans and Trump is another example of privilege and institutional power determining what “crosses the line.” It seems the line can be black or brown, but not white. 

Apparently Trump didn’t cross the line during the 2012 presidential campaign when most of the GOP field of candidates, including Perry, sought the support of Trump despite the outcry of many African Americans, who viewed Trump’s outlandish inquiry into Obama’s citizenship as a racist attack.

It was a slap in the face to Obama supporters, and particularly African Americans that Republicans wanted to “pal around” with someone as high-profile as Trump, and give credibility to the so-called “birther movement.”

Trump didn’t cross the line when he questioned Obama’s intellect, saying he wasn't that “bright” and made it through Columbia and Harvard University because of affirmative action.”

In an election cycle when Republicans need a respectable show of support from Hispanic voters to win the White House, didn't Trump cross the line when he called Mexican immigrants “criminals and rapists,” adding, “I assume some are good people.”

Even as the chorus of Republicans condemn Trump, it rings hollow, because they’re only condemning Trump now because he insulted one of their own. In fact, many Republicans wanted to kiss the ring of Trump, getting his endorsement during the 2012 presidential election cycle.  

 Gov. Perry, who ran for president in 2012, and is running again for the 2016 Republican nomination has been the most critical of Trump’s comments about Mexicans and McCain. However, in a Parade Magazine interview in 2011, Perry was questioned about his meeting with Trump, after Obama released his birth certificate. When asked if Obama was born in the United States, Perry stated that he doesn’t “have a definitive answer” or “any idea” if Obama’s birth certificate is real. 

Mitt Romney, who won Trump’s endorsement in 2012, is now viewed as the party statesman (I’m not sure why) after losing to Obama, had no reservations courting Trump if it meant it would help him defeat Obama.

Romney had this to say about his relationship with Trump. “You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney said. “But I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people” [including Trump].

Here we are three years later, and suddenly the Republicans are shocked by Trump’s antics. If we are to believe Gov. Perry and take him at his word that we are now witnessing the “real” Donald Trump; then who was the Trump the Republican candidates were lining  up to get his endorsement?  

President Obama had it right when he called Trump a “carnival barker.” Only, the Republicans never thought Trump would bark at them.

w.scr� \��

[cstonepost]

Rachel Dolezal and the Stages of “Dole-luzion”

C Stone Brown|June 2015©

“Ain’t no different than in South Africa

Over here they’ll go after ya to steal your soul

Like over there they stole our gold”

Lyrics, Who Stole the Soul; Public Enemy

Rachel Dolezal, a white woman born in rural Montana, received an unworthy amount of media attention for adopting the identity of an African American woman. The story was highly-charged and emotional on many levels. As her story unraveled, the public, I believe went through stages of “Dole-luzions.”

The first stage was cognitive dissonance. This is the frowns and stares one gets when attempting to explain the Rachel phenomenon. It’s a stare of curiosity, wondering what white person would volunteer to be black. You ask: …Didn't she see “12 Years A Slave?” Has she been watching the news?

Then you think back to the Chris Rock HBO performance  “Bigger and Blacker” when he remarked to white people, “None of you would change places with me, and I’m rich!” … “There’s a white, one-legged busboy in here right now that won’t change places with my black ass.”

The second stage of “Dole-luzion” is black rage. You get indignant, how dare a white woman with all her white privilege “decide” she is going to identify as a black woman based on her definition of “blackness.” Is being black a costume or jump-suit for whites, you wonder. Then you remember that every Halloween some Southern white campus fraternity somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama is in the news for having a “Ghetto” costume party. So you concede.

The third stage of “Dole-luzion” is relief. This is the stage that you reach after watching interviews of Rachel on Good Morning America, CNN and MSNBC. You start to realize Rachel is unstable, delusional, and at the very least, a pathological liar.

Rachel is on record stating she was born in a Teepee (who lies about that?), traveled to Africa with her parents, all confirmed to be untrue by her parents and siblings. In another interview, she questioned whether her white parents are really her parents because she never had a DNA test performed.

Clearly, Rachel would trade places with Chris Rock, because it suites her ambition, which is precisely why we shouldn't be shocked by the Rachel phenomenon.  

Rachel represents the next stage in co-opting blackness in a world that confers privilege to white skin. “Dole-luzional is a narcissistic brand of minstrelsy in the age of social media.

We shouldn't be shocked by Rachel claiming she is black, because she wears a black “costume” (braids, curly hairstyle, tan, etc) any more than we should be shocked by the centuries of whites appropriating black culture, dialect, music, artistry, athleticism,and black (fill in the blank), etc.

What I find optimistic about the public discourse around Rachel is that black people set a boundary, it was a collective “don’t go there” moment, pushing back on her attempt to be black by convenience.

Oh, there is one last stage of “Dole-luzional.” It’s the exit stage; she has used up more than her 15 minutes of fame.

���< \C(

F \tW�

[cstonepost]

POLICE CORRUPTION: THE CRIME THAT’S NOT GOING DOWN

This story is a reprint first published in 2001, in the NAACP’s Crisis Magazine. Today, fourteen years later America is still dealing with police corruption and abuse in communities of color. This story could’ve been written today, and only the dates would need to be changed. - Stone

By C Stone Brown

By all accounts, crime seems to be spiraling downward across the nation. Cities like Boston and New York have seen crime rates dip to levels of the 1960s. There is, however, another facet to this story that is getting scant media attention; police corruption and abuse appear to be at an all-time high. Unfortunately, the public appears to tolerate this situation because the majority of victims of police misconduct and the majority of people defined as “criminals” are often perceived as indistinguishable. This is unfortunate, because police misconduct affects everybody. It erodes the public’s respect for the law, and thus directly contributes to a lawless environment.

Take Philadelphia for instance. It recently convicted six former 39th precinct officers in a corruption scandal triggered back in 1992. Their convictions included crimes ranging from selling drugs, to robbing, beating, and framing drug suspects. When the dust finally had cleared, 1,400 criminal cases were under review. This number may go as high as 10,000, which means that some dangerous criminals who were guilty will probably be back on the street because the police broke the law.

In New Orleans, several officers have been convicted of going on a “killing spree,” terrorizing city residents. And in Washington, D.C., officers have been convicted of running a drug smuggling operation. This wave of police corruption (murder, drug dealing, etc.) gets little analysis from the “criminology” community.

Criminologists are quick to link poverty and crime, but conveniently overlook the correlation between systemic police corruption and high crime rates. Consider the broadest negative results that corrupt police officers have on urban communities. When police are abusive, it undermines legitimate attempts at curbing urban crime, such as “community policing.” What community wants an alliance with corrupt police officers? 

Police corruption also prompts honest citizens to question the truism that more police officers on the street will result in actual reductions in crime. As far back as 1968, in the first Kerner Commission Report, the increasing presence of police was considered to be a counterproductive approach, often sparking violent confrontation between citizens and law enforcement officials. Corruption makes it easy to believe that the same will be true today.

Police misconduct has cost the city of Philadelphia $20 million in the settlement of 225 civil cases in the last 28 months. In New York City, the pay out in 1994 was $2 million. But these are only the monetary costs of police corruption. Those pay outs cannot restore respect for the police. Nor can they restore the dignity of the people in the communities victimized bv their own police force. The socio-economic costs are anyone’s guess.

Unlike police brutality, police corruption is often viewed as a victimless crime because the victim is a neighborhood rather than an individual. Often the attention goes to the officers who “crossed the line” or “made a mistake.” And again, we too often forget the psychological and social effects police corruption has on the victims and their communities.

Until we treat police officers who break the law the same as citizens who break the law, we aren’t truly seeking solutions to urban crime. We must place eradicating systemic police corruption at the center of the debate.

C. Stone Brown is a contributor to Criminal Injustice: Confronting the Prison Crisis. He can be reached via email: cstonebrown@aol.com or twitter@cstonebrown

[cstonepost]

When Riots Were White

By C. Stone Brown

May| 2015©

 BREAD, MEAT, RENT, FUEL!! Their prices must come down! The voice of the People will be heard, and must prevail. 

New York Bread Riot of 1837

The mainstream media would lead Americans to believe the Baltimore riots ignited by the death of 25-year-old Freddy Grey is the first time in American history a legitimate grievance – police killing – sparked a riot, and led to street violence, theft and property damage.

In reality, riots are as American as apple pie; and African American riots have been more measured in comparison to white riots that were sparked by wage disputes, rent increases, food shortages and political corruption, (not to mention race riots).

For instance, in Athens, Tennessee, 1946, (known as Battle of Athens) hundreds of white male veterans just returning from WWII came home to a corrupt government run by Sheriff Paul Cantrell. The veterans complained the local police harassed them, arrested and ticketed them for no reason. It all sounds too familiar, except this was “white-on-white” crime.  

One GI veteran, Bill White recalled how tensions flared up after arriving home from the war. “There were several beer joints and honky-tonks around Athens; we were pretty wild; we started having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything—they were kind of making a racket out of it.” This all sounds eerily similar to the Department of Justice 2015 investigation into Ferguson Mo, which uncovered a ticketing scheme targeting African Americans.

On Election Day August 1, 1946, a gun battle broke out between the two sides after Cantrell ordered his deputies to beat and detain GI poll watchers, and one of his deputies shot Tom Gillespie, an elderly black farmer in the back after he was turned away from voting.

Hundreds of veterans armed themselves with rifles after Cantrell and his men barricaded themselves in the local jail. Cantrell and his men finally surrendered when the well-armed GIs started hurling dynamite at the jailhouse.

What would be the reaction if black men took up arms under similar circumstances in reacting to present day Republican strategy to suppress the vote of African Americans?

The “shock and awe” reaction by the media observing people from the poorest areas of Baltimore smashing windows, looting stores, and hurling rocks at the authorities sounds very similar to the “1863 Bread Riots” in Richmond, VA, sparked by food shortages during the Civil War.

On April 1st, 1863, a group of famished and angry white women numbering in the hundreds crowded the Virginia state Capitol demanding to speak to the governor about the lack of food and other supplies. One of the ring leaders Mary Jackson, a 34-year-old mother of four, whipped up the crowd telling stories about unseemly market speculators driving up food prices.

The women weren’t only agitated and rowdy from a lack of food. Just day’s prior, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, inflamed tensions by asking for southerners to spend March 27th “fasting and praying” in a show of support for the war. It’s familiar message, be peaceful and pray for food.

The women ultimately retreated on day one, but on day two when they were again told the governor was too busy to see them, that’s when things became ugly.

The women marched down to the main shopping district with hammers and axes in hand smashing windows, looting stores, while chanting “BREAD OR BLOOD” – “BREAD OR BLOOD.” The women reportedly stormed the jewelry merchants, stole a wagon of beef bound for a hospital, and 500 pounds of bacon from a warehouse. Perhaps, that may be the origin of the phrase “Bring home the bacon.”  

So what happened to the “thuggish” white women who looted food and jewelry, and destroyed private property? Some were arrested, but soon released because the jails were over crowded.

Why are the “Bread Riots” and the “Battle of Athens” important chapters in American history? It shows that riots aren’t acts of lawless behavior peculiar to African Americans; and that throughout American history whites and blacks found them necessary in their pursuit for fairness.

C. Stone Brown is a former Senior Editor/Crisis Magazine, and Washington Bureau Chief/DiversityInc. He can be reached on his blog at cstonepost.tumblr.com or cstonebrown@aol.com

1m�m

[cstonepost]

Surf & Turf for the Poor?

By. C Stone Brown|April 2015©

Kansas is currently one of several states that are proposing legislation that would prohibit recipients of (Welfare) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits from spending money on swimming pool visits, tattoos, strip clubs, movies, body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or psychics.

If you’re not on TANF, please, feel free to add any product or service you think should be added to the list. Personally, I would like to add Pay-Day Loans. But I’m certain the Pay-Day Loan lobbyists would oppose.

A similar measure is being proposed in Missouri that would ban Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from using funds to buy cookies, soda, seafood and steak, among other grocery items.

When it comes to restricting the rights of poor people, or treating them with less dignity, the arguments to support such actions often come across as reasonable. Case in point, a recent article in the Sunday Washington Post, “Food stamps shouldn’t pay for filet mignon,” by Chelsi Henry, who was named a “Rising Star” on the Republican National Committee.

“If taxpayers’ hard-earned money pays for those in need to receive TANF or SNAP benefits, then it’s reasonable for their elected representatives to restrict what those benefits are used to buy,” wrote Henry.

The argument Henry makes sounds reasonable. But why is taxpayer money only “hard earned” when it’s wasted by poor people? It’s a phrase that is applied routinely to support measures to restrict the rights of the poor. There are plenty of wasteful taxpayer funded programs, and the majority of the waste is at the top, not at the bottom income brackets. But the poor are easy to target.

I agree. Recipients of tax payer funded food stamps shouldn’t be using those funds to buy filet mignon or getting their nails done. But should there be a law restricting this activity?

As an opinion writer, I’ve been paying close attention to the news lately and I know there is a serious problem across the country with police officers fatally shooting unarmed black men. I wasn’t aware, that we also have a major problem in this country with food stamp recipients buying filet mignon or seafood.

What the Kansas law and similar legislation is really intended to do is distract “hard working” taxpayers from the corruption and waste at the top. Moreover, if we start associating food stamp recipients with filet mignon then we’re not thinking about the bigger question, why are so many people on food stamps in the first place.

As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said “Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice.” Indeed, we should be paying more attention to what state and federal legislators are doing on our dime. My guess is seafood purchases by food stamp recipients isn’t a high priority for most Americans.

Demonizing the poor is a form of bullying that goes fairly unnoticed in our society. Political bullies pick on the most vulnerable of our society. The poor are less likely to vote, and have few if any leaders to represent their interests. They are the unpopular skinny kid that bullies pick on - because they can.  

C. Stone Brown is a former Senior Editor/Crisis Magazine, and Washington Bureau Chief/DiversityInc. He can be reached on his blog at cstonepost.tumblr.com

[cstonepost]

The New Black, Hollywood, & Slavery

By. C Stone Brown ©|April 20015

“I am so glad you white folks took me out of dark Africa. Ha, Ha, Ha! I used to live to be a hundred and fifty, now I die with high blood pressure by the Time I’s fifty-two. Ha, Ha, Ha. And that just thrills me to death. I am just so pleased to be In America! They brought me over here in a boat. It was four hundred of us come over here Three hundred of us died on the way over here. Ha, Ha, Ha! I just love that! Ha, Ha, Ha! That Just thrills me so! You white folks are just so good to us …Split all of us up; took my mamma over this way; took my kids off yonder. Ha, Ha. I just so happy!” 

Excerpt, Richard Pryor, Bicentennial Nigger,1976

 Recently, several members of the black Hollywood community have made public statements that give their fans and critics a glimpse into their private thoughts on race and politics, and how they view themselves in relation to the masses of African Americans.

I opened with an excerpt from Richard Pryor’s controversial album Bicentennial Nigger; not for shock value, but because some of today’s black Hollywood stars have embodied this black character in the 21st century.

These self-described “new blacks” are the antithesis of men and women who paved the way for their success, such as Harry Belafonte, Paul Robeson, Sidney Poitier, Cicely Tyson, Jim Brown, Ray Charles, Spike Lee, Ozzie Davis, Ruby Dee and others, who were in the words of the mighty Frederick Douglas “agitators.” These “new blacks” are who Harriet Tubman, was talking about when she said: “I help free thousands of slaves, I could have freed thousands more, if only they knew they were [black] slaves.”  

                                       “I Just so Happy!” 

Song writer/ Artist Pharrell Williams, who literally wrote the song “Happy”, told billionaire African American Oprah Winfrey, that he represented a new category of black people; he was a “new black” and pigmentation was a thing of the past.

"The New Black dreams and realizes that it's not pigmentation it's a mentality and it's either going to work for you or its going to work against you. And you've got to pick the side you're going to be on,” said Williams.

Williams’ comment begs an obvious question: If he’s a “new black” then who are the black people buying his music?

Williams’ comments are at worst a poor attempt at trying to create a personal “brand”. Delusion, however, has never been a successful brand strategy, and neither is using language that divorces you from the people that support you.

One also should consider Williams’ character and credibility after making these comments. Remember, this is the same Pharrell Williams, who a jury determined copied the music of Marvin Gay’s 1977 hit single “Got to Give it Up” in collaboration with Robin Thicke to make the hit single “Blurred Lines.” Williams and Thicke owe the Gaye family north of $7 million. Apparently, the “new black” isn’t so new after all.

Talk-show host/comedian/actor Steve Harvey created a stir during February Black History month, when he responded to a question on his shows’ “Ask Steve” segment.  A viewer asked Steve how they should handle engaging with history enthusiasts in a social setting.  Harvey’s suggestion, look them right in the eye and tell them “I don’t really care for slavery.”  

“When I’m sitting around a bunch of socialites and they start talking about the past and stuff, that’s my line,” Harvey admitted. “I just say it and walk off. I have my little drink in my hand, I just say it. ‘I don’t really care for slavery,’ and walk off. I don’t give a damn if they’re talking about Christopher Columbus. I don’t give a damn if they’re talking about a treaty.”

“I don’t give a damn if they’re talking about an amendment, a bill. I don’t care what the subject is. It could be prohibition,” he continued. “I don’t care what the subject is. When you’re saying it and I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, my favorite line is, ‘I don’t give a damn about slavery.’”

Fans should Ask Steve: What would possess an incredibly successful African American male, born in West Virginia (of all places) to show such gross disrespect for his African American ancestry? Harvey’s comments I believe give his fans and critics insight into his character.

There is a reason why Harvey chose American Slavery instead of the Jewish Holocaust to provoke laughs. Harvey is fully aware of what is permissible by his masters to maintain his fame and wealth. It’s almost a rite of passage for some in the black Hollywood community to show derision for their people and history as a trade-off for fame and wealth.

There is a reason slavery was called the “slave trade.” Black people were a commodity to be traded for good and services. Although slavery ended over 200 years ago, some of us, in order to maintain fame and wealth are forced to trade and negotiate our integrity. Harvey is someone who is willing to “trade” the past suffering of his ancestors for a few laughs.

One question Steve Harvey won’t be “Asked” is what black people around the world thought about his comments. The website www.blacktimetravel.com reported the wave of negative comments Harvey received on his website prompted his producers to disable the comments on the video. The one positive take-away from Harvey’s foolish comment is that the masses of black people around the world do “give a damn about slavery.”  

                “I am so glad you white folks took me out of Africa”  

Perhaps the most incoherent remarks on race came from rapper/actor Common, who was just off the heels of winning an Oscar for Best Original song “Glory” from the film Selma.

On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Common used the analogy of a bad “relationship” to explain away racism perpetrated against black people.

“Me as a black man, I’m not sitting there like, ‘Hey, white people, y’all did us wrong.’ We know that existed,” Common said. “I don’t even have to keep bringing that up. It's like being in a relationship and continuing to bring up the person's issues. Now I'm saying, 'Hey, I love you. Let's move past this. Come on, baby, let’s get past this.'”

I didn’t know if Common was taking about racism, or reading from a Hallmark Card. He ended the love fest by blaming the victims of racism, admonishing black people to extend a loving hand and to forget about the past.

“If we’ve been bullied, we’ve been beat down and we don’t want it anymore. We are not extending a fist and we are not saying, ‘you [whites] did us wrong. ‘It’s more like, ‘Hey’ I’m extending my hand in love,’” Common said to host Stewart. “Let’s forget about the past as much as we can and let’s move from where we are now. How can we help each other? Can you try to help us because we are going to try to help ourselves, too.”

It’s difficult to unpack what Common meant when referring to African Americans being “bullied” and “beat down.” Is he referring to being bullied after school? Or is he referring to over a century of vigilantes and Ku Klux Klan terrorizing and murdering black people with impunity?

Common certainly isn’t a civil rights leader or historian, neither is that an expectation of his fan base.  However, it’s reasonable, given his role in the movie “Selma,” a screen reenactment of a transformative moment in American civil rights history; one would expect him to offer an observation, if not a solution, absent of platitudes (extend a hand in love) to mitigate the violence, past and present perpetrated against African Americans. If you don’t respect your history and its legacy  how can you expect others to respect your history?

Furthermore, I find it ironic that Common would find resolution to racism if only blacks would extend a “hand in love.”  Since our involuntary arrival in America, our hands have been a metaphor for labor exploitation and white fear.

How many black men were lynched for allegedly putting “hands” on a white woman? How many black men have been beaten or fatally shot because their hands were either up, down, or in their pockets? How many black men had a cell phone in their “hands” when they were shot?

Indeed, it was the slave labor “hands” of African Americans, who toiled the southern plantations, picked the cotton, and chopped down the sugar cane, creating massive amounts of wealth for others, not themselves. The only hand we should be extending is to each other.

                        Split all of us up; took my mamma over this way;

                        took my kids off yonder. Ha, Ha. I just so happy!

The black entertainment community must be held accountable for their comments. Not because they are the wealthiest among us, but because they are the most visible representation of African Americans in the world, an honor to be respected.

C. Stone Brown is a former Senior Editor/Crisis Magazine, and Washington Bureau Chief/DiversityInc. He can be reached on his blog at cstonepost.tumblr.com

[cstonepost]

Nina Simone Biopic: Negotiating Racial Aesthetics

By C. Stone Brown|March 2015

One of African America’s most treasured and iconic musicians Nina Simone, who used her music as a platform to challenge and expose racial injustice, will be played in a biopic by actress Zoe Saldana, whose notable roles have been Star Trek 2009, Avatar 2009, and Columbiana 2011.  

Saldana, who is Dominican, is someone who embraces her African roots at a time when so many in Hollywood look to shun their roots at every opportunity. Without a doubt, she has star quality and the talent to match. However, for many, including myself, she is mis-cast playing the role of Nina Simone.  

Even Nina Simone’s daughter, a Broadway actress who goes by the name “Simone” has weighed into the controversy.

“The one actress that I’ve had in my heart for a very long time, whose work I’m familiar with already, is Kimberly Elise. Many people have spoken to me about Viola [Davis]. I love her look. I love her energy,” Simone told Ebony Magazine. “Both actresses that I’ve mentioned are women of color, are women with beautiful luscious lips and wide noses, and who know their craft.”

In other words, Saldana, although a great talent and box office draw, doesn't capture her mother’s rich African physical features, which shaped her life, music and resistance to American racism.

Picket lines, school boycotts,

They try to say it’s a communist plot

All I want is equality

For my sister, my brother, my people and me.

Nina Simone, Lyrics from, Mississippi Goddam

 Saldana, as Nina Simone raises an interesting question: When casting a biopic, should complexion and physical attributes matter?  I would argue it doesn't matter for every biopic, but it absolutely matters for the portrayal of Nina Simone, because she left a body of lyrics, writings, and autobiographical material indicating it mattered in her life.

Multi-racial Halle Berry starred in the biopic role of (light-skinned) Dorothy Dandridge, the first female African American star of film and television. But would dark and lovely Jennifer Hudson or Viola Davis have been considered for that role? The very talented Dandridge faced racism, but she wasn't castigated for her physical appearance, instead it opened doors for her.

Nina Simone was an incredible musical talent who not only overcame white racism, but the pernicious light/dark strata co-signed in the black community. Indeed, she was African in every way, from her dark luscious-skin, broad nose and kinky-Afro. Casting Saldana divorces the audience from something essential to how the world saw her.

“I can’t be white and I’m the kind of colored girl who looks like everything white people despise or have been taught to despise,”  Nina Simone

She was indeed beautiful in the eyes of many, including myself, but certainly not by American standards.

Nina is currently in post-production, and is scheduled to hit theaters in 2015.