mm
4A
EDITORIALS/ Vt)t Ciiatlattt
Thursday, February 12, 2004
^1)0 Cjjarlotte $osit
The Voice of the Black Community
A Consolidated Media Group publication
1531 Camden Road Charlotte, N.C. 28203
Gerald O. Johnson
CEO/PUBLISHER
Robert L. Johnson
PUBLISHER/GENERAL
MANAGER
Herbert L. White
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Want to be
free? Come
go with me
By James Clingman
NATIONAL NEWSPAPER PUBUSHERS ASSOCIATION
I can hear Harriet Tubman uttering those words. She risked
her own liberty and her life as well, to help those who were still
enslaved.
She had the right message, just as David Walker had the
right message in his famous David Walker’s Appeal, both to his
enslaved brothers and sisters and to those who enslaved them.
The message was simple. “If you want to be free, come and go
with me.” The opposite of that is, of course, if you want to be a
slave, stay where you are. Isn’t it funny how the same things
■ that were spoken back then, still apply to black people today?
Frederick Douglass shed light on what freedom is when he
said the turning point in his life as a slave was deciding to fight
back and not allow himself to be whipped by Edward Covey.
After defeating Covey by fighting back, Douglass said, “I was
nothing before ... I was a man now.” The experience of fight
ing back made Douglass even more determined to be a free
man. He described a feeling he never had before, a feeling of
being released from the “tomb of slavery, to the heaven of free
dom.”
He went on to say, “My long crushed spirit rose, cowardice
departed, bold defiance took its place; and I now resolved that,
however long I remained a slave in form, the day had passed
forever when I could be a slave in fact. I did not hesitate to let
it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed
in whipping [me], must also succeed in killing me.”
Harriet risked her Life by going back to rescue slaves. David
Walker risked his life by writing his famous Appeal; he died
shortly thereafter, some saying he was poisoned. Frederick
Douglass risked his life by standing up and physically fighting
back against mistreatment. Accounts of similar actions by
Afncan-Americans abound and certainly should be discussed
in our homes and in our schools, especially during Black
History Month.
More importantly, however, are the lessons we can learn
from the strength and tenacity of our ancestors. We must look
at their actions and utilize them in our daily lives. We must lis
ten to them and hear their plea to us, their children, the ones
for whom they suffered, survived, sacrificed, and died. They
are still telling us, “If you want to be free, come and go with
me.”
We say the same thing today. Do we want to be free? If we
do, shouldn’t we follow those who are leading the way to free
dom, rather than those who are keeping us enslaved? We
know quite well that the “estabUshment” wants the status quo,
and we can look back in history and see how the system
changed to accommodate the desires of the powerful vis-a-vis
maintaining status quo. For instance, five yeare after the Civil
War, according to Amos Wilson, the percentage of Blacks in
prison went from nearly zero to more than 33 percent. Even
though Black people were so-called “free” the Establishment
still figured out how to enslave us, the 13th Amendment
notwithstanding.
Take a look at the Civil Rights period. We fought for the right
to spend our money wherever we wanted and, despite the
resistance of the Establishment, we finally won that right (I
said, “Right” not “Privilege”). The economic system quickly
came up with ways to see that we could do exactly what we had
fought for. They started making all sorts of trinkets and cloth
ing to sell to us, setting up jobs programs for us, building bar
racks-style and high-rise housing for us, and designing a state-
of-the-art welfare system that would surely destroy our family
structure, all in an ongoing effort to make us their economic
slaves. We should have hstehed to and heeded Harriet’s words.
So what do we do in 2004 if we really want to be free? And,
by the way, I can hear some brothers and sisters right now say
ing, “I am ft^; I don’t need to do anything.” They are obviously
the remnant of those who told Harriet they would rather stay
where they were than to go with her, and they are probably the
reason she said she could have freed more slaves if they had
simply known they were slaves. Nevertheless, for those of us
who know we are still not free, what are we going to do about
it?
First, I think we had better stop our mindless, blind, and
lemming-like behavior when it comes to some of those we call
leaders. They are enslaved, and they are busy trying to keep
us that way. Then, we must find the Harriets, Fredericks, and
David Walkers among us who are willing and able to lead us
to true freedom. Those among us who are dedicated to and
have an understanding of where we must really go to obtain
freedom are the ones we should be following and helping.
Those whp are willing to make sacrifices like Marcus Garvey,
those who are willing to stand up and speak out like Malcolm
X, those who are willing to design and execute bold economic
strategies like Reginald Lewis and Ken Bridges, those who are
fearless and selfless like Medgar Evers, are the ones we need
to follow today. They are saying the same thing our ancestors
said: “If you want to be free, come and go with me.”
JAMES E. CUNGMAN is former editor of the Cincinnati Herald
Newspaper and founder of the Greater Cincinnati African American
Chamber of Commerce. “He can be reached at (513) 489-4132, orbye-
mail at jclingman@blackonomics.com.
Promises to keep before we go to sleep
Gerald O.
Johnson
I recently toured the extra
ordinary “Conversations of
Courage” exhibit on display
at the Levine Museum of the
New South. The exhibit com
memorates the Carolina
roots of the landmark 1954
Supreme Court case Brown
V Board of Education that
mandated the end of segre
gated public education in the
United States..
Interestingly, this case
started because the school
board chairman of
Clarendon County, S.C.,
refused a request from black
families for a school bus to
keep their kids from walking
nine miles to school.
As we celebrate the 50-
year anniversary of this
landmark decision the school
bus stdl remains at the heart
of controversy between the
haves and the have-nots.
The exhibit is a vivid
reminder of why African
American parents have
reservations about separate
but equal policies.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools, after being declared
a unitary system by the
courts officially abandoned
busing for desegregation in
2001. The busing program
was replaced with a parent
assignment program
(“Choice”). The Choice 'pro
gram as predicted is leading
to a re-segregation of CMS.
Because of the predictability
of what Choice would lead to,
promises were made to give
high-need schools the neces
sary resources (especially
quality teachers) to guaran
tee students would still be
able to realize their educa
tional potential.
This promise, as feared,
may get compromised.
Pressures from well-orga
nized suburban parent
groups are asking for more
schools to be built in the sub
urbs. County commissioners
are still in favor of a no tax
increase policy. If the School
Board agrees with suburban
parents, the result would
lead to a shifting of funds
away from high-need schools
to high-growth communities.
This shift would result in
reneging on promises made
to high need schools.
This whole situation leaves
the school board in a very
precarious predicament.
Just by the very nature of a
Choice program (neighbor
hood schools), schools should
be built in areas where the
children are. But doing this
at the expense of high need
schools win generate a whole
new set of problems to be
dealt with.
First, it can be assumed
that the African American
community will not lend
support to pass school bonds
in the near future. History
has demonstrated that shift
ing away from bond priori
ties usually comes at the
expense of the African
American community. Some
in the community are begin
ning to drum up support to
rally against any future
bond referendum.
Secondly, but even more
important is the door left
opened by Judge Robert
Potter’s ruling declaring
CMS a unitary system. If it
can be demonstrated a child
is not receiving equal educa
tional opportunities at the
school he or she is attending
in relationship to other
schools in the system, then
the courts will review the sit
uation.
Choice opens the door for
separate and unequal
schools. It is going to require
vigilance and diligence to
keep us from repeating the
mistakes of the past. We
have created an environ
ment that has the potential
to be both emotionally and
financially explosive.
Keeping a lid on the situa
tion is going to be crucial. It
wouldn’t be a bad idea for
the school board and county
commissioners to tour the
“Conversations of Courage”
exhibit as a reminder of
what was and the predictor
of what can be.
GERALD O. JOHNSON is
publisher of The Post..
American weapons of mass denial
George E.
Curry
David Kay, the expert
tapped by the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency to serve
as the chief nuclear weapons
inspector in Iraq, couldn’t
have been more direct in his
recent report: There are no
weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq.
In an interview with
Reuters News Service, Kay
was asked: ‘What happened
to the stockpiles of biological
and chemical weapons that
everyone suspected to be
there [in Iraq]?”
He replied, “I don’t think
they existed.”
What is clear from Kay as
well as newly declassified
CIA documents is that the
basic rationale for last year’s
preemptory strike against
Iraq was flawed because
there was nothing to pre
empt.
Rather than face up to hav
ing misled the U.S., the U.N.
and the world. Bush and his
top advisers are essentially
playing a childish, though
deadly, game of what has
been descnbed as I-hit-him-
before-he-could-hit me.
“I repeat to you what I
strongly believe: that inac
tion in Iraq would have
emboldened Saddam
Hussein,” Bush said last
Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
The president continued,
“He could have developed,
you know, a nuclear weapon
over time. Tm not saying
immediately, but over time.
Which would then have put
us in what position? We
would have been in a posi
tion of blackmail.”
Bush knew exactly what
he was doing when he
ordered the unprovoked
attack on Iraq. Mark Crispin
Miller, a professor of media
studies at New York
University, said by shifting
the nation’s attention from
domestic issues to foreign
affairs. Bush went “From
Bozo to Churchill.”
Writing in his book, “The
Bush Dyslexicon:
Observations of a National
Disorder,” Miller observed:
“...before you knew it, the
seeming bozo was our savior.
Not only were his famous
foibles magically erased, but
Bush’s entire political pre
history also slipped right
down the memory hole — the
fraud and thuggery in
Florida, the Supreme Court’s
complicity, the appointment
of John Ashcroft, the budget-
busting tax cuts, the moves
against Social Security, the
screw-you foreign policy, the
slash-and-bum environmen
tal policy, the lame prescrip
tion drug plan, the Jeffords
controversy, California’s
power black-outs, Dick
Cheney’s Enron black-out
and the many other signs of
Big Oil’s toxic spread, and on
and on.”
Regrettably, the media
served as willing co-conspir-
ators.
CBS anchorman Dan
Rather said to late night
show host Dave Letterman
on September 18, 2001:
“George Bush is the presi
dent. He makes the deci
sions —and you know, as just
one American, he wants me
to line up, just tell me where.
He makes the call.”
Newsweek’s Howard
Fineman was equally effu
sive, saying Bush was “a
model of unblinking, eyes-
on-the-prize decisiveness.”
Fineman described Bush as
“commanding,” “astute” and
“eloquent.”
George Bush, eloquent?
Not in this lifetime.
While Bush was re-craft-
ing his public image, aided
by a cheerleading media, lit
tle attention was paid to why
we really went to war.
Former Secretary of
Treasury Paul O’Neill was
criticized by the Bush
administration for stating
that Bush was determined
to get Saddam Hussein at all
costs.
“From the very beginning,
there was a conviction that
Saddam Hussein is a bad
person and that he needed to
go,” O’Neill said on the tele
vision program “60
Minutes.” He explained,
“From, the very first
instance, it was about Iraq.
It was about what we can do
to change this regime.”
O’Neill wasn’t alone in
making that assertion.
David Martin of CBS
reported on September 2,
2002: “Barely five hours
after American Airlines
Flight 77 plowed into the
Pentagon, the secretary of
defense was teUing his aides
to start thinking about strik
ing Iraq, even though there
was no evidence linking
Saddam Hussein to the
attacks.”
Former Army Gen. Wesley
Clark, appearing on NBC’s
“Meet the Press” last Jvme,
said pretty much the same
thing.
CLARK: There was a con
certed effort during the fall
of 2001, starting immediate
ly after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and
the terrorism problem on
Saddam Hussein.
TIM RUSSERT. By who?
Who did that?
CLARK: Well, it came from
the White House, it came
from people around the
White House. It came from
all over. I got a call on 9/11.1
was on CNN, and I got a caU
at my home sa3dng, ‘You got
to say this cormected. This is
state-sponsored terrorism.
This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein.” I said,
“But - I’m willing to say it,
but what’s your evidence?”
And I never got any evi
dence.
Clark didn’t get any evi
dence because there was
none.
Rather than holding Bush
and his top officials account
able, the media is allowing
them to say, in effect, that it
doesn’t matter why we went
to war as long as the U.S.
ousted Saddam Hussein.
Speaking in Charleston,
S.C., Bush said, “Knowing
what I knew then and know
ing what I know today,
America did the right thing
in Iraq.”
That’s the real intelligence
failure.
GEORGE E. CURRY is editor-
in-chief of the NNPA News
Service and
BlackPressUSA.com. His most
recent book is “The Best of
Emerge Magazine,” published
by Ballantine Books.