OTiiHllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllll
4A
EDITORIAL AND OPINION/«I|C Ciiaclotte jp(i»
Thursday, January 11,2007
tKIje Cljarlotte
The Voice of the Black Community
1531 Camden Road Charlotte. N.C. 28203
Gerald O. Johnson ceo/publisher
Robert Johnson co-publisher/general manager
Herbert L White editor in chief
OPINION
Selling off
blackfolks’
imeresis
“I thank God that most of the money that supports the
NAACP comes from black hands; a still larger proportion must
so come, and we must not only support but control this and
similar organizations and hold them unwaveringly to our
objectives, our aims and our ideals.”
W.E.B, DuBois wrote those words in the Crisis magazine in
1915, the same year Booker T. Washington died. Ironically,
what was written in the Crisis has now become the crisis in the
NAACP and other so-called black organizations.
Just six years after the NAACP was established in 1909, yes,
by black and white folks, blacks put their money up and sup
ported the organization. Tbday, nearly a century later, the
NAACP and many of its local chapters would go out of business
if they did not receive money from non-black corporations and
individuals whose “controlling interests” have reduced the
NAACP to paper-tiger status in many of our communities.
Whose fault is it?
If black people provided the majority of the money to the
NAACP in 1915, what should our commitment be in 2007 with
our nearly $800 billion in annual income? Sure, White-owned
' corporations and individuals should donate
funds to black organizations, but that is no rea
son for blacks to abdicate organizational con
trol and support.
We just celebrated Kwanzaa, one of the prin
ciples of which is Kujichagulia, which means
self-determination. How can we be self-deter
mined if we have to rely on the whimsical
notions of folks who could not care less about
our aspirations and goals? Where can self-
determination be found in having to beg some
one to purchase tables and program booklet, pages for an
awards banquet at which we really have nothing to celebrate?
How can we ever be self-determined if we fail to plein and exe
cute initiatives that move our organizations toward ownership
and economic self-sufficiency? The foimdations of black organi
zations must be laid with black dollars, just as DuBois admon
ished in 1915. That way, any contribution given by others is
icing on our own cake.
DuBois was very concerned about outsiders controlling the
NAACP, and today we know that internal control of black
organizations such as the NAACP, the Urban League, black
Chambers of Commerce, and other vital black institutions is of
paramount importance. As long as these organizations remain
docile and compliant to the status quo, they are supported; let
them get “too big for their britches,” let them get “out of their
place,” and watch the funds dry up. The same thing applies
with black media.
Surely you have seen this scenario play out in your city at
some time or another. Here in Cincinnati, we are currently
fighting for the local chapter of the NAACP, which has been
taken over by corrupt people, some of whom call themselves
and are called by others “preachers” and “religionists.” If you
didn’t know it already, the NAACP national convention is
scheduled for Cincinnati in 2008. The deal was made despite
some serious problems in this city vis-a-vis black disparities
and discrimination.
The folks who run the local chapter, as well as some “hidden
hand” culprits, can’t wait to get in on the corporate goodies that
will be handed out; they even went so far as to rig the NAACP
presidential election to make sure they are there when the con
vention comes to town, as if a convention is the end-all for our
problems in this town.
Well, they lost the election, despite lying and cheating, and
despite collusion with the state NAACP office to keep their
person as president. Now we are waiting to see what will hap
pen as the former president and her cronies refuse to vacate
th premises or to concede the election. And once again, with
the ghost of W.E.B. DuBois looking over its shoulders, the
NAACP in Cincinnati is in a crisis, attributable to the outside
influence of outside money.
One of the executive board members, a “preacher,” to justify
the former president staying on and I suppose also to justify
their cheating, was quoted as saying, “corporate Cincinnati will
only deal with [the current president].” That’s code for, “If we
don’t play along with the powers-that-be, they won’t fund our
convention — and we won’t get our share.”
How sick is that? It’s shameful that there is no low to which
some of our brothers and sisters will not stoop, and there is no
muck in which they will not wallow in order to get a few dol
lars. Corruption abounds in our current NAACP administra
tion, and much of it has been caused by the love of the almighty
dollar.
Tb reiterate, the saddest part about the situation within
Cincinnati’s NAACP is the involvement of church leaders who
are acting like straight-up gangsters and thugs. They lie, they
curse, they threaten, and they operate behind closed doors to
cut deals that literally sell their own people, and the NAACP,
down the river.
We will see if DuBois’ words take hold, in this town as well as
other towns across this country, within our organizations. We
must stop the corruption; we must put an end to the selling out;
and we must do what DuBois suggested: Support our institu
tions with our own money first, and take the “For Sale” signs
down.
JA/vlES E. CL/NGMAN is an adjunct professor at the
University af Cincinnati, former edifor of the C/nc;nnof(
Herald newspaper and founder of fhe Greater Cincinnati
African American Chamber of Commerce. He hosts the
radio program "Blackonomics," and has written several
books. Website, www.blackonomics.com.
NAiV\eD
PlSASTfeR,
Iraq forces Democrats’ ‘safe’ agenda
After outlining a safe agen
da of its first 100 hours,
Democrats in Congress are
being forced to become more
aggressive in challenging
President Bush on the Iraq
war and may have to address
growing com
plaints that
they are mov
ing too slowly
in developing
an urban agen
da.
Democrats
regained con
trol of Congress
not because of a
masterful political strategy,
but largely because of the
publicis disenchantment
with our military presence in
Iraq. Until this week,
Democrats had been reluc
tant to challenge Bush on the
war for fear of being depicted
as being unsupportive of U.S.
combat troops. Republican
propagandists have repeated
ly described Democrats as
offering a “cut and run” strat
egy in Iraq and gun-shy, frag
mented Democrats have been
content letting Republicans
mis-define them.
Even after voters repudiat
ed George Bush’s “stay the
course” policies in the Persian
Gulf, Democrats were still
hesitant to act on the central
issue that swept them into
power in the first place - the
war. But Bush’s planned
Wednesday night speech on
the war in which he is expect
ed to announce a plan to send
more troops into Iraq,
changed that. It forced
Democrats to abandon their
intention of focusing only on
safe domestic issues, such as
raising the minimum wage,
expanding college aid, and
ffinding stem cell research.
Voters have made it clear at
the polls in November and in
subsequent public opinion
polls that they want the new
Congress to deal with the
war. A recent CBS News poll
showed that 45 percent of the
public wants Democrats to
focus on the war; a distant
second at 7 percent was an
emphasis on the economy
and jobs.
With Bush going on the
offensive with a nationally-
televised speech to the
nation, Democrats have shift
ed into second-gear by quick
ly arranging a series of public
hearings. On Wednesday, the
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee is expected to
have Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice discuss
Bush’s strategy in Iraq. On
Thursday, Rice is expected to
testify before the House
Foreign Affairs Committee.
And on Friday, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates and
Marine Gen. Peter Pace,
chairman of the Joints Chief
of Staff, are expected to
appear before the House
Armed Services Committee.
All of the jocke5ang by
Democrats and Republicans
is done with an eye cast
toward the 2008 presidential
election. Democrats want to
show before the next election
that they can lead effectively.
Republicans want to portray
them as being weak on ter
rorism, paving the way for
them to return to power in
2008. Both sides are making
their moves while claiming to
be interested bi-partisan
cooperation.
As Democrats step up their
involvement in addressing
the war and continue to
champion their, announced
100-hour agenda, they are
facing criticism from Jesse
Jackson and others who
charge that Democrats have
no urban agenda.
At his 10th annual Wall
Street conference this week
in New York, Jackson assem
bled Congressional leaders,
mayors and civil rights lead
ers in an effort to pressure
Congress to pay more atten
tion to Urban America.
“We need an economic
agenda that corresponds with
our political victory in
November,” Jackson said. He
noted that while it is impor
tant to raise tlie minimum
wage, that action alone does
not address the needs of the
unemployed or other serious
problems facing cities.
Indeed, the new leaders in
Congress could help revital
ize urban America by simply
restoring the cuts in domestic
spending. There is no ques
tion that cities need more
help. A survey released in
December by the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, for
example, showed that overall
requests for emergency food
assistance increased in 2006
by an average of 7 percent
over the previous year; 74
percent of the surveyed cities
registering an increase.
“This survey represents
real people with real needs in
cities all across our nation,”
U.S. Conference of Mayors
President Douglas H. Palmer,
mayor of Trenton, N.J., said
at the time. “As mayors of
cities in the richest and most
powerful nation in the world,
we cannot simply stand by as
our residents — families with
children — continue to suffer.
We have a responsibility to
work together with our feder
al partners, as well as the pri
vate sector to turn the tide of
those most in need in
America.”
President Bush has essen
tially slashed domestic
spending to fund an unneces
sary war and unnecessary
tax cuts that largely benefit
the wealthy.
If Democrats want to make
their mark, they should start
by repealing the tax cuts and
quit funding the war. They
can’t credibly say they’re
against the war yet continue
to provide the financing.
GEORGE E. CURRY is editor
of the NNPA News Sen/ice
and BlackPressUSA.com.
If we can like Vietnam, why not Cuba?
One of the last acts of the
109th Congress was to
declare the nation of Vietnam
a “favorite nation trading
partner.” This officially opens
up opportunities for business
es from this nation and the
Peoples Republic of Vietnam.
President Bush was a big
backer of this
legislation and
is proud that
we now have
an open busi
ness relation
ship with this
communist
country.
The big mys-
tery of the pre
sent day is why do we run to
communist nations such as
China and Vietnam for
friendship and favorite
nation status and, still, offi
cially abhor neighboring com-
mimist nations such as Cuba.
Located 90 miles off our
shore, Cuba is treated like a
pariah. One would think it
was the most oppressive and
anti-democratic nation in the
world. The reality is it isn’t.
In fact, Cuba is a product of
the U.S. foreign policy — just
like Vietnam. How Vietnam
became our good ftiend and
Cuba is officially taboo is a
prime example of the con
fused and awkward foreign
policy of the United States
dming the last 60 years.
Vietnam was under French
colonial rule for more than
100 years. The Japanese
imperial Army took over dur
ing the 1930s and provided
ruthless oppression. The
Vietnamese fought back and
from this struck evolved a
great hero. Ho Chi Minh. Ho
led his people to victory, at
great costs, but still victory.
Immediately after World War
n ended in the mid-1940s,
the French thought they
could walk right back in. Ho
once again led his people to
victory in 1954. It was per
ceived that finally there
would be total independence
for the people of Vietnam.
But, no, our CIA convinced
our government to intervene
and put up a puppet rival
group of opportunists to
resist the very popular
national movement led by
Ho.
Ho offered a national elec
tion to decide who should
rule. It was quite apparent
that 80 percent of the popular
vote would go to the commu
nists. Thus, our government
resisted a democratic election
and plunged the nation into a
manufactured civil war. We
initially sent in a few US
troops. Before you knew it we
had more than 600,000
troops on the ground. It was
“Good versus Evil” and we
were the “Evil.” After losing
more than 50,000 troops, we
eventually packed up and
went home (unofficial surren
der). The Vietnamese paid a
great price; more than 2 mil
lion of them (documented)
died in this conflict. What a
shame and what a waste.
After the American intru
sion, Vietnam got back on its
feet and has become a com
munist nation that is rapidly
learning the advantages of
capitalism. It is now a major
trader in fishing, coffee and
tea. Growth is rapid and the
United States wants to play
in this market in a very big
way. There is peace and an
evolving prosperity.
So, if we can now love
Vietnam what is our problem
with Cuba?
Cuba had been a possession
of imperial Spain for hun
dreds of years. A slave state,
it developed a Black popula
tion that today represents
about 70 percent of the
national population. The U.S.
stole Cuba along with Puerto
Rico, Guam and the
PHUipines from Spain during
the Spanish American War.
This was part of our Manifest
Destiny campaign. Cuba and
Puerto Rico should have
become official states of
America but their black pop
ulations were too large for
our Jim Crow South to align
itself with. Cuba eventually
became somewhat indepen
dent with puppet hke tenden
cies towards the United
States.
Unlike Vietnam, commu
nism was nothing new to
Cuba. Since the 1920s, the
communist party has been a
player in the Cuban political
landscape. It didn’t become a
major entity until the U.S.
sponsored economic oppres
sion of an elite upper class
and the business enterprises
of the Mafia became too much
for the Cuban people to stom
ach. They rebelled and the
disgust was so large that
Fidel Castro marched into
downtown Havana in 1959
with only 600 troops and took
the nation over. For the first
time in history, the Cuban
people were about to be self-
ruled. Castro nationalized aU
the businesses and told the
oppressors and opportunists
to leave immediately. They
aU ran to the United States
and have been pouting ever
since.
So, what is our problem? It
is time to look at Cuba for
what it is - a nation ready to
do business.- If Vietnam
meets the test then Cuba also
does.
HARRY C. ALFORD is CO-
founder and president of
fhe National Black
Chamber of Commerce.