Black Civil Rights and Gay Rights – Same Fight? (Part II)

Wow-wee!! So, I’m just sitting around, typing a blog – minding my own business -- when suddenly, all of these people respond with what are incredibly insightful and passionate arguments! And as promised, I will conclude my discussion on the subject of same-sex marriage and whether it is a struggle comparable to that of the Black Civil Rights movement in the United States.

What?! Excuse me?! A comparison of what?! Is THAT what that article was about? Well, yes; it was actually. Or at least, it was supposed to be. The one thing that I have quickly learned about starting a discussion -- particularly one that is controversial or emotional, is that the ensuing responses and arguments can quickly go on tangents. I suppose the rule-of-thumb in engaging and moderating a particular issue is to shape it as neatly and narrowly as possible into a form that does not touch upon too many peripheral topics. In other words, tryto define its parameters. I believe I failed in that regard.

As I look at my original article and the many responses to it, I see so many other topics that sprung out of the original subject matter: Racism, homophobia, self-hatred, religion, slavery history, literacy history, Christian history, black-on-black crime, the Black church, genetics, the Constitution -- and so many others. Heck, I think someone even brought up SEWING! Don’t believe me? Stasha (AKA “the doggedpursuit”) said:

“I'm looking forward to your take in part two. I'm on pins and needles here, honey -- pins and needles.” (emphasis added) See -- told ya!

As this is a subject that can take on a life of its own – or rather, it is a subject that can take on an IMMORTAL life of its own, I will not belabor it much further. After all, I have many other subjects matters to discuss -- that will piss people off! I will bring this subject to a close by addressing a question that (again) my great friend Stasha asked in her last comment on 12/17::

“Are you saying that that same religious belief is a justification for actively OPPOSING that the minority group has the same rights as the majority? In short, an obligation to vocally oppose?”

My answer is, No. I am saying that people who hold such religious beliefs have the right to vocally oppose – whether they are in the majority or the minority. The point is – we cannot inhibit the exercise of one right (speech/expression) for the perpetuation of another. The Ku Klux Klan is a hate group. If they had their way, I (and anyone who looked like me), would still be in the fields -- or at least, nowhere near the White House – or white people! The negative opinions about this organization range from descriptions of “ignorant” to “satanic” and “evil.” But though they would lynch my Black behind as fast as you can say “rope,” I would vehemently defend their right to speak out and oppose my very right to American citizenship, were it at issue.

The topic I intended to press in this article was a comparison of the Black Civil Rights movement and the Gay Rights Movement. Personally, I believe there are more dissimilarities than similarities. However, I believe that Gay rights and same-sex marriage advocates can take a lesson from the Civil Rights movement and its leaders. My study of the movement and its history did not reveal a strategy of silencing the opposition. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other leaders and organizers of the movement did not engage a tactic of denigration, belittlement or the minimization of other people’s rights to oppose their movement. Instead, they took their movement to the streets and educated people about their history, their plight and their struggle. They made it clear that the laws and the treatment of Black people could not be easily reconciled with the words (if not the legislative intent) of the Constitution. It is the reason why many Civil Rights scholars are skeptical that other Black leaders like Malcolm X and other less “passive resistance” strategists could have been as successful as "quickly."

My advice: Talk to and educate people on the merits and necessity of the cause – one person at a time if necessary. I understand that for many such a discussion is “not up for debate.” Well, that is a position that sometimes just has to be accepted – just as we accept that many people still oppose Blacks’ rights – even in my hometown of good ol' Ocala, Florida!

The word “tolerance” has become almost cliché on both sides of this issue. The word, in fact, is taboo word for some on the religious right because it implies “concession” on fundamental principles espoused in the Bible. But I believe “human tolerance” is a more appropriate concept onto which we should grasp. The ability to embrace what we do not understand or even that which we oppose is a serious challenge for our society, indeed! But it is a challenge to which we MUST find a solution.

We have spent our entire history trying to establish that “more perfect union.” All the while we have failed to realize that we become more perfect every time we promote inclusion. Inclusion of people – inclusion of ideas and inclusion of opinions. We do not have to agree with each other in order to respect each other. But don’t mind me . . . I’m just thinking here!

Black Civil Rights and Gay Rights – Same Fight?

Recently, the D.C. City Council, the legislative body of Washington, D.C. government, by a vote of 11-2 approved legislation to make same-sex marriage legal in the nation’s capital. This is a great victory for both gay-rights advocates and those who staunchly believe in the right to marry whomever one wishes without government-compelled restrictions. For those opposed to same-sex marriage, it was a crushing blow and a step backwards in what many perceive to be a head-long dive into social debauchery and an egregious affront to many religious beliefs.

Today, I had a great conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Yes, “I have gay friends!” Let’s get that out of the way. She, still ecstatic about the recent vote, did have one area of disappointment. The two votes in opposition to the measure were from city wards that are predominantly Black in population. My friend is Black – more accurately, she is half Black and half white. So, she was disappointed that the representatives of those wards voted against the measure that she believed “would free so many citizens of this city of their statuses as second-class citizens.” In giving their reasons for voting against the measure these two representatives indicated that they were voting the wishes of their constituents. Quite frankly, if that is true, then they did the right thing. That is what a democratically-elected official is supposed to do – act in compliance with the wishes of their constituents, right? No? Okay, that’s another article at another time.

So, my friend asked: “Why are Black people so ignorant sometimes?” Her summarily dismissing her own genetic make-up was alarming; and since I am at least 80-85% Black, I was offended. She continued, “if no one else should be able to understand the feelings associated with discrimination and exclusion, Black people should.” This offended me even more than the “ignorant” statement; and it was here that I explained to my race-jumping friend that the two fights are not the same. I explained that while I do not believe that anyone should be the subject of hatred, violence or discrimination based upon their sexual orientation, and that one has the right to their identity, to compare the fight for same-sex marriage recognition and the fight to be treated as human beings and citizens in a place where one’s ancestors have lived and labored for nearly 400 years is an apples and oranges argument.

Now, I’m just a guy thinking, but I do not personally know of any gay people, openly so or otherwise, being turned away from restaurants or public parks because they were gay. I do not see separate restrooms or drinking fountains for “gay” and “not-gay” people. Gay people to my knowledge were not being forced to sit in the back of buses – unless they were gay and Black. I do not recall fire hoses being turned on participants of gay marches or rallies. I have not heard of police dogs biting into the flesh of a gay activist or a gay person having their heads bashed in by officers of the law – just for being gay. I can not imagine that there are many documented cases of gay bars or gay meeting establishments being bombed or children of gay couples being killed or beaten – simply for being children of gay people. I will not belabor the contrasts of the two experiences. Suffice it to say, there are many.

The fight that same-sex marriage advocates have waged for what they believe has been a hard-fought and admirable one. This cannot be denied; no matter what one’s position is on the issue. So, let that fight stand on its own merit – not piggy-back on the brutalities inflicted upon an entire race of people who did nothing more than be born into a socially disfavored gene pool.

I also reminded my friend that while most Black people are politically liberal, most are also socially conservative. This, in one regard is a function of a historical and widely-ratified distrust of government-imposed legislations that mandate what we must or must not do in our private lives. After all, it was legislation – the law of the land, in fact, that consigned Black people into life-long slavery and effectively kept Black people in a quasi-slavery, fourth-class citizen status for more than 100 years after the abolition of slavery.

But I believe there is a more profound reason for many Black people’s opposition to same-sex marriage: Yep – that one. Religion. Keep in mind, Christianity was beaten (literally) into the hearts and minds of the African slaves forced into America. Well, it worked! The Black (Christian) church still remains, albeit not on the same level as a generation ago, the backbone of Black social culture, beliefs and political might. This deeply-held identification with Christianity generally does not force the Black population on a large scale to vigorously rail against gay relationships since it is essentially a “that’s your business/to each is own” kind of issue. It does, however, compel many Black people to withhold support of it when formal legislation arises that lies in direct opposition to a deeply-ingrained, fundamental Christian/Biblical belief. That is, that same-sex relationships are sinful in the eyes of God. And to ratify its legitimacy by applying a holy sacrament (marriage) to it is wrong. Now, from a historical and even present-day perspective, can anyone deny the power of religion and its influence on the hearts and minds of people? Black people as a group are simply not as “open” about some matters as other races.

Now, I like what I am about to do (and you are going to hate it). I am going to end this article – for now. This is one of those truly hot-bed issues that require more reflection (and more writing). And this article has gone way over the limit that I set for myself. So, you will have to wait for Part II. Until then, keep on thinking . . .

The Criminality of an Apathetic Society

So, I am told by a guy that I know that he was recently robbed at gunpoint in front of his home. Now, the details are not relevant here as the point of this article has more to do with people who were neither the victims nor the perpetrators of this crime. Suffice it to say, the victim of this robbery was emotionally shaken, dismayed at society and angry that someone who he did not know and who did not know him felt it his “right” to disenfranchise him of his peace and his property when he had done nothing more than walk outside of his house.

From where does such temerity flow that would allow a “human being” – and I use that term in its most basic, biological and anatomical sense – to terrorize another for the sake of material gain? How deeply does the sewage of such malevolence and debauchery penetrate our society and our world?

History and every day life are replete with examples of how meaningless to some people a human life is as compared to a dollar bill – or even less. To perpetrate a horrible act that might deprive a child of a parent or a parent of a child or a husband of a wife or a friend of a friend is nonexistence on the list of things that are important to a criminal. His (or her) heart is devoid of light and in many cases, irretrievably resistant to redemption. As hope in general exists as a visible sliver of positive possibility, for a hardened and violent criminal, hope of repentance is like many of the materials in particle physics – they exist in theory but are not likely to be observed in reality. But as horrible a picture as I have painted of the criminal -- the punk -- the scumbag of the earth, there is another who represents a condition and a mindset that is much worse than the robber, the killer and the thief! The apathetic observer . . .

The victim discussed at the beginning of this article was, blessedly, unharmed by his tormentors. And as a good citizen, he felt it necessary to alert his neighbors to his experience in order to bring to bear a greater sense of caution in the usually quiet neighborhood. It was in doing so that he discovered that one of his neighbors not only knew about the robbery, but had actually witnessed it! Further inquisition revealed that this neighbor did nothing as he observed the crime. He did not call the police. He did not alert other neighbors. He did not yell “stop, criminal!” He did nothing!

Now, I’m just a guy thinking, but when in the heck did our society become so DEAD to the plight of others? When did it become “ok” to ignore or feel that it is “not my business” to get involved when we see a woman getting beaten in the streets by her husband or boyfriend? Or not call the police when we see a robbery or a break-in in our neighborhood? Or not inquire when something “just doesn’t seem right”? A criminal’s two most valuable tools are surprise and apathy. The first he uses to initiate the crime. The latter he uses to complete it.

The first tool is a formidable one; a criminal stakes out his intended target and waits until other elements are in place before he stealthily attacks. The second tool, however, is the one that he is becoming increasingly comfortable depending upon. He knows that fear, selfishness and the lack of brotherly accountability will bode well for his being able to carry out his evil deed -- and even escape! As a result, he relies less on his first tool. He no longer cares who sees him because apathy is the only tool that he needs to wreak havoc on society. Utter indifference and lack of action on the part of others has led to billions of dollars of property being stolen or destroyed and more importantly it has contributed to the infliction of injuries and to deaths of human beings. Sadly, there does not seem to be a movement to turn this trend around. So, I invoke hope for a change in the tides. And I don’t mean a theoretical particles-kind-of-hope. I mean a visible, foreseeable, possible hope – one drawn from a history of protecting each other – from a history and a time in our society when we were our brothers’ keepers. I hope for – and you "Bewitched" fans out there will understand this – a “Gladys Kravitz” in every home in America!

“k’s to the Left of us – but mostly to the Right . . .”

Indulge me with a little word play, if you will. We start with the word “malarkey,” defined in Merrian-Webster as “insincere or foolish talk.” Now, if we take the “k” out of “malarkey,” and replace it an “n” – that would spell “malarney.” Malarney rhymes with Barney. Barney is the first name of Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank who, at a recent “town hall meeting” (I’ll explain the quotes later) responded to the question: "Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy as Obama has?"

The woman who asked this question, by the way, was holding up an image of President Obama with a mustache drawn above his lip, reminiscent of the one sported by Adolf Hitler back in the bad ol' days.

Without missing a beat, Congressman Frank responded, “On what planet do you spend most of your time?" He went on to say “[t]rying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table,” “I have no interest in doing it.” The congressman went on to call the woman’s question "contemptible nonsense" and "vile."

Whether you are a Barney Frank fan or not, give kudos to the congressman for calling that woman out for such foolishness, rather than letting it slide as so many others have. So, how does our little word-play exercise factor into this incident? It doesn't really – it was just fun for me. Hey, I write blogs – sometimes it’s all about entertaining my own self, as we say in Ocala! But if you want me to pull something clever out of that little exercise, then let me refer you back the first paragraph where I put “town-hall meeting” in quotations.

Now, I’m just a guy thinking . . . maybe too much. But here goes: Have you ever seen “America” spelled “Amerika,” with a “k”? Well, in fact, Amerika was the name of a 1980’s TV miniseries that took us to a parallel universe where the United States was a communist country having been taken over and governed by the then-Soviet Union . Of course, during the Cold War days, the Soviet Union was viewed by most Americans as a largely homogeneous, a socially and politically intolerant society where a small political entity (the Politburo) pretty much dictated and ran the show.

We saw the Russian country as a society where the status quo was the order of the day and dissidence in any form was summarily crushed. Ironically, in the case of present-day America , it is not the people who are being crushed because of dissidence; it is the government itself who is the victim! Ludicrous, right? Well, consider -- a very small group of people, relative to the sane population – is attempting to quash any movement towards changing the status quo. They want to keep “Amerika” their country -- a country of exclusion, intolerance and one devoid of fairness and compassion.

Coincidentally, this “movement” to remain stagnant (more irony) seems to share eerily similar principles and notions to those of a group that has its roots in America ’s shameful past – the Ku Klux Klan. Hey! Look at all those “k’s”!!

If you take a look at the racial composition of many of these “town-hall meetings,” but moreso if you listen to what is said at them, these meetings are anything but forums whereby people can confront and possibly influence their elected officials, or places where one can take the opportunity be heard. They are, in many instances, nothing more than Klan rallies – opportunities for people-bashing, fear-mongering and hate-filled diatribes.

The vitriol spewed at these rallies is dripping with racism and hard-core personal resentment. It is despicable to behold. So, in summary: the “malarky,” (with a “k”), that’s being spewed in “Amerika” (with a “k”), by some of the participants of thse klan-rallies (with a “k”) is . . . RIDIKULOUS, PATHETIK and DESPIKABLE!!!

Expecting people to overcome racial biases is difficult; maybe even a long-shot. My concern as a citizen of America (with a ‘c’) is that the majority – that is, the well-meaning, legitimately concerned citizens of this great country not be influenced by those . . . other folks (restraint is a virtue, is it not?).

Disagreement, while inevitable and even welcomed sometimes, should never be hate-based. In other words, we should all seek to know the issues for ourselves rather than depend on the irrational rantings of those consumed with hatred, prejudice and fear. Do this, and that “more perfect Union ” thing begins to look a lot more attainable. Hey – just a thought . . .

What Lies Between

Does anyone remember any two-month period in recent history where so many notable deaths occurred? June and July of 2009 has been a whirlwind of earthly departures the likes of which, I do not personally recall – some more famous than others. Some shocked us, as in the cases of pop star Michael Jackson and Actor David Carradine; others did not, as was the case with television personality Ed McMahon and newsman Walter Cronkite. Actress Farrah Fawcett revealed to the world in a documentary her struggle with the cancer that eventually took her life. Former NFL quarterback Steve McNair, on the other hand, maintained a secret life that became all too public when, because of it, he lost his life. So prolific was Death in the months of June and July with regard to famous people that many of us began to wonder what was happening! Was it just a coincidence that so many famous people had met their end in such close proximity of each other? Or was there design at work – a Divine message being broadcasted?

Now, I’m just a guy thinking, but whether you believe it was all just a coincidence or if it was God (or whomever you believe in) trying to tell us something, you cannot argue that eyebrows began to be raised with each announcement of yet another star’s death. Many of us have heard of the “3-factor” theory of death – that is, the belief that death occurs in groups of 3’s within (conveniently enough) three different categories: 1) the sickly; 2) the aged; and 3) the untimely. Where this theory came from, I do not know -- just bear with me. The theory states, in essence, that deaths of notable (or even not-so-notable) people tend to occur in a relatively quick succession of three people meeting their maker. For example, you may know of someone that passed away very recently. As the theory goes, stand by – because two more people that you know, or know of are about to experience that eternal transition as well.

So, what does it mean when the 3-factor theory is turned on its proverbial head and one is now tasked with formulating a 6-factor theory of death? Or an 8-factor theory? Or a 10-factor theory? What does it all mean? Personally, I do not subscribe to models of coincidence. As a Christian man, I believe that God has a plan formulated for the specific purpose of bringing people closer to Him and into greater communion with one another. He accomplishes these tasks by whatever means He deems appropriate. I am not going to preach a sermon – and that’s your loss because I have some really good ones! But I will say that basic tenets of human interaction and brotherly love and decency should always be gleaned from the passing away of another human being. The manner or the circumstances under which a person dies may relay a lesson about long-suffering, faith and human perseverance. Or it may be a cautionary tale to bear in mind lest you meet the same fate. Each lost life is no less lost than another. And it is a destination to which we will all travel.

What is most important, I believe, is the hyphen. The hyphen on the tombstone, that is. The one that lies between the date we are born and the date we die. This is not an original thought, but it bears repeating. The hyphen is representative of all of our hopes, our dreams, our accomplishments, as well as our failures. It symbolizes what we have done with the time we have spent on earth – the choices we have made, the people we have met and most importantly, the lives we have touched, either positively or negatively. So, who have you made feel special? Who have you brought down? Whose life have you helped change for the better -- or for the worse? Who have you said “I love you” to – and when was the last time you said it to them? Because that last time, just may have been the last time. Death should always give us pause whether it is the death of a world-famous entertainer or a lonely, obscure homeless person on one of the many streets of our many big cities. Death should always serve as a notice that reads: “Get Your Hyphen In Order.” Hey – it’s just a thought . . .

Investigate It Before You Disseminate It.

You’ve seen it – the forwarded email that claims that Bill Gates is going to give away money – lots of it! And all you have to do is forward an email. The email claims:

“[for] a two week time period . . . For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00, for every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, you will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a cheque.”

Now, I have no problem with the way our allies across the Atlantic spell things and I'm not a Europhobe, but my first problem with this “offer” is that, as an American, I am a bit more trusting of an offer to receive a “check” rather than a “cheque.” Now, if this little clue that there might be something amiss about this email offer does not quicken your sense of suspicion, then the fact that someone is offering to give you money for doing basically NOTHING should be a good indication than something just isn’t right about this. “But Geez, Louis,” you lament. “It sounded so genuine!” Well, that’s because the people who create these elaborate hoaxes are dedicated to the successful proliferation of their handiwork. They spend a great deal of time making their “product” sound as genuine and as believable as possible.

Now, I’m just a guy thinking – but if one simply utilized modern information technology, i.e., television, internet, radio, etc., then even Jesus would have a hard time selling a hoax (not that He would gossip or lie in the first place – but I think you get my point). Most times, whether an incident or a story is true or not can be quickly determined by going to Google, Yahoo, or countless other search engines and simply typing in key words or phrases, and Voila!! Nothing! Yeah -- oftentimes, that’s exactly what your search yields – nothing. No information about Bill or Microsoft writing “cheques” or even “checks” to anyone. And money-gaining hoaxes are not even the most common types of hoaxes. Anything that incites fear or anger is bound to get forwarded – and believed! I will not recount the countless ones that I have received; but I will share one that was forwarded to my inbox this morning. The person who sent it to me finds my distain for internet rumors and gossip quite hilarious; so she couldn’t help herself by happily sharing it with me.

This gem was found at mediatakeout.com – supposedly “the most visited urban website in the world.” Perhaps you’ve heard of it; I had not – until now. Anyway, this particular article -- which is not actually an article but a photographic image, depicts a Black man standing in front of a Costco store, supposedly located in Greensboro, North Carolina, holding an un-opened doll box – you know, the one with the clear, plastic window so that one can see the doll, and the accessories inside. A close-up of the doll reveals that it is a Black, girl doll called “Cuddle With Me.” The package is complete with the doll and (hold on to your seats), a plush MONKEY, a plush banana, a doll bib, a MONKEY bib, a baby bottle, a MONKEY bottle, a MONKEY rattler, and an absolutely adorable little cap that sits atop the baby’s head with the writing “lil’ MONKEY” written across the front. (emphasis added on “MONKEY”)

Upon seeing this image, I indignantly exclaimed, “What the . . . Heck!” (notice my effort to clean up my language.) “This is unacceptable,” I thought. What idiot inventor, manufacturer or distributor would stoop so low to create and market such a despicable product? This outrage cannot stand, and anyone on the side of decency should take to the streets with their figurative (and maybe, literal) pitchforks and torches and dispense with the bigots associated with this foolishness. Then, after the blood vessels in my eyes contracted back to normal, I thought to myself, “wait a minute! Costco can’t be THAT stupid! Can they?” So, after reading some of the incensed comments posted beneath the image, I decided that I would undertake the monumental task of Googling the words “Costco,” “Cuddle With Me,” “North Carolina” and “monkey.” I did find a “Cuddle Me Doll” and I did get something about a little monkey being cuddled – but it was a cat, not a Black baby that was doing the cuddling.

A Yahoo search, an Ask.com search and a search of Greensboro local newspaper and internet news did not yield any results concerning this horrendous spectacle. Since I saw nothing to corroborate that this product was actually on the market – and being sold wholesale, no less, I concluded that this just might be another internet hoax. So, if it is not true that Costco sells such a blatantly racist product, then where did it come from and why would someone claim that Costco sells it? Diving headlong into trying to figure out the answers to those questions would be an exercise in futility since it invariably leads to the question of “why do people do the things they do” – raising questions concerning defamation, revenge, etc., the endless speculation about which would cause your nose to bleed. I believe the more important question that should be asked is simply “Is this true?” Now, it is not lost to me that SOMEONE created a shamefully racist product. But associating Costco with it, if indeed Costco was not associated with it, is just wrong. And propagating it as fact is irresponsible without stronger proof.

When one takes on the dissemination of information, one takes on a great responsibility. We often assign such responsibility to those in the formal or incorporated news industry. But every person with the ability to communicate in any fashion or form is a member of a grand network of information distribution. Misinformation, half-truths or flat lies are inherently dangerous. Wars have begun with rumors; and social unrest is undergirded by baseless conjecture. Lives, careers, marriages, businesses and peaceful existence have been ruined because unsubstantiated information was passed on to others. Many of us simply do not undertake the DUTY to read and research the validity of claims or rumors. I, by nature and training, do not believe . . . squat (see – I didn’t cuss!) that I hear or read – particularly when I hear it or read it from an other-than-personally-known source. We question rumors and assertions about how healthcare reform will destroy Medicare, Medicaid or will create “death panels” to determine who will live or die; but we will not question whether it is true or not that a truck-driving, half-man, half-wildebeest terrorizing Suburban Maryland is a CIA operative who is plotting to destroy the Black male population. We will forward that email and tell our friends, families and contacts to “be careful and watch out for that thing!”

Now, I am not saying that ALL rumors are false. Some prove to be true. I am simply advocating what I like to call “educated dissemination.” At least make an effort to assess the validity or truth about a story before shooting it to millions of people across the planet. Hey – it’s just a thought . . .

The Newest Gag Order -- The "playing the race-card" Accusation

Just when we thought the racists in our country had run out of ideas to shut the mouths of protesters and shut down the instruments of thought and revolution, they come up with this one: "He/she is 'playing the race-card'!" Oh, yes, ladies and gentlemen -- it is the new and very formidable method of silencing political and/or social dissent. It is the 21st Century standard for effectively shutting down any talk of racial injustice -- and for maintaining the status quo.

Now, I'm just a guy thinking, but this "playing the race-card" (hereinafter "PRC") accusation probably goes back farther than the start of the modern civil rights movement; it certainly had it coming out party during the 1994-95 murder trial of former football star and actor O.J. Simpson. Here, the PRC accusation was used when the prosecution and defense critics accused Simpson's defense team of PRC when they exposed the racist past of prosecution witness and LAPD investigator Mark Fuhrman. Now, never mind that Fuhrman perjured himself (of which he was later convicted via plea of "no contest") by saying that he never used the word "nigger" when tapes of an interview in which he participated 10 years earlier showed him using the term at least 41 times. Never mind the fact that he invoked his Fifth Amendment Rights against self-incrimination when asked under oath whether he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. It was, according to Simpson defense critics, scandalous for Simpon's lawyers to bring up the issue of race and how it may have played a role in Simpson's arrest and subsequent trial.

Fourteen years after Simpson's acquittal of murder, we can clearly observe that many people are still ticked off about what they believe is a case of a man getting away with murder -- I am one of those people, actually. A subset of that group, however, is much more incensed at the notion that a Black man got away with killing a white woman and a white man. After all, historical precedence mandates that it is impermissible for a Black man to so much as whistle at a white woman, much less touch her -- and certainly not kill her! Benign gestures such as staring too long, making flirtatious comments towards or whistling at a white woman have resulted in many Black men, and at least one young Black boy from Mississippi, paying the ultimate price for such "crimes."

I will be 43 years old this week. That means that I was born one year after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and two years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws essentially outlawed legalized discrimination based on race. I never attended a segregated school -- although many people my age (and younger) indeed did, as the gears of desegregation moved more slowly in some places than in others. However, my sisters and brothers -- some of whom are not more than 3 to 6 years older than I, did attend segregated schools. They also had to endure using separate public facilities and were not allowed to patronize some establishments because they were Black. I bring personal history into this discussion because the following is a fact that I would like the reader to keep in mind: De jure racial discrimination in the United States of America is not ancient history. Deplorable and irrational notions about racial superiority or human inferiority have not faded into the recesses of the nation's past -- nor have they dissipated from the hearts of many who now find that they live in a world where a Black man is the President of the United States.

"Playing the race-card" is analogous to the so-called "deal breaker." A loving and successful marriage may meet a sad end on account of infidelity, because the occurrence of such is -- a deal-breaker. That "zero-interest for a year" credit card is a marvelous thing, unless of course in the interim, you are so much as one day late on a payment. In that event, you have perpetrated a classic deal-breaker and you will be welcomed into the wonderful world of the criminally-high interest rate. In this great country, there exists a segment of the population that I call "retro-Americans." These are mostly (but certainly not all) white folks who consciously or perhaps subconsciously harbor in the darker corners of their hearts, long-held and mostly-outdated notions of hatred or fear towards, or attitudes of superiority over Black people. Many of them believe that we can all live together peacefully -- as long as Black folks do not ask for "too much" or as long as they do not speak out against what they perceive as a racially-motivated attack or incident. Doing so, particularly the latter, is a deal breaker! Life is dandy if you just live your life and shut your mouth. But if you speak out, Black person, you will be accused of PRC and any words, accusations and opinions in furtherance of your position will be effectively discredited as being merit-less -- and your grievance will be relegated to the trash pile of emotionally-charged ramblings by one who does not want to take responsibility for his own actions, inactions, shortcomings or who simply wants a "free ride."

Much like the punishment of flogging during slavery times, when this "character whipping" is administered regularly enough -- as it has been over the past 14 years or so, incidents of hatred, discrimination or racism are not addressed for fear of criticism and persecution. Politicians and those with notoriety, fame and public voices shy away from weighing in on issues that are arguably matters of racism and injustice. What is the reason for such apprehension? Well, it may largely be a function of the numbers. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, non-Hispanic white persons are 66% of the population -- 80%, if you include Hispanic whites. Blacks are 12.8%; American Indians and Alaska Native persons, 1.0% Asian person, 4.4%; persons of two or more races, 1.6%; person of Hispanic or Latino origin, 15.1%. In a nutshell, this simply means that because of their overwhelming numbers, "change" does not happen in this country, unless white people buy in to it. And over the years -- certainly since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and 1960's enough righteous white citizens have bought in to notions of social justice, equality and fairness. Had they not, Jim Crow might still be the order of the day and Barack Obama (and many other Black elected and appointed officials) might still be private citizens.

So, how does PRC factor into the equation where some "righteous whites" are concerned. Well, I believe that a relatively small, but fiercely active segment of these folks do not view the gains of the Civil Rights Movement as "rights" -- imparted upon Black people after centuries of racism, discrimination and exclusion; they see these gains more as privileges imparted upon a hapless people. Their mantra: "Black people may have the right to be free, but they do not have the right to be 'equal.'" Therefore, any gesture of "revolt" -- be it in the form of a demand for an "inalienable right" or by voicing displeasure at an apparently racist affront, is seen as being patently "unappreciative" or "disloyal" in the eyes of some "righteous whites." Consequently, a person or a cause loses support and the character assassination ensues -- the first and usually the most lethal bullet fired being an accusation of PRC. And many Black people have fallen for it -- hook, line and sinker!! Yes, many have been hoodwinked by the notion that they should just "get over" the horrors of the aforementioned, not-so-distant past. And since many Black people have white friends, close acquaintances and even white relatives, the fear of looking opportunistic, lazy, "radical" or "too sensitive" forces them to acquiesce to the demand to "shut up" that is implicit in an accusation of "playing the race-card."

Now, I'm just a guying thinking, but why is it that when some stupid or insensitive anti-Semitic comment or gesture is denounced by our Jewish brethren that no one accuses them of "playing the religious/faith card"? In fact, such a comment or gesture is met with public ire -- the likes of which is likely to see the perpetrator being vilified for a very long period of time. However, when a Black person denounces as racist a remark or gesture that is strongly suggestive or blatantly clear as racist, then he is "playing the race-card" -- and should, therefore, be discredited and condemned. So, what is the difference between the two? One may theorize about the social, financial and/or institutional influence that many in the Jewish community exert in our society. But I believe the most compelling explanation for the seemingly disparate treatment is this: Black people allow it. If Black folks did not fall for the okie-doke mentality by allowing others to tell them how they should react, then perhaps far fewer of these racist incidents would occur. So what, if "they" think a Black woman is playing the race-card when she speaks out against the actions of a department store clerk who follows her through the store? Or when a Black man states that he did not get a particular job, promotion, contract, opportunity for which he was well-qualified because of his strong suspicion of racism? Or when the President of the United States says that a white representative of a police department in a city with a long and troubling history of racism "acted stupidly"? Or when he openly and fearlessly speaks from the most powerful position on Earth about the evils of racial profiling? Why should Black people care anything about how "they" think Black folks should react? And "they" does not necessarily mean all white people. Sadly, far too many Black people are so anxious to not be seen as "one of them," that they will deny that racism, as a societal constraint, exists to such a debilitating magnitude in this country.

The bonds of slavery come in many forms. Gone are the physical chains and whips. Mostly gone, on a large scale, are the publicly-spoken, blatant words of hatred and racism that freeze our souls, appal our conscience and degrade us into acquiescence and servitude. Now, comes -- tricks!! This psychological warfare is more formidable than any chain, whip or bigoted word or phrase. Black people are being silenced by an accusation -- by the new gag order. Ironically, many of the issuers of this new gag order are the same people who would scream that their individual rights are being trampled upon by "Big Government" and "radical liberals." Yet they would deny an entire segment of the population their fundamental rights of free speech and the imparting of ideas. Do not fall for this latest one, folks. Silence may be golden at the movie theatre, but it is the first and most damaging step towards irrelevance in the United States of America. Just a thought . . .