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 . . .