Tag: Jim Crow

  • Commentary: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

    Commentary: Jim Crow 2.0 at the Pentagon

    By Wade Henderson, BlackPressUSA Newswire

    Pete Hegseth insists that he is restoring “merit” to the United States military. But after months of dismissals, blocked promotions, and ideological purges, the evidence tells a different story. His campaign against so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has become something far more dangerous: an assault on equal opportunity that falls with particular force on African Americans, while also targeting women, Latinos, gay Americans, and transgender service members.

    The latest example is both troubling and infuriating.

    Once again, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly blocked the promotion of an exceptionally qualified woman—Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt. Bauernschmidt is no ordinary officer. She became the Navy’s first woman to command a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, one of the most demanding leadership assignments in the world. Her career reflects decades of exemplary performance, operational excellence, and leadership under extraordinary pressure.

    Yet once again, a distinguished military career appears to have been subordinated to an ideological agenda masquerading as “merit.”

    I call BS!

    The American people are expected to believe that one extraordinary officer after another suddenly fails to meet some undefined standard of excellence. We are expected to ignore impeccable service records while accepting that political appointees alone possess the wisdom to determine who is worthy of advancement.

    The pattern has become impossible to ignore.

    General Charles Q. Brown Jr., only the second African American to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was dismissed despite a career that placed him among the most accomplished military leaders of his generation.

    Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman ever to serve as Chief of Naval Operations, was removed despite decades of distinguished command experience.

    Reports have documented interventions that blocked or delayed the promotions of Black officers and women selected through the military’s rigorous promotion system.

    Now Rear Admiral Amy Bauernschmidt joins the growing list of highly accomplished officers whose careers have been derailed for reasons that have never been persuasively explained.

    Where is Congress?

    Its silence has become deafening.

    Congress has an independent constitutional responsibility to oversee the armed forces. Instead, too many lawmakers have watched silently while one of the nation’s most respected institutions is subjected to ideological litmus tests and political interference.

    This is not military reform.  It is testosterone-fueled performative masculinity disguised as a philosophy of military excellence.

    The irony is impossible to miss. Hegseth repeatedly invokes “merit,” yet his rhetoric begins with the assumption that Black officers, women, and other historically excluded Americans must somehow justify their achievements in ways that white male officers are rarely required to do.

    That is not meritocracy.  It is prejudice wrapped in patriotic language.

    No one is asking that anyone be promoted because of race or gender. Americans simply expect that promotions be based on demonstrated competence, leadership, integrity, and service. The officers being targeted have already proven themselves repeatedly under one of the world’s most demanding evaluation systems.

    Their records speak for themselves.

    The attack on African American military leadership has been especially pernicious.

    For generations, Black Americans fought in segregated units, earned decorations while denied equal treatment, and repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to a nation that often failed to extend them full citizenship. They broke barriers not because standards were lowered but because excellence finally overcame institutional discrimination.

    Today’s campaign against “diversity” threatens to revive old assumptions under new slogans.

    The implication that Black generals and admirals somehow owe their success to affirmative action rather than extraordinary performance echoes some of the ugliest stereotypes of the Jim Crow era. Yesterday’s segregationists claimed Black Americans were inherently less qualified. Today’s culture warriors simply employ more politically acceptable language while inviting the same suspicion about Black achievement.

    That is why Hegseth’s campaign increasingly resembles Jim Crow 2.0.

    The targets may now wear stars on their shoulders instead of military patches on segregated uniforms, but the underlying message is hauntingly familiar: Black excellence is presumed suspect, while white excellence is presumed earned.

    America’s military became the finest fighting force in history because it opened its doors to talent wherever it could be found. It grew stronger after President Truman desegregated the armed forces. It became stronger when women assumed greater command responsibilities. It became stronger when every qualified American was given the opportunity to serve to the fullest extent of their abilities.

    Diversity is not a concession.  It is a strategic advantage.

    The nation’s adversaries do not fear an American military because it is racially homogeneous. They fear it because it draws upon the talents of more than 340 million Americans whose diverse experiences, perspectives, and abilities make our armed forces unmatched anywhere in the world.

    Every politically motivated dismissal of a distinguished officer sends a chilling message throughout the ranks: excellence alone may no longer be enough if you belong to the wrong demographic group.

    That weakens morale.  It weakens recruitment.  It weakens retention.

    And ultimately, it weakens national security.

    Pete Hegseth has every right to pursue military readiness. He has no right to redefine merit in ways that repeatedly cast suspicion upon the accomplishments of Black officers, women, and others who have devoted their lives to defending this nation.

    America deserves better.  The men and women who wear the uniform deserve better.  The Constitution deserves better.

    And unless Congress finds the courage to exercise meaningful oversight, history may well remember this period not as a restoration of military excellence, but as the moment political ideology attempted to resurrect, in modern form, the old poison of exclusion.

    Jim Crow did not strengthen America.  Jim Crow 2.0 will not strengthen America’s military.  It will only diminish it

    Wade Henderson Strategic Advisor Civil and Human Rights wade@wadejhenderson.com

    To read the original article on BlackPressUSA, click here

  • Newswire: Thousands march this past weekend for Voting Rights, D.C. Statehood

    Marchers in Washington, D. C.

    By Stacy M. Brown NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

    Like the suppressive bills passed and on the table in Republican-led states and the reluctance by some Democratic senators to abolish the filibuster, the sweltering heat and suffocating humidity only proved as two more obstacles that thousands of Americans refused to let stand in their way. Marchers rallied in the nation’s capital and cities across the country, demanding passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the For the People Act, and for D.C. statehood. The march came on the 58th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” Led by King’s eldest son, Martin Luther King III, the “March On For Washington and Voting Rights” highlighted how laws and proposed bills in Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and other states disproportionately affect people of color. Organizers and attendees also made it clear that D.C. statehood must happen and would be another mechanism to blunt voter suppression efforts. “Our country is backsliding to the unconscionable days of Jim Crow,” King III told the cheering crowd gathered at the National Mall in Washington. And some of our senators are saying, ‘Well, we can’t overcome the filibuster,’” he continued. “I say to you today: Get rid of the filibuster. That is a monument to white supremacy we must tear down.” Nearly a dozen state representatives from Texas also took the stage. Those lawmakers were part of a Democratic contingent who fled the Lone Star State to break a quorum that prevented Republicans from moving forward with voter suppression bills. “Texas is the worst state to vote in, in the entire nation,” U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) told the crowd. Joined by his wife, Arndrea, and daughter Yolanda, King declared that “we are marching to protect our power, to protect our voice, to protect our voting rights.” Black Lives Matter banners decorated the crowd, as marchers took to the streets demanding action on the Senate filibuster that has hampered efforts to pass the For the People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and other laws that would protect voters. At least 18 states have already enacted voter suppression laws this year. With Republican opposition to equal rights laws, many have demanded an end to the filibuster, which would enable Congress to pass laws by a simple majority vote. As it stands, Democrats in the Senate must vote unanimously in favor of the legislation and have at least 10 Republicans join them. “I know activism works. I’ve seen it in my own family,” Yolanda King, the 13-year-old daughter of King III, told the crowd. “The torch is being passed to us, and it’s time for our generation to wake up the world so we can stop talking about the dream and start living the dream,” she continued. “We will be the generation that earns and wins our freedom once and for all.”

  • Newswire: Historic Justice Department appointment: Kristen Clarke confirmed as first Black woman to lead Civil Rights Division

    Kristen Clake

    By Charlene Crowell

      (TriceEdneyWire.com) – In recent years, many people of different races and ethnicities have fought against rollbacks to hard-won racial progress. From health disparities exposed in the COVID-19 pandemic, to voting rights, criminal justice, fair housing, and more, much of Black America has suffered in ways that harkened back to Jim Crow and its separate, but never equal status.   But since a new Administration began this January, there have been a series of hopeful signs that regressive and harmful practices will be challenged in the name of justice. On May 25, the U.S. Senate confirmed Kristen Clarke as the Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Never before has a Black woman led this division that guides the federal government’s commitment to civil rights for all.   Nominated by President Joe Biden on January 7, his remarks noted both its significance and opportunity.   “The Civil Rights Division represents the moral center of the Department of Justice. And the heart of that fundamental American ideal that we’re all created equal and all deserve to be treated equally,” said President Biden. “I’m honored you accepted the call to return to make real the promise for all Americans.”   Soon thereafter, a tsunami of support for Clarke’s confirmation exposed national and diverse support for her service. The list of supporters included labor unions, environmental activists, law enforcement officials, along with legal colleagues and civil rights leaders.   Perhaps one of the earliest and most poignant expressions came from the son of the nation’s first Black Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. Penned on behalf of his family, the February 9 letter to U.S. Senate leadership drew a key historic connection.   “Ms. Clarke is a pathbreaking lawyer, like my father, who built her career advancing civil rights and equal justice under the law, and breaking barriers through her leadership for people of color while making our nation better for everyone,” wrote Mr. Marshall.   His letter also shared an eye-opening example of Ms. Clarke’s groundbreaking work in civil rights. “Ms. Clarke has successfully utilized the law as a vehicle for advancing equality, as my father did. For example, she successfully represented Taylor Dumpson, who was targeted for a hate crime after her election as American University’s first female Black student body president.”   Similarly, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization, the NAACP, advised Senate leadership before its scheduled confirmation hearing of its support for Ms. Clarke as well.   On April 12, Derrick Johnson, its President and CEO wrote, “The NAACP believes that Ms. Clarke is exceptionally suited to oversee the Civil Rights Division at a time when people of color have suffered devastating harm at the hands of law enforcement. She is the leader we need to ensure local police agencies are complying with civil rights laws and advancing public safety by maintaining positive relationships with the communities they serve. Ms. Clarke has prosecuted police misconduct cases and has worked to make the criminal justice system fairer for people of color.”   “As President of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Ms. Clarke has been an important partner working to curb predatory lending and in the fight for fair housing, including campaigns to stop the debt trap of payday lending and efforts to protect important fair housing/lending rules, noted Nikitra Bailey, an EVP with the Center for Responsible Lending.   “Ms. Clarke’s experience as a Justice Department lawyer and as executive director of a leading civil rights organization not only qualifies her, but makes her the best candidate for this urgently needed position.”  The vote was taken mid afternoon on Tuesday was 51-48 along party lines. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for her confirmation. Black women-led and civil rights organizations, including People for the American Way, had fought vehemently for her confirmation alongside the April 21 confirmation of Vanita Gupta as associate attorney general. Gupta is Indian-American. “These women are ready to make change happen—the change we voted for,” wrote People for the American Way President Ben Jealous, in a column. “They represent the kind of inclusive multiracial and multiethnic society we are building together—and the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to building one of the most diverse governing teams in our nation’s history.”The vote by the Senate comes during an escalation of hate crimes, visible police killings of Black people and voting rights attacks by state legislatures across the nation. “Kristen is very experienced in dealing with these issues and how to overcome them,” said Dr. Mary Frances Berry, professor of American social thought, history and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania. “With the legislation being passed in the states to implement more voter suppression, she will be on the cutting edge of finding ways to try and keep it from happening.”   Ms. Clarke’s legal career takes on even more significance when one considers that this daughter of Jamaican immigrants grew up in Brooklyn New York’s public housing. Although financial resources were limited; the family’s teachings of discipline and hard work were not. From public schools, her collegiate studies took her to the prestigious Ivy League.   In 1997, she received her Bachelor’s degree from Harvard University. Three years later in 2000, Clarke completed her Juris Doctor at Columbia University.   Her first job as a new attorney was as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice, working on voting rights, hate crimes, and human trafficking cases. In 2006, she joined the NAACP Legal Defense Fund until then New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman appointed her as director of the state’s Civil Rights Bureau. In this state role, Clarke led enforcement actions spanning criminal justice, voting rights, fair lending. housing discrimination, disability rights, reproductive access and LGBTQ rights.   As recognition of her legal acumen grew, so did the number of honors she received: the 2010 Paul Robeson Distinguished Alumni Award from Columbia Law School; 2011 National Bar Association’s Top 40 Under 40; the 2012 Best Brief Award for the 2012 Supreme Court term from the National Association of Attorneys General; and the New York Law Journal’s 2015 Rising Stars.   Months later, the August 2016 edition of the American Bar Association (ABA) Journal featured a Q&A interview with Ms. Clarke. In part, she reflected on her childhood and how it influenced her career aspirations.   “I’ve experienced what it’s like to be underprivileged, and I’ve experienced very privileged settings as well. I feel a deep sense of responsibility to use the opportunities that I have been given to help those less fortunate. We live in a nation that’s divided along lines of race and class. I have a personal sense of what life is like on both sides of that divide, and I want to figure out how we close some of those gaps and level the playing field.”   At the April 14 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination, Clarke recalled her legal career journey and the principles that guided her work.   “I began my legal career traveling across the country to communities like Tensas Parish, Louisiana and Clarksdale, Mississippi,” testified Clarke. “I learned to be a lawyer’s lawyer – to focus on the rule of law and let the facts lead where they may.”   “When I left DOJ,” she continued, “I carried the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall as my guide: ‘Where you see wrong or inequality or injustice, speak out, because this is your country. This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on’. “I’ve tried to do just that at every step of my career.”   Ms. Clarke will now return to the Department of Justice at a time when the agency is recommitting its focus on serving the entire nation equitably. Since early this year, a series of actions reflect the agency’s renewed commitment to civil rights. Here are a few examples:  

    • This February and following an FBI investigation, a Michigan man was indicted on a charge of hate crimes after confronting Black teenagers with racial slurs and weapons for their use of a public beach.

    • In March, two former Louisiana correctional officers were sentenced for their roles in a cover-up of a 2014 prisoner’s death at the state’s St. Bernard Parish that followed a failure to provide medical treatment while incarcerated.

    • In April DOJ and the City of West Monroe, Louisiana reached a consent agreement following a lawsuit alleging violation of the Voting Rights Act. Although nearly a third of the city was Black, the at-large election of city aldermen resulted in all white local officials. With the consent decree, the method of aldermen selection will change to a combination of single district representatives and others elected at-large.

    • On May 7, DOJ issued a three-count indictment

    • In federal civil rights charges in the death of George Floyd. Additionally, convicted former officer Derek Chauvin faces an additional two-count indictment for his actions in 2017 against a 14year old teenager. The indictment charges Chauvin with keeping his knee on the youth’s neck and upper back, as well as using a flashlight as a weapon. Additionally, DOJ is currently investigating police practices in both Louisville, and in Minneapolis. Readers may recall that Breonna Taylor was killed in her Louisville home during a late-night, no-knock warrant police entry.   “Our nation is a healthier place when we respect the rights of all communities,” advised Ms. Clarke in her confirmation hearing remarks. “In every role I’ve held, I have worked with and for people of all backgrounds…I’ve listened deeply to all sides of debates, regardless of political affiliation. There is no substitute to listening and learning in this work, and I pledge to you that I will bring that to the role.”  

    Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.  

  • State of Alabama took 58 years to correct injustice to Alabama State University students and faculty involved in 1960’s sit-in; Gov. Kay Ivey remains silent

     

    By: Dr. Derryn Moten, Chair ASU Department of History

    On May 10, 2018, fifty-eight years after Alabama Governor John Patterson and the Alabama State Board of Education expelled nine Alabama State College, ASC, students for “conduct prejudicial to the college,” and after the same state officials terminated ASC faculty member Dr. L. D. Reddick for alleged Communist sympathies, Interim State Superintendent of Education, Dr. Ed. Richardson expunged the records of both calling the actions taken by his predecessor in 1960, “unjustified and unfair.” The paternalism then was summed up in the 1961 appellees’ brief for St. John Dixon, Et Al, v. Alabama State Board of Education, Et Al., the landmark case that overturned the wrongful expulsions, “Alabama State College, Montgomery, Alabama, is a state institution for Negroes. It is under the supervision and control of the Alabama State Board of Education.” L. D. Reddick wrote the first biography of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. while chairing the history department of Alabama State College. Published by Harper & Brothers in 1959, Crusader Without Violence, as the April 30, 1959 MIA (Montgomery Improvement Association) Newsletter noted, “is more than the story of the life up-to-now of our leader; it is the social history of our time.” Now, a 60th Anniversary Edition of Crusader Without Violence: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. has been reissued in spring 2018 by NewSouth Books. A new introduction explains the helter-skelter Alabama’s segregationist governor and government wrought on Alabama State College. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. arrived in Montgomery, Alabama in 1954 to pastor Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, and Dr. Reddick arrived a year later. Both came to the Heart of Dixie for rather mundane reasons and neither imagined that history would conscript them, with others, in a battle royale to achieve full equality for Negroes. Dr. King’s stay in Alabama lasted six years. In that time, the city convicted him of violating the state’s anti-boycott law, originally, an anti-labor law. Alabama enjoined the NAACP from operating in the state.The governor criticized the civil rights organization with orchestrating the Montgomery Bus Boycott. In another case, the governor joined Montgomery’s mayor, and the City’s commissioners in a libel lawsuit against Dr. King, four other ministers, and the New York Times, based on a full-page Times ad that the plaintiffs argued falsely assailed city and state officials for mistreating King and ASC students . And Gov. Patterson signed extradition papers ordering Dr. King’s return to face trial for income tax fraud. The method of the governor’s madness was clear; he wanted to exhaust King and the NAACP, financially, mentally, and physically. On March 27, 1960, the Associated Press reported, “ASC President Trenholm Plans to Purge ‘Disloyal’ Faculty.” Dr. Reddick offered his resignation in March 1960, effective at the end of the summer term. Two other faculty members, Jo Ann Robinson and Mary Fair Burks—both members of the Women’s Political Council—took heed. In March 31, 1960, Burks wrote Dr. King, “Jo Ann, Reddick, and I expect to be fired. We are surprised it hasn’t happened. I believe we will be eased out quietly in May or at least by September. We would prefer being fired outright of course.” The friendship of Burks, Robinson, Reddick, and King went back to the Boycott. Addressing Mrs. Burks as “Frankie,” King replied, “I had hoped that Dr. Trenholm would emerge from this total situation as a national hero. If only he would stand up to the Governor and the Board of Education and say he cannot in good conscience fire … faculty members who committed no crime or act of sedition.” Governor Patterson impugned Reddick accusing him of helping foment the first “sit-down” demonstration in Alabama on February 25, 1960. Carried out by Alabama State College students, on March 2, 1960, ASC President Harper C. Trenholm expelled nine student sit-in participants and placed 20 students on probation “pending good behavior.” No hearing was held, and the students sued the college and state in St. John Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education. Attorney Fred Gray, a 1951 ASC graduate, represented the students. Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, and Derrick Bell, Jr. of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund assisted as co-counsel. U.S. District Court Judge Frank M. Johnson ruled in favor of the state reasoning that there was no statute necessitating formal charges or a hearing before a student can be expelled by a college or university. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned Judge Johnson’s decision arguing that students at tax-supported colleges and universities should have a hearing as part of their due process rights before they can be expelled. The February 25, 1960 sit-in demonstration by Alabama State College students was the manifestation of “sit-downs” or sit-ins by black college students across the south who believed the efficacy of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case was that it refuted Jim Crow in totality. Judge Frank Johnson conceded as much in July 1960, writing, “The Court observes that maintenance of segregated publicly owned lunchrooms is in violation of well-settled law.” At the end of the year, the Associated Press would report, “Negro Sit-ins No. 1 Story of 1960s in Dixie.” In their A Statement by the Students of Alabama State College After Nine Students were Expelled on March 2, 1960, student leader Bernard Lee wrote, “We and the world must look upon the expulsion of these students … as punishment for our efforts to bring a little democracy to the Cradle of the Confederacy… We must practice at home what we preach abroad.” MIA President, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, a 1950 ASC graduate, told a city reporter, “The expulsion order was one of the greatest blunders in the history of education in Alabama.” A week later, ASC students marched near campus carrying placards that read, “1960 not 1860,” “9 down, 2,000 to go,” “Who’s President of ASC—Patterson or Trenholm,” Alabama versus The Constitution,” and “Democracy Died on March 4, 1960.” Students also held prayer services at local black churches including Abernathy’s First Baptist. South Carolina Gov. Ernest F. Hollins complained about “Negroes who think they can violate any law, especially, if they have a Bible in their hands.” The American Association of University Professors “condemned the willingness of some government bodies and private groups to sacrifice public education in order to maintain racial segregation.” A June 1960 NAACP memorandum counted fifty-two students expelled from black colleges; namely, Southern University, Alabama State College, Kentucky State College, and Florida A & M University. Praised for his “get tough” methods and his non-accommodation mentality, Gov. Patterson vowed to close Alabama public schools before he would allow them to be integrated. A staunch segregationist, governor-elect Patterson disallowed black marching bands, including the Alabama State College Band, at his inauguration. Like many others, Patterson preached the oxymoron of “separate but equal” emphasizing “separate” and seemingly caring little about “equal.” Dr. King offered a different message. At Holt Street Baptist Church on the eve of the 1955 Boycott, he told those present, “We are determined to apply our citizenship to the fullness of its meaning.” Alabama State College students in 1960 intended the same. Their collective faith in the U. S. Constitution was codified by the same faith held by their elders and ancestors. This faith was sermonized in the black church and elucidated in the black school. Dr. King professed that faith, a faith in a “Democracy transformed from thin paper to thick action.” More than a half century later in Montgomery, Alabama, Interim State Superintendent Dr. Ed. Richardson concurred, noting that those macabre days of 1960 “represent a time in the history of the State Board that must be acknowledge and never repeated. I regret that it has taken fifty-eight years to correct this injustice.” Initially, I had hoped that Gov. Kay Ivey would issue her own contrition in behalf of the governor’s office.  One of the governor’s staff members even offered to write a resolution but subsequently demurred.  Short of this, I would have liked for the governor to co-sign the May 10, 2018 letter by Dr. Ed Richardson since Gov. Ivey is the Ex-Official Chair of the Alabama State Board of Education. Presumably, Dr. Richardson had to have informed the governor of his intentions. But alas, Alabama’s state motto comes to mind, “We Dare Defend Our Rights.”

  • Newswire:  Criticism of Rev. Jasper Williams follow his remarks at Aretha Franklin’s funeral

    By: Lauren Victoria Burke, NNPA

    Rev. Jasper Williams and Aretha Franklin

    Saying his subject was “Aretha the Queen of Soul,” Rev. Jasper Williams of the Salem Bible Church in Atlanta gave the audience gathered for Aretha Franklin’s funeral a few unexpected memories laced with political commentary. Though he began simply, referring to the history of soul music and gospel, his talk became political as he Williams appeared towards the end of the ten-hour service. Rev. Williams was one of over three dozen speakers at Franklin’s lengthy Detroit home going ceremony. Rev. Williams referenced black-on-black crime, said single mothers are incapable of raising sons alone and proclaimed that black America has lost its soul and it’s “now time for black America to come back home.” “Where is your soul, black man?” he asked the audience at one point. “As I look in your house, there are no fathers in the home no more. Where is your soul?” “Seventy percent of our households are led by our precious, proud, fine black women. But as proud, beautiful and fine as our black women are, one thing a black woman cannot do. A black woman cannot raise a black boy to be a man. She can’t do that. She can’t do that,” Rev. Williams said. “It amazes me how it is that when the police kills one of us, we’re ready to protest march, destroy innocent property,” he said. “We’re ready to loot, steal whatever we want. …But when we kill 100 of us, nobody says anything. Nobody does anything,” he went on. “There was a time when we as a race had a thriving economy. I remember we had our own little grocery stores. We had our own little hotels. They weren’t big and fancy, but they were ours. As bad as the days as Jim Crow and segregation were … it forced us to each other instead of forcing us on each other. We quickly come to realize that as a people, all we really have is one another,” Rev. Williams said during his 40-minute eulogy to Franklin. Social media quickly blew up after Rev. Williams spoke in response. Legendary singer Stevie Wonder proclaimed the phrase “black lives do matter,” as he turned in the direction of Rev. Williams after the minister left the stage. Singer Gladys Knight’s performance was also viewed as a moment that brought the ceremony back from Williams’ political speech. “Black Mothers been raising Black boys for years!! We’re Still are raising proud, accomplished and aware Black man!! I should have known! Rest of this eulogy has been a conservative Black confusion rant!” wrote attorney Barbara Arwine from her twitter feed during the speech. “Folks, he can’t see, but Stevie Wonder can hear. And he is offering a rebuke to the eulogy. Don’t think for a second, he isn’t! And the folks in the room heard it,” wrote journalist Roland Martin, who attended the service. “Reverend Jasper Williams plantation style speech at #ArethaFranklinFuneral is a prime example why there is a total disconnect between young Black people and the older Black church crowd. All that cowardly “you’s gots to do better” talk ain’t fooling these kids,” offered anti-racism strategist Tariq Nasheed on twitter. Before Rev. Williams spoke, Smokey Robinson, Shirley Ceasar, Jennifer Hudson, Chaka Khan, Jennifer Lewis and Ron Isley performed among many others.Rev. William Barbour and Rev. Jesse Jackson also delivered remarks. “Aretha was in her very own special category,” said founder of Arista Records Clive Davis. “Her voice will be impacting others literally for centuries to come,” Davis added. A second tribute to Franklin and her music is planned at Madison Square Garden this fall. After her funeral, it was revealed by the family that Aretha Franklin had not left a will and there may be future conflicts over the handling and disposition of her estate.

  • NAACP president: Trump ‘kind of Jim Crow with hairspray and a blue suit’

    By Ashley Young, CNN

     

    NAACP President William Cornell Brooks

    NAACP President
    Cornell William Brooks

    (CNN)NAACP President Cornell William Brooks on Monday condemned Republican front-runner Donald Trump and said he represents a “kind of Jim Crow with hairspray and a blue suit.”
    “The fact of the matter is this is hateful. It is racist. It is bigoted. It is xenophobic. It represents a kind of Jim Crow with hairspray and a blue suit,” Brooks told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room.” “Let’s not underestimate what we’re dealing with.  This is a very, very ugly moment in America.”
    But Brooks said he doesn’t hold anything against
    Americans who support Trump. “I don’t blame the people –- American citizens — for their economic anxieties and a sense of desperation. The fact that their grasping at straws and they grasped onto a bigoted, demagogic  billionaire speaks to their desperation, not necessarily his appeal or the strength of his platform,” he said.
    CNN has reached out to the Trump campaign for comment, with no response.
    The billionaire’s rallies have turned increasingly violent in the past week as supporters have clashed with protesters. Trump was forced to cancel a rally in Chicago over the weekend and was given a scare when a protester rushed the stage Saturday.
    And a former Breitbart reporter filed an assault charge against Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, alleging he yanked her violently from Trump last Tuesday.
    “The fact of the matter is he’s engaged in rhetoric that represents a kind of apologetics, if you will, of violence,” Brooks said.
    Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina said Monday they are weighing whether to press charges against Trump for inciting a riot during that rally where the protester was sucker punched by a 78-year-old white man. Trump has said he is considering paying the legal fees for the supporter charged with assault.
    Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks flatly rejected the premise of the investigation into Trump’s role in the violent altercation.”It is the protesters and agitators who are in violation, not Mr. Trump or the campaign,” Hicks said Monday in a statement.
    Hicks added that Trump’s speech was “extremely well thought out and well received” and instead focused on the role of protesters, who she said “in some cases … used foul language, screamed vulgarities and made obscene gestures, annoying the very well behaved audience.”
    Brooks believes Trump’s behavior is “contemptible” but will “leave that for the prosecutors in North Carolina to determine.” He added there “absolutely” is a racial aspect to business mogul’s increasingly violent rallies.
    “When you call Mexicans rapists, when you use code words like ‘thug,’ where you suddenly can’t distance yourself from the Klan. The fact of the matter is we’ve been in this ugly movie before. In the 1920s the Klan combined an anti-immigrant sentiment in the country with a kind of un-American patriotism with a venue of Christianity,” Brooks said.
    Blitzer pointed out that Trump eventually did disavow the Klu Klux Klan.