Another Urban Legend: Obama and the KKK

Oh, how I wish it were true. Of all the urban legends circulating the Internet, this one takes the prize as the most ridiculous assertion of them all.

It came to me from four different senders. I had to fight the tears after reading the first few lines the first time. Then it hit me. No way that one is true. Experience has taught me to check the sources before moving on a lead. Over the years, I have been bitten by listening to the wrong people, and had to admit that I moved too soon in writing a column. The voice of my former journalism professor could be heard-“check your sources, check your sources, check your sources.”

“Imperial Wizard, Ronald Edwards, has stated that ‘anything is better than Hillary Clinton,'” the email read. “White Christian Supremacist group the Klu Klux Klan has endorsed Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States of America”

For a brief second I felt the presence of those who had fought for freedom. I felt Martin and Fannie Lou, Fredrick Douglas and Marcus Garvey with me to celebrate this monumental moment in American history. I felt the force of countless marches and the drive of the words uttered in times of frustration-“We shall overcome, someday.” Could this be the end of it all? Could this be the end of the ignorance of racial hatred in this country?

It is beginning to feel that way, with Barack Obama winning in states where few black people reside. It is significant that race seems to matter less now, and that America is willing to consider the possibility of being led by a person who isn’t a white man. The recent rise of Obama over Clinton raises another interesting issue-is America’s sexism more of a burden than its racism?

“This is the first time in Klan history that any member of the KKK has ever publicly supported an African American candidate for the presidency,” the email continued. “KKK lodges all over America have been gathering and holding rallies supporting the black presidential candidate.”

I read the email intrigued by the implications of it all. If it were true, if in fact a member of the KKK could move past their indifference toward black people and endorse a black man for the highest office in the land, it would signal the realization of King’s dream. If that could happen it would mean so much. It would mean the end of it all. What stunned me most about the email wasn’t the assertion made. It was that, for a brief moment, I believed it to be true.

It shocked me that I was willing to trust the claim. Not only that, others, who are all black, thought the same thing. They sent me the email believing it was possible for a leader of the KKK to be converted. I then took a look at the beginning of the email. “White Christian Supremacist group” was used to describe the organization. That one word caught my attention-Christian. There is nothing about the KKK that compares to the Christianity I proclaim. Yes, the burning of the cross reminds me of the logo of the United Methodist Church (I wish they would change that image), but nothing they teach, nothing they do speaks to the message of the Jesus I follow.

Those who sent the email may have been thinking the same thing that crossed my mind when I first read the message-that God has touched them. That the nation is enduring a revival that has impacted even members of the KKK. How I wish it were true.

What a difference it would all make. We could celebrate the end of it all. But it’s not true. It never happened. We’re left with a few truths that still hinder the progress of our nation. For some, a woman isn’t worthy to lead us, and a black man isn’t smart enough to do the job.

The double standards still pop up from time to time. Obama lacks substance some have said. Is that true, or is it another way of saying a black man doesn’t have the brains to do the job? There may be problems with Clinton, but at least we have her husband to keep her in check. Shucks, everyone knows who the real President will be.

For a few moments I celebrated a new day. Oh, I wish it were true, but race and sex continue to drive the agendas of far too many people in this country. The good news is we can see the end of the tunnel. I believed it for a moment. Keep praying. Before long, it may become a reality.

Black Skin, White Mask

My uncle Lucius took me to task on my last blog post. To place that into proper context, Lucius Warrick was and is to me one of my models of black manhood. He inspired me, without knowing it, to get all those degrees that hang on my wall. Yes, it’s his fault that I’m strapped with a huge student loan debt for attending school at the University of Missouri, Duke University and Princeton Theological Seminary. He convinced me that the key to success was a good education.

Uncle Lucius is from the old school. Back in the day people believed in the notions of both Booker T. Washington and W.E. B DuBois. For some the secret to success is found in pulling up their boot straps. For the fortunate talent tenth, the road to liberation is found in the halls of the academy. It’s a message lost in the new wave of youthful thinkers more enamored with fast cash than hard work.

My uncle maintains that lashing out at Obama may be a bad move. In his words,” I am not sure that Senator Obama should be targeted as the “scape-goat” for a lack of action,” he wrote in an email. “Have you or others in your group contacted Senator Obama to ensure he is aware of the correct facts and details concerning the case?”

His concern gets at the root of the tension facing black candidates for high office. The political game requires a high level of positioning intended to convince those less likely to vote for a person due to their race; that race will not hinder their ability to see things through a white lens.
Put another way, Obama has to be careful not to associate himself with issues that remind voters of previous black Presidential hopefuls. The critical question facing Obama is what makes him different than Jesse and Al. Is he another example of a black dude with a pro black agenda? Or does he have the stuff necessary to stray away from every black concern disrupting the nation?

My chastisement of Obama was more a criticism of the process that goes into being elected than in the person running for the office. My gut tells me Obama has read those accounts of the Jena 6 in the Chicago Tribune. The Trib is his home town paper, and the folks up in Chi town are heading down to Jena, LA to protest the recent conviction of Mychal Bell.

I’m politically savvy enough to understand why it was advantageous for Obama to speak out on the Duke Lacrosse rape case while remaining silent on Jena 6. He has to weigh the pros and cons of how doing so would impact his image. It’s an example of how he could have served us better by staying put as a Senator instead of jumping into the Presidential shuffle.

My uncle’s words speak to another issue. Black folks shouldn’t talk bad about black folks. Instead of attacking Obama, I should find a way to fix things using a different method. In other words, don’t blame Obama, find a way without having to get him involved.

There’s wisdom to my uncle’s words. One shouldn’t hinder the journey toward the prize by raising issues that distract voters. I get the argument. With that being said, there is a more critical issue related to this matter. How much does one have to give up for the sake of winning? How often should black commentators close their eyes when those we want to support fail to respond to our needs?

There’s another way of looking at this. In Obama’s quest to prove to white Americans that he’s not to black to be their President, has he proven to black Americans that he’s not black enough to be their President? Does any of that matter? Is it possible to lead the country as a black President without taking notice of how race continues to strap the nation?

It all reminds me of Frantz Fanon’s book “Black Skin, White Mask”. As much as we would like to think that race doesn’t matter, Obama will face decisions that forces him to contend with the black skin covered by the white mask.

Oh where, oh where has Obama been?

I have to make a confession. I’m pissed! I’m hurt, upset, disgusted and confused over the state of the American judicial system.

Part of my frustration is related to living in Durham, NC, home of Duke University and that infamous rape case. As a long time resident of the city, I have endured the hassle of having outside critics give their perspective on the state of things in my fine city. It irks me that most observers fail to place this case, and all that follows, within the context of the history and happenings of the city. I could talk about that all day, but there’s much more behind my fury.

I’m livid over the mixture of contradictions that remind me that America is a country that places privilege and race above justice. I crave to believe that we have become a nation that is purely color blind when it comes to the dispensing of judgment. That is not the case, and I’m annoyed that I have to waste time to convey the nature of this evil. As much as I want to move past presenting arguments that do more than expound the stance of another mad black man; I can’t let go of how deeply marred I am due to these incongruities.

A little background to my rage-I just finished reading the recent installment of the Duke Lacrosse case. Mike Nifong, former Durham District Attorney, is facing a $500 fine or up to 30 days in jail for criminal contempt. The question for this most recent segment of the soap opera is whether Nifong willfully and intentionally made false statements to Judge W. Osmond Smith III in May 2006.

The brunt of my frustration involves the level of attention given this case in comparison to the countless others that go unnoticed, and that are clear case of prosecutorial misconduct. The most recent example of a district attorneys misuse of power is the Jena 6 case.

A recent response to my blog got it right-why is it that black people are reduced to marching and shouting in front of courtrooms as a means of remonstration? Why do we continue to employ 50 year old stratagems to get the attention of those who manipulate the process?

I’m angry that people have to pack buses to do what we have always done, while high profile attorney’s and politicians jump on the bandwagon to support the causes of these boys in Durham, NC who became the target of an indomitable prosecutor.

Where are the congressmen and senators in that case? Where is Barak Obama? He found time to comment on the Duke Lacrosse rape case, but hasn’t made his way down to Jena to plead on behalf of those boys. Why hasn’t he made a stop on his journey across the country to raise money and prove to Americans he’s white enough to be their President?

I’m annoyed that none of the presidential candidates have made this an issue worthy of their attention. I wouldn’t be as pissed if Obama hadn’t taken time away from his duties as senator to write a memo regarding the Duke Lacrosse rape case. Maybe the assumption of innocence sways the way he and others functions when it comes to speaking up. If that is true, then I’m pissed even more.

Why? Because I utterly abominate the terminology of innocence when applied to those boys involved in the Duke Lacrosse rape case. They are not innocent. They are innocent of rape. They are innocent of kidnapping, but they are guilty, it can be assumed by the evidence in the case, of racial slurs, the communication of threats, underage drinking and lewd behavior. You may reason, why is that important? It’s important in addressing the grave disparity in the way power brokers involve themselves in cases demanding scrutiny.

The focus down in Jena, LA is on the wrong people. Instead of fighting against the local bums in power, we should be calling on those who demand our votes to get their butts down there and handle their business. All that talk about equality in American doesn’t mean a thing when all you do is talk, raise money and appear on television for another debate.

If you have the power to make a change, use it. So, let’s take all of that rage and send letters to Obama and ask him to prove to us he’s real. If not, let’s contact Hillary.

The Democratic Candidate Debate: Gay Rights Takes Center Stage

Here we go again. The hot topic during the most recent Democratic Presidential debate was gay rights. It’s safe to say that the concerns that led to the election of George Dub during the last Presidential election were those that forced people to deal with their deep seeded religious convictions. Namely, John Kerry’s seemingly liberal views on abortion and gay rights were too much for many Americans to deal with.

The recent debate proves that these presidential wanna be’s are grappling to find a way to say what most intelligent people are willing to acknowledge-that the constitution protects a persons right to have a relationship with whomever they wish. Given the assumption that part of living in a nation that safeguards the “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of every person residing in America; it’s effortless to conclude that part of what that means is related to ones relationship.

The gay rights issue becomes convoluted when thrust within the political arena. What makes it problematic isn’t so much about law, but more about what it takes to get elected to the highest office in the land. In other words, sad to say, most Americans aren’t ready to embrace a president willing to hang out at a gay rally. Despite the progress made, far too many Americans are homophobic and unwilling to consider the underlying issues that have gays and lesbians pressing for equal rights.

At the root of this political diatribe is the bearing evangelical Christianity plays in molding a divisive agenda. There are two issues related to the amalgamation of public policy and religion. The first begs us to regard the significance of the warning embedded within the Constitution-the marriage of Church and State will ultimately lead to the refutation of other faith claims. America is, and has always been, a union of varied theological voices. This is the strength of any democratic society, and to impose a theological construct above others at the expense of a segment of society forces a rethinking of our melting pot dreams.

The Democratic presidential candidates ranted on their justification for opposing same-sex marriage. Senator Barrack Obama, who supports only civil unions, cited the need to “disentangle” the issue of legal rights for gay couples from what “has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people.”

John Edwards cited his Christian faith as a reason for his opposition to same-sex marriage. He stressed that his campaign is “about equality across the board,” while admitting that his position on civil unions “stops short of real equality. It makes perfect sense to me that people would feel that way.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was a mistake that she failed to do more to condemn the recent comments of a top military officer who said that homosexuality is immoral. Clinton angered gay supporters when she appeared to dodge questions about the remark.

The three front runners are functioning in a way reminiscent of the good ole boys in ole Dixie during the heat of the Civil Rights era The maligned of society must be sacrificed for political gain. Given the detestation toward gays felt by evangelical Christians and an overwhelming majority of African Americans, it’s best to do what they did in the old South, discount the agenda of the minority in favor of being elected.

By affirming their individual faith above the rights of the discarded, these candidates have proven their inability to stand above the political fray to protect the rights of those with a position that defers from that in the mainstream. What America needs is leadership enamored with doing the right thing, even when it may lead to being abandoned by the masses.

Now for issue number two. Not only does this issue beg for a deep conversation on what it means to promote a clear separation of Church and State, it also is screaming for the Church to engage in a critical rethinking of its long held position related to homosexuality.

In 2002, I wrote a column for the Herald-Sun (Durham, NC) challenging churches to deliberate on new ways to confront homosexuality. The solution I proposed was for faith communities to hold conversations with gays and lesbians who share the same faith claims. I informed my readers that gays and lesbians are attending their churches. Rather than deny their presence, why not have a chat around the issues they have, and, in the process, give those on the other side space to discuss how they feel about having gays and lesbians as part of their congregation.

This simple solution led to my termination from the church. Yes, there were other issues that caused the members to turn their back on the pastor who helped transform the church into one of the largest and most vital ministries in the city. With that being said, it’s safe to conclude that the prevalent concern was my desire to embrace gays and lesbians. More than my divorces (yes there were two). More than my dating before the divorce from my second wife was final. More than the ordaining of a single female who was pregnant. More than any of that, the congregation was incensed that I was willing to love, embrace and support gays and lesbians void of a demand that they change before entering those pearly gates.

What is the lesson? Leadership requires sacrifice. I’m looking for a president willing to lose it all for the sake of the higher good. The secret to change are leaders who stand above the common voice. I’m still looking.

This bunch has a lot to learn.