Again With the Race Remarks?

Seriously, again? First there was the media circus surrounding Paula Deen who said that she would like to experience the old Antebellum South. Well, that resulted in a court case, cancellation of her shows, endorsements, and countless tearful apologies. Then came the good old boy and Patriarch of the Duck Dynasty empire, Phil Robertson, who was stated that he wondered if blacks were better off before the federal government got involved, starting in the 1960s (and he went on to say that homosexuality was contrary to God's laws). Then came Cliven Bundy, the Texas rancher who became a mini-folk hero within the Patriot Movement for standing up to the Bureau of Land Management. Bundy, made a similar comment when he too wondered out loud if "the Negro people" weren't better off as slaves rather than depending on government subsidies.

Now comes the owner of the Los Angles Clipper's basketball team, Donald Sterling. Mr. Sterling's comment had nothing to do with nostalgia or economic wellbeing. Nope. Sterling allegedly told a female friend to stop bringing blacks to his team's games. Apparently, this isn't the first time a comment like this has been made, but it sure looks like it will be the last time, at least as owner of the LA Clippers. The players reacted just like one would expect them too---not well. First there was the pre-game warm-up without the team's jerseys. Then during the game, they wore black wristbands and black socks with the team's red uniform. By the way, they lost 118 to 97 to the Golden State Warriors. The player's union is investigating to see what action can and should be taken, and the NBA is looking into a suspension and forcing Sterling to sell the team. Can't say I blame them can you?

But, what I'm interested here is what is behind these comments. What would make these celebrity types make such inflammatory comments? Frankly. I can at least understand, but certainly not agree with, the comments of Deen, Robertson, and Bundy. All three individuals are from the deep South where things are slow to change and comments like they made are still far from uncommon (Deen is from Albany Georgia and lives in Savannah Georgia. Robertson is from Vivian Louisiana, and Bundy is Western Texas, though the standoff was at the family ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada). Secondly, they are all in the age bracket where they would very much remember the pre-Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. Deen and Bundy were born in 1947; Robertson in 1946, and just for the record, Sterling is 80. All three members come from small towns and fundamentalist backgrounds. They experienced a very different South at an age and time which has left a certain impression on their personalities.

The comments made by all three weren't intended to be hurtful or spiteful. Though crudely put, they were actually attempting to show some compassion. What do I mean? All three were making comments about whether federal subsidies---handouts to some---have actually done more to hurt blacks (and poor whites, Asians, and Hispanics for that matter) by creating a sense of dependence rather than encourage independence and promoted fatherless families because the families without a male head of household could receive more benefits than one with a male head of household. Dependence breeds a sense of decreasing personal expectancy but also an increase in a sense of "entitlement".

Yes, some have done well and have broken the cycle of poverty, but many more haven't, and it's more prevalent in the Old South than anywhere else in America. Look at Appalachia. When Robert Kennedy and President Johnson visited in the 1960's, we as a nation were shocked to see the level of poverty people were living in; the lack of proper housing, including electricity, plumbing, poor nutrition, lack of adequate medical and dental care, mediocre education, the lack of infrastructure, and most of all, the lack of jobs. The ones that were available usually paid little and were dangerous. In other parts of the South, many of the same conditions applied. This, of course, was reason behind LBJ's "War on Poverty". Here we are in 2014 and not a lot has changed. Education still lags in the rural South. Unionization, which usually brings better pay and benefits, is non-existent while unemployment across all racial lines remains high. While there has been some improvement in medical care, it's still woefully inadequate. Housing and infrastructure such as roads have improved, at least in places, but there's much more to be done.

Finally, there is still that deep dark secret which lingers in the hearts of many Southerners of the Old South; of plantations, shady trees, large verandas, elaborate socials, delicious home cooking, and a strong sense of family and tradition. Much of it is myth. Only 4% of the Old South ever owned slaves, and of those, it was 2 or less with the owner working shoulder to shoulder in poor soil and sharing the same hardships and even the same meals. Only 1% were living the "Gone With the Wind" dream. The War of Succession and subsequent imposed Reconstruction devastated the South and its institutions, both the bad ones and the good, and 150 years on, the Old South still hasn't fully recovered. Perhaps it never will.

Could they have said it better? Without a doubt. In fact, in this era of hyper political correctness, they should have simply kept their little ole cotton pickin' mouths shut (Robertson's comment extended to beyond race to include his religious views about gays and Bundy referred to blacks as "Negro", which is an old Spanish word meaning "black" and is the proper racial designation but not considered "PC"). Is it right that that they have to curtail their comments while those of other races, religions, or sexual orientation don't get called for making similar comments? No, of course not. We need to accept that discrimination in any form, either overt or subtle, is not a one way street, and despite what Attorney General Eric Holder has said in the past, hate crime laws work both ways, and should be enforced accordingly.

As for Sterling, this will be played out for at least the next several months. The outcome will not be good, at least for him. The Clippers will survive as a team, and may go on to win more games and maybe a championship or two, but under new ownership. And while this editorial was meant only as a possible explanation, the fact that I'm having to add a disclaimer clearly indicates that we as a society are sadly far from "post-racial". But, perhaps too this will give us an opportunity to have a open and honest discussion about not just a differences, but about our similarities.


David Sterling's Alleged Racist Comment
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_25644156/listen-alleged-recording-los-angeles-clippers-owner-david

Clippers Stage Silent Protest
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/04/27/clippers-stage-silent-protest-to-owner/20876579/

For Silver, removing Sterling as Clippers owner easier said than done
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140428/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-adam-silver-nba/

The Instagrams That Sparked Sterling's Rant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614336/Obama-wades-Clippers-row-racist-comments-attributed-Don-Sterling.html

Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy: Is Age a Factor?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-and-cliven-bundy-is-age-a-factor/

Paula Deen: Southern Fired? / Rachel Jeantel's Testimony / Supreme Court Shoots Down DOMA

Chef, food entrepreneur , and Grande Dame of Southern fired everything, Paula Deen, is in trouble again. You'll recall that she had previously got herself in a bit of trouble when it came out that she had type II diabetes and was keeping it private amid her promotion of deep fried Southern cuisine (if one can call it that). This time, Deen mistakenly told the truth when testifying under oath that she had used the dread "N word". It should come of no surprised that the subject would even be broached...given that she's white, Southern, and all. Even the fact the question was raised seems to impart some sort of implied guilt; almost as if it was expected, but perhaps it was since the lawsuit was brought by a former employee who alleged sexual and racial discrimination by Ms. Deen and members of Paula Deen Enterprises.

Ms. Deen testified that she had been robbed by a black man at gunpoint when she had stopped at an ATM machine to get some money. The assailant held a gun to her head; waving it around her temple she said, and demanded her money. Shortly afterwards, when the angry and scared Deen was relating the incident to her husband the nefarious "N word" crossed her cornbread fed lips. Oh, and did we mention this took place about 30 years when she was still struggling financially to make ends meet and provide for her family? As if a backdrop was required, Ms. Deen mentioned that she had been born and grew up in the Deep and deeply segregated South.
Now, Ms. Deen has become persona non grata (which translates into Dixie as "ya'll ain't welcome") at Horseshoe Casinos, the Food Network, among others, while her sponsors like Smithfield drop her like a hot biscuit. Even her book publisher has decided not to publish her latest cookbook despite a record number of pre-publication book sales. Ms. Deen has made repeated public apologies, all to the glee of her envious critics. There's been a few brave souls to stand by her, and if there's any good to come out of this, Ms. Deen and Company know who her real friends are.

So, here's what I think. Get over it. What she said was out of fear and anger, and made over 30 years ago. If the same thing happened to anyone else, and I mean anyone else, would they do any less? I seriously doubt it. Yes, she grew up in the Deep South and is proud of her heritage. So what? In this politically correct gone amuck county , it's to the point where one has to be careful not to say or do something that someone else may not like lest being threaten with the race card and being required to dutifully don a scarlet "R". Well, too bad. There's also an implied "guilt" for being white or Southern, successful, or heaven forbid, all three creeping out into the open. Growing up in the South when I did, I heard far worse, and it wasn't always being uttered by a white person either.

What we should be looking at is the content of her character, and from what I've seen, it's about as innocent as an ice cold RC and moon pie on a Summer's afternoon.

Transcript of Paula Deen Testimony
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148813272/Transcript-of-the-Testimony-of-Paula-Deen-Date-May-17-2013



George Zimmerman Trial: Rachel Jeantel's Testimony

Speaking of racially charged speak, did you catch the testimony of the "star witness" for the prosecution? The prosecution was hoping to demonstrate that the accused murderer of poor innocence Skittle totting Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, an Hispanic by the way, was not only a gun toting Rambo-wannbe vigilante, but a raging racist too. Well, it turns out there were some racist comments, but they didn't come from Zimmerman.

19 year old Rachel Jeantel testified that she was speaking with Trayvon on his cell phone just moments before he was shot. Ms. Jeantel, a neighbor, made several statements whereby she claimed that Trayvon was in the process of being assaulted by Mr. Zimmerman . Statements which she later had to retract (admitting that she was not present and didn't witness the assault nor did Trayvon indicate to her on the phone that he was being assaulted).

When the testimony turned to racial undertones, it turns out that it was Trayvon who made the racial comments. Not Zimmerman. Apparently, according to Ms. Jeantel's testimony, Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy- ass cracker"; the derogatory "cracker" reference to someone white is basically the equivalent of the "N word" to someone black. Apparently, however, Zimmerman made no racially oriented remarks to Martin. When questioned as to whether she thought that was an appropriate remark, Ms. Jeantel thought it was. She saw no harm in the use of the word, adding that its usage was commonplace among blacks.

Later, another witness and neighbor, Jonathan Good indicated that it appears that it was Martin appeared to occupied the "power position" in the fight with Zimmerman. Martin, it has been alleged by some media outlets, was known for gang activity and drug dealing, not to mention petty crimes and violence. None of these issues has yet been presented at the trial, but will no doubt be presented to the all female jury.

What may be of issue here is not the use of the pejorative racial comments made by Trayvon Martin (thought they would certainly be capitalized on if it had been Zimmerman who made them), but a cocky 17 year full of himself as most teenage males tend to be. Given that Zimmerman wasn't much older---he was 23 at the time---there was a lot of testosterone driven posturing going on, with Martin having the edge. Had Zimmerman not had a gun, Martin would have severely injured or even killed Zimmerman and it would be Martin on trial. So, did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force to defend himself? Absolutely, at least based on what we now know. However, this was also a situation where Zimmerman should have listen to the 911 operator and backed off until the police eventually showed up. Certainly, as a block watch captain, Zimmerman should have had the training to know better. From what little has come out about Zimmerman pre-Martin, this wasn't his first dance. Bad judgment all around would be an understatement.


Supreme Court Shoots Down DOMA

The Supreme Court shot the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA for short). This has set off a plethora of marriage proposals and an all out sprint to the nearest minister or Justice of the Peace throughout California. The decision shot down California Proposition 8, which had been previously approved by popular ballot, and halted all gay marriages. The plaintiffs, Kay Perry and Sandy Steir, tied the knot immediately after the decision came down with California Attorney General Kamela Harris presiding in what became California's first same-sex marriage in 8 years . The ruling will likely open the door for same-sex marriages everywhere except where prohibited by state constitutional amendment. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if even those are eventually challenged.

But be that as it may, the core question remains. Namely, is the institution of marriage reserved exclusively for two individuals of the opposite sex who desire to make a public commitment to each, or is it open to any couple, regardless of gender, who are willing to the same public commitment? Most will argue that it's "unnatural" or "unbiblical" or "not in accordance with God's laws". Well, perhaps, but that too depends on which god you believe and how relevant those laws now apply. Remember for instance that in the Judeo-Christian bible, mixing cotton and wool were stoning offences! So, relevance does come into play.

For those who cite marriage as the foundation of family unit and basis of civilization, note that same-sex marriage does create a family unit, just not one that rest solely on procreation as its main purpose. In all other respects, it would seem to fit the criteria of creating a family unit. Of course, I'm speaking as a middle age straight male whose background is by and large traditional. However, I realize that things do change. We're leaving behind the strict hierarchical industrial age and entering the ever changing instant world of information where technology is outdated before it hits the store's shelves; Where horizontal corporate structures are the most adaptable, and ultimately the ones most likely to survive. Something the Federal and state governments will have to adapt to as well. Even stogy higher education has had to evolve to allow more online programs and degrees. The ivory tower are now computer towers and laptops.

It's also a world whereby not only are women the dominant gender in the workplace--something unheard of 40 years ago--but now many women are earning more than their husbands---unheard of just 15 years ago. People no longer have jobs for life. People have evolving niches of employment. We are more and more "contract employees"; many of whom work outside of a brick and mortar building. Working (and often successful) single mothers, a rarity not so long ago, is relatively commonplace now. So, it's reasonable then that with the evolution of society, that the core foundation of society too much change.

Gay Marriage get big boost in two Supreme Court Rulings
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE95P06W20130626