Thursday, May 29, 2014

Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America: When Mental Health Collides with Race

  By T.M. Bonner

       The latest edition of Dispatches from a ‘Post-Racial’ America highlights three incidents in which Mental Health issues collided with race – but not in a healthy, progressive way that would result in knowledge and solutions. 

  Americans of all races and ethnicities are confronted with mental health issues in their lives, whether themselves or a family member or friend. But the way the media mishandled a recent study shows how all is not equal when it comes to mental health issues of white Americans versus African-Americans and other minorities.

     In fact, sometimes the same mental health issue is even given a different name when it afflicts African-Americans and other minorities (thus, ensuring inequality in the recognition of the problem and inequality in research and treatment). So, folks, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) becomes “Hood Disease.” What? Read on…


   


   Apparently, it’s the season to physically assault and racially terrorize a person suffering from mental illness -- if they are of a certain race. And it kinda helps if the victimizer is a judge who could decide that this is, in fact, legal. Read on…



    Lastly, when a serial killer goes, well, serial killer, we in America must ensure that the discussion of his ‘mental health’ should take center stage and remain separate from the discussion of his racist tendencies. Racism and mental health issues can work in tandem in some cases to cause destruction and grief. But we ignored this truth in the now infamous Elliot Rodger case, where racism was the underlying motivator for the killer who goes off the deep end because he just couldn’t understand why being an entitled white male didn’t result in better luck with white women than ‘lesser’ minority beings. 



     But who needs to concern themselves with the fine print, right? Read more about the racism within Elliot Rodger here...


Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America: The Straight, No Chaser Edition

     By T.M. Bonner

  The "Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America" series has been highlighting actual events that demonstrate the continued pervasiveness of racism in America. This is necessary because far too many people deny racism's omnipresence, or deny that race even matters anymore. And you can't solve a problem if you don't believe there is a problem.

     This week, the 'dispatches' are uniquely special because well-known people - some notorious, others noble - are telling you how important race is in this country and to themselves.

     You're getting it straight, no chaser.

     I can almost hear the Church Lady from "Saturday Night Live" fame replying to them with her famous retort: "Well isn't that special?"

     So just click on the links beneath the quotes below to be awed (or appalled) by the honesty.






From the now infamous Texas Rancher, Cliven Bundy, who believes African-Americans would be better off as slaves. Read more here!









U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gives White High Court majority a lashing on race after controversial decision. Read more here!





A team owner in a predominantly black sport who doesn't like black people all that much - and he's not ashamed to say it! Hear his own words here!

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Dispatches From a "Post-Racial" America: The Pet Peeves Edition

…because living in denial is never a good thing.

The latest edition of "Dispatches From a "Post-Racial"America" features racial pet peeves, or things that just make those harboring racial bias crazy in America.

Of course, such a list is potentially infinite with all that hate inside. So, I've narrowed it down to three of the most significant ones to rear their ugly heads in the news over the last few weeks.

Just click on the links above the photos for further enlightenment.














From blackgirlnerds.com



*********************
T.M. Bonner is a writer, filmmaker, MBA, Social Justice Advocate, and is also a professional in Social Policy/Social Service in New York City.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Anita Hill Documentary Highlights Need to Discard Concept of “Women and Minorities”



By T.M. Bonner

Anita Hill Testifying in October 1991
(YouTube Screenshot from "Anita" Trailer)
By the time I found myself watching a second major milestone take place in Anita Hill’s life, I had long stopped finding the harmlessness in the popular phrase “women and minorities.”
           
      That second time, I was in a movie theatre in New York City. I was watching the documentary “Anita,” released in March 2014. It chronicles the impact of the decision of a young, African-American Hill who dared to speak up about sexual harassment at the hands of then U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas.

      The first time, I was watching that drama play out live on television as Hill, then a tenured law professor at the University of Oklahoma, testified before Congress in October of 1991 during the now infamous Thomas confirmation hearings.

I was too young and had more limited life experience to really connect all of the complicated dots of this controversy back then. But what didn’t escape my observation was that despite the professional credentials she held, and the poise, confidence and consistency she displayed throughout her lengthy testimony, this was a black woman in trouble as she faced the doubting and accusing eyes of the all-white and all-male Senate Judiciary Committee.

 In fact, Hill’s historic testimony on sexual harassment was less of an Aha! Moment and more of an Oh No! Moment.

Hill was a woman accusing a high-powered man of sexual harassment. Hill was an African-American woman accusing a high-powered man of sexual harassment. Hill was a African-American woman accusing a high-powered African-American man of sexual harassment. And while white women would and have faced maltreatment and credibility challenges when standing up against sexual harassment, it is the intersection of gender and race in the case of African-American women like Hill that presents an unfortunate chasm in a gender-shared experience.

The all-male Senate committee was already having a difficult time understanding sexual harassment. Asking the also all-white Senate Committee to see the deeper implications of race for an African-American woman accuser was a stretch – especially when many in this nation struggle with seeing beyond stereotypes when interacting with African-Americans on any level.

To illustrate my point, in Time Magazine’s coverage of the hearings, an October 21, 1991 headline read:  “Sex, Lies and Politics: He Said, She Said: As the nation looks on, two credible, articulate witnesses present irreconcilable views of what happened nearly a decade ago.” So when the media is still impressed that two Yale-educated African-American attorneys are “articulate” (as the headline read), getting an understanding of the more complicated, really deep stuff would take some work. In case anyone thinks things have changed, remember:  President Barack Obama was described as “articulate, “bright,” and “clean” in 2007 by current Vice-President Joe Biden (who also led the Thomas hearings in 1991, by the way).

So behind the scenes, Hill was pulverized by many African-American men (and even many women) for “trying to bring down a successful black man.” In other words, Hill’s right as a woman to protection from sexual harassment from an African-American man should take a back seat to protection of the ‘race’ and African-American men. Many of these aggravating and disappointing conversations I even remember hearing at the time. A 1992 study of opinion polls on the Hill/Thomas controversy showed that only 33% of white women, 27% of white men, 26% of black men, and 26% of black women believed Hill was telling the truth. Meanwhile, the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee – having to decide between the word of a black woman versus the word of a black man (He said, she said) – the word of the “He Said” came out the victor.  And Thomas was confirmed as the second African-American U.S. Supreme Court Justice after Thurgood Marshall on October 15, 1991.

The Hill/Thomas controversy represents how misguided lumping minority women and men together in a category can be via the concept of “women and minorities.” Because if we want to just be 100 percent real about what that phrase means, it separates African-American women (and other minority women) from white women (“women”) and lumps them all together with minority men (“minorities.”)

It is true that minority women and men do share some important experiences and concerns being minorities in America. But it is also true that minority women also have some very different experiences and issues as result of them carrying the dual burden of racism and sexism. The Thomas hearings illustrate that even in a showdown of two prominent African-Americans who rose up from abject poverty while enduring racism, sexism will always be a factor for the African-American woman. While African-American women like Hill are accused of being a “gold digger” and of “trying to bring a black man down” for bringing sexual harassment complaints, African-American men like Thomas don’t have to worry about being confronted with sexism-based accusations and doubt when they stand up for themselves against injustices they may feel they are facing. They also are not made to feel that it is their responsibility to 'protect the race' and the honor of other African-American men.

There is also the problem of lumping together all minority women – as if all of our histories and life experiences are similar. Many minority women felt more comfortable believing the word of Thomas over the African-American woman Hill – with whom America assumes they are united with in ‘female minorityhood’ through the concept of “women and minorities.” And let's not forget that an all-female jury that included five white women and one woman of Puerto Rican ethnicity acquitted George Zimmerman of the murder of Trayvon Martin despite an assumed understanding of a ‘mother’s pain.’

But a second problem with “women and minorities” is not just the lumping together, but also the separating out of white women from minority women. This has implications of separate priorities for women’s issues – a racial hierarchy of women’s needs, if you will.

And such a racial hierarchy of response to women's needs from white women down to minority women has been playing out in this country since recent memory.  

While President Obama and other special interest groups critique gender pay inequality, it is clear that the issue of pay inequality for women goes deeper than just gender. African-American women earned $610 per week compared to $718 for white women in the second quarter of 2013, according to a study from the Center for American Progress. And while white women only earned 78.1 cents to the dollar compared to a white, non-Hispanic man in 2010, African-American women earned even less - just 64 cents to that same dollar.

On the health front, while white women are more likely to have breast cancer, African-American women have higher overall mortality rates from breast cancer, according to that same study.


And at the time of the study, only 14 out of the total 98 women in Congress were African-American, while only two women of color have ever served in the Senate. There has never been an African-American woman U.S. Supreme Court Justice, while there have been two African-American men appointed.

So, it is time to stop putting women into compartmentalized categories that ignore or perpetuate inequality among women.

 It is time to stop putting minority women into compartmentalized categories with minority men whose self-interests and needs may collide with minority women. It is time to stop feeding African-American women, in particular, the message that standing up against abuse (domestic violence, sexual harassment, etc.), or sexism in the black community will mean being demonized in the black community as a traitor to her 'race.'

It is time to do away with the concept of “women and minorities” and the implications behind it.


Perhaps by the time a third major milestone of Anita Hill crosses my path many years ahead, we will have finally gotten that lesson.


*********************



T.M. Bonner is a writer, filmmaker, MBA, Social Justice Advocate, and is also a professional in Social Policy/Social Service in New York City. 

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Dispatches From a "Post-Racial" America: "Annie," Judges, and Students! Oh My!

   By T.M. Bonner


     I started this series to highlight that racism is a persistent social problem in America that must be confronted and solved. And, no, the election of President Barack Obama didn't mean the defeat of racism. In fact, it only gave it a new urgency.

    As long as there is news, there will be "Dispatches From a "Post-Racial" America." I don't have a successor to helm this blog lined up. So let's get to solving this problem in my lifetime, shall we?

    Click on the links to the left to read the latest dispatches of news across "post-racial" America...because living in denial is never a good thing.

                                                                           "Annie"




                                                                            Judges       

      



                                                                          Students



 


                   




            

                                                                                                                                                                             














                                                                           


                                                                                                      

Monday, March 03, 2014

Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America…because living in denial is never a good thing

The Only 'Best Film' Oscar ever awarded to a film Directed by a black person in the entire history of the Academy Awards brings out the Internet haters.   

The example below is just one of many - and came courtesy of the message boards of The Hollywood Reporter

Friday, February 28, 2014

Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America…because living in denial is never a good thing

When The Governor's Office is Full of Racists

Dispatches from a "Post-Racial" America…because living in denial is never a good thing

University of Mississippi and a Noose

A Spotify List of Songs That Have A Lot to Teach Us About Social Issues in America: Part 4

 By T.M. Bonner

     As Black History Month concludes, this series highlighting a Spotify list of songs that have encouraged forward thinking on persistent social issues in America turns its spotlight today on two songs that deal with the righting of wrongs done to oppressed people.

     Award-winning African-American Poet and Author Maya Angelou once summed up this concept of righting of wrongs brilliantly at a performance at the Boston Symphony Orchestra several years ago: “If you take something from someone, give it back.” This could apply to everything from dollars to dignity.

    Angelou’s statement was poignant in its message that how to correct mistakes done to our fellow man should be this simple and obvious. But, unfortunately, in America, there has only been avoidance at best. While other countries from Australia to South Africa have held reconciliation conferences and enacted legislation to deal with historic and continued wrongs of native and oppressed people, America has noticeably avoided such healing measures. This has been particularly the case with wrongs committed against Native Americans and African-Americans.

“What about the red man/Who met you at the coast?/You never dig sharing/Always had to have the most/And what about Mississippi/The boundary of old?/Tell me,/Who’ll pay reparations on my soul?”

Song: “Who’ll Pay Reparations on My Soul” (1970) (Written and Performed by Gil Scott-Heron)
Social Issue: Righting of Wrongs against the Oppressed

     Gil Scott-Heron, who famously penned the 1974 piece “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” also wrote this thought-provoking one about the economic and psychological damage suffered by African-Americans as a result of racism, slavery and oppression in America.

     He asked the same question that many juries have to ask during civil trials when someone has been harmed or wronged: what should be the price for suffering and harm – even though any penalty exacted can never compensate for what was lost in reality. In fact, Scott-Heron acknowledges that nothing could ever compensate for all that his people have lost. Which is why he asks: “who’ll pay reparations on my soul?”

    This acknowledgement is significant because it recognizes that the wounds go deep. Thus, the methods of healing will have to be as enlightened and comprehensive. As Angelou brilliantly pointed out, you can only truly make things right by replacing what was taken. And you can’t replace what was taken if you don’t learn what that was, understand it, and then acknowledge it.

Lynchings of African-Americans as sport
     This learning, understanding, and acknowledging is a major component of the H.R. 40 Bill in the U.S. Congress that has been introduced by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D - MI) every Congressional session since 1989, but has never been presented for a vote. The bill, called “The Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act,” seeks to “acknowledge the fundamental injustice and inhumanity of slavery,” establish a commission to study slavery and its subsequent racial and economic discrimination against freed slaves,” study the “impact of those forces on today’s living African-Americans,” and then to “make recommendations to Congress on appropriate remedies to redress the harm inflicted on living African-Americans.”

      Conyers compares H.R. 40, which currently has approximately 40 sponsors, to the world acknowledging the Holocaust, to America acknowledging the wrongful internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, and dealing, to some extent, with the harm done by the colonists to Native Americans.

      I’m not seeing the problem with Conyers' Congressional Bill here. How can wrongs be righted if America refuses to hear the exact nature and extent of the harm done? How can one “give it back” if one won’t delineate what was taken in the first place?

     It’s amazing how America understood the human suffering as a result of events like 9/11 or the Boston Marathon Bombings -- and readily and rightfully sought for a price to be paid for the suffering of the victims -- but refuses to acknowledge the long-term suffering caused by slavery.

     America’s reluctance to deal with slavery and its harm to an entire race of people has a lot to do with the fact that this was an inside job. There are no scary foreign terrorists or immigrants to latch our anger and blame onto. The “evildoers" (a label former President George W. Bush was fond of using in reference to terrorists) was America. And as Ricky Ricardo of “I Love Lucy” would say, America has some “splainin’ to do.”

   
From Reunionblackfamily.com
 The real deal of what actually went down (not only during slavery, but afterward) – from forcefully taking black babies to use as alligator bait (thus the expression: “alligator bait”) to the lynchings, rapes, murders, church bombings, cross-burnings, assassinations, using police dogs to attack women and children protestors, and sadistic torture of slaves and freedmen – makes the movie “12 Years a Slave” seem like “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.”

     So, why can’t we move forward and see the urgency of starting the healing process from the evils of slavery and racism in America? I’ll provide some insight into the obstacles by quoting things that were actually stated to me and to others that I know.

     Complaint: “I wasn’t a slave owner and you weren’t a slave. Who cares?”

     Answer: Correct. I wasn’t a slave. But the limited financial and social capital that was passed down to me was most definitely impacted by my family being descendents of slaves and a disenfranchised minority group. My grandfather fled the atrocities of the South with a 6th-grade education. He escaped to the lesser of two evils in the North, where he was still met with discrimination that limited his opportunities. He worked his entire life – as a cook on trains and, later, as a custodian – and raised several children and grandchildren (including me), and supported and cared for his wife for 55 years until her death. He died with only $1,000 in the bank.

     And, yes, you weren’t a slave owner. But I can guarantee that by nature of skin color and being a member of a privileged racial class, your family was able to pass down a great deal more financial and social capital to you. If not, that same skin color and privilege will guarantee more opportunities to gain such assets for yourself than the as-qualified minorities right next to you. 

     Complaint: “Why should I pay for something that I didn’t do in the past and have nothing to do with now?

     Answer: Americans have to pay for things that they don’t agree with, don’t care about, and abide by laws that they would prefer not to have all the time. It’s the American way --  and it’s the price we pay to be able to have funding for things we do care about, do agree with, and is necessary to support the interests of the whole instead of just its parts. African-Americans paid taxes to the same country that first sanctioned their disenfranchisement under slavery for 500 years, and then sanctioned the continued denial of their basic human rights for decades during Jim Crow after slavery ended. African-Americans still pay taxes to police departments that abuse them, to fire departments that won't hire them, to school systems that don’t educate their children, to governments that pass legislation and laws that discriminate against them and throw obstacles along their path to upward mobility. They even paid taxes to bail out the financial industry, but then suffered the most economically as a result of the Great Recession that resulted from the financial meltdown of that same industry. 

     And in regard to not being a party to the historic and present discrimination, I would ask someone this: what actions do you personally take when you witness or have knowledge of discrimination? If the answer is nothing, then you are benefitting from the same system that you feel you shouldn’t have to be a partner in correcting.

     Fact: a former white co-worker of mine told me that a landlord in a gentrifying neighborhood in Brooklyn offered him a lower rent than he offered the African-Americans who were vying for the apartment. The landlord literally told him that he was hoping the deal would entice the co-worker to take the place because he didn’t want African-Americans in the building. What did the co-worker do? He took the deal and enjoyed the steal. The co-worker said he “felt bad” that he benefited from the discrimination, but he couldn’t pass up the lower rent. This is just one of many wild stories I am told regularly by people about the discrimination they have seen, heard, or, “sadly,” from which they have benefitted. For most, what they did to address it is never part of the narrative. They just took what they were given and accepted what others were wrongfully denied – and they kept it moving. I’m merely the confessional for moral/conscious cleansing.  

     Complaint: Didn’t Affirmative Action Make Everything Equal?

     Answer: Affirmative Action is just a necessary tool to provide African-Americans and other minorities legal protection from discrimination. It is only as effective as the institutions and governments that are supposed to utilize it, but that are also steeped in systemic racism. It has long been documented that white women – having been classified somehow as a minority – are the largest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action initiatives. The number of government contracts awarded to African-American and racial minority businesses still significantly lag behind those awarded to whites. Additionally, The New York Times reported on an Urban Institute study last year which found that consistently over the last 30 years, white families have earned, on average, $2 for every $1 that black and Hispanic families earned. Recent data also shows that white family wealth was about $632,000 compared to only $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families, according to that same study. Additionally, there is a persistent movement in America to eliminate Affirmative Action. The latest trend is for states to bypass court decisions and legislation by bringing Affirmative Action abolishment referendum questions to the states and their mostly white voting population to avoid the diversity that Affirmative Action encourages. This is how the state of Michigan – which was 80 percent white in 2012, according to the U.S. Census Bureau – was able to abolish Affirmative Action in education and hiring a few years ago.

Complaint: Why don’t you just get over it?

Answer: On the Holocaust Memorial is the phrase: “Lest We Forget.” There’s a very good reason for that phrase. The same evil in people that caused them to participate in such atrocities doesn’t just disappear, or become 'post-hateful' (i.e., the laughable "post-racial"). Instead, it is taught to the succeeding generations and continues lurking in society. Like a vampire, hate needs to continue feeding to survive. That scary Arizona legislation that would have made it lawful for businesses to refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation actually made it to Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk for a signature before she vetoed it this week. For African-Americans, this was nothing new. Parts of the country legalized similar discrimination against them (think: Jim Crow separate but equal laws) for decades after slavery ended. Watching the U.S. Supreme Court weaken the Voting Rights Act last year was like waking those who died fighting for voting rights and killing them all over again. So, you must remain vigilant and aware – lest we find ourselves victimized by the same forces all over again. So, no, we won’t – and should never – ever get over it.
The Song: “Talkin’ Bout a Revolution” (1988) (Performed by Tracy Chapman; Written by Tracy Chapman)
The Social Issue: Economic Inequality

“While they’re standing in the welfare lines/ Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation/ Wasting time, in the unemployment lines/ Sitting around, waiting for a promotion/Don't you know, they're talkin’ 'bout a revolution/ It sounds like a whisper/ Poor people gonna rise up and get their share/ Poor people gonna rise up and take what’s theirs”
Occupy Wall Street Protester
in New York City, 2011

     Long before the "99 percent" protest movement that became known world-wide as Occupy Wall Street launched on September 17, 2011 in New York City, Tracy Chapman sang about such uprisings.

     Chapman wasn’t the first song about uprisings or the first protest song. In fact, the 1960s was like one long protest song. But what is significant is that in each succeeding generation, Americans are still singing this same, sad tune about economic inequality.  

     One of the lessons of these economic protest movements that continues to be lost is this: When there is economic inequality, no one wins. While the wealthiest among us can remain insulated from the impact of economic inequality because of their already accumulated financial resources, the country as a whole suffers.  The financial meltdown of 2008 and the Great Recession that followed should have shown us that business owners need customers who can actually buy their goods or utilize their services. That Real Estate Developers and Agents need people who can afford to buy their homes or rent their apartments. Citizens in communities need to be self-sustaining in order for those communities to remain healthy. What’s the point if when you build it, they just can’t afford to come?

     Another lesson that keeps being forgotten is that oppressed people will see the light and fight back. Except, today they have better weapons.

      What the oppressed have now that they didn’t have in the time when Chapman released her song in 1988 was major arsenal in the way of the Internet and social media to even the playing field of message dissemination and support for their cause. This is how the Occupy Wall Street movement focusing on the plight of the “99 percent” and based out of little park near Wall Street became known and duplicated across the country and the world.

     Back in the 60s, television was such a weapon – allowing the rest of the country and the world to see the injustices that were taking place. But the oppressed were dependent on mainstream news media to tell their stories for them and share their plight. Social media today ensures that inequality will continue to have nowhere to hide, allows the oppressed to control their own message, and allows them to reach their audience without the mainstream news media as intermediary. As the Occupy Wall Street movement illustrated: people will listen.

     Chapman celebrates the power of that voice of the oppressed, and warns that the fortitude and capabilities of the oppressed should never be underestimated or ignored.

 Read Part I of this blog series here

Next and last in this series: "Love's In Need of Love Today"


****************


T.M. Bonner is a writer, filmmaker, MBA, Social Justice Advocate, and is currently completing Graduate Studies in Social Policy/Social Service in New York City.