Thursday, January 18, 2007
6:25 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This year, the usual combined weekend of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday followed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday is not combined, as the third Monday of January precedes the third Sunday by 6 days. Plus, this year provided lots of content on both topics, so the usual combined column will be split.
Sadly, racial issues were front and center during the past year. In May, the residents of New Orleans, Louisiana re-elected Ray Nagin, the governor during Hurricane Katrina. Like Dr. King, he had a dream too. His was nowhere near as admirable, though; he wanted New Orleans rebuilt as a “Chocolate City”. Although he apologized for that comment, regular readers will know what I think about apologies (and non-regulars can learn here). Comments such as this only serve to deepen racial divides, not contribute to Dr. King's vision of a nation where race is not even a concern.
In May, the “Day Without Immigrants” attempted to paint those who are opposed to illegal immigration as racists, rather than fans of enforcing our existing laws. I've written about this recently (see the 2006 Year in Review: The Ridiculous), so I won't expound on this too much here. These folks are attempting to equate their plight with those of blacks, using the same language. However, the truth of their situation is that they are here illegally, and as such have no standing to demand rights and treatment of American citizens. There is a way for non-Americans to become Americans, and cutting in line in front of those who are observing the law is not that way.
Come November, Michael Richards went off on a racial rant during a stand-up comedy show. This was followed by, you guessed it, apology after apology upon apology, with a side helping of apology. And again, these ring hollow with me. Richards' racism shows what can happen in today's environment of focusing on race and stereotypes - even a successful actor such as he can still harbor these feelings. Like Nagin's apology, his apology does not erase the window into the soul that his words provided. The words themselves are not the problem; the attitude behind them are. (Let me be clear - I'm not against apologizing to someone if you personally hurt them. Not all apologies are as useless as the two I've described above.)
Wrapping up earlier this month, the Duke rape case carried immense racial undertones. Many people were quick to believe the story, especially since the accuser was a poor black woman, and the people she was accusing were rich, privileged white men. Now, it turns out that the plentiful DNA evidence collected from the accuser exonerates the lacrosse players. When this story broke, several people suggested it was a ploy by the District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was up for re-election, to pander to the black voters in Durham, North Carolina. Even now, the accuser's family are still buying into the hype. The accuser's cousin was interviewed on CNN a few nights ago, and here's part of what she said, with the highlighting added by me… (In the transcript of the entire show, do a search for “UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE” to find the beginning of this interview.)
It's unfortunate that it's turned into race. But it's always been there. It sensationalizes the story. You know, it's got class and it's got race in it. And I think from day one, a lot of people felt that these were privileged young white boys, who felt like they could treat these young women, strippers or not - I think they had the mentality that they were superior to these young women. And I think that's unfortunate. And I think that that's just the world we live in.
Read the part I highlighted - even though these guys have been found guilty of nothing, they're still privileged white boys who were superior to the others! And that's just “the world we live in.” Incredible! I do agree with her conclusion, though - it is truly unfortunate.
But, these prove that racism is still a problem, right? I'm not so sure. Sure, there are still racists of every color, and there always will be; that's one of the pitfalls of a free society. But, people do not have to be hyper-sensitive over racial issues, either - that is a conscious choice, although our current society has some pretty strong conditioning towards that sensitivity.
Let me wrap up by sharing my personal observations, based on data from Census 2000. I'm white, and I've lived as a minority for the past 9 years in Montgomery, Alabama. This city is 50% black, 47% white. (Subtract “Hispanic origin” from White - they're counted both places.) For the next 4 years, I'll be living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a city that is 40% Hispanic, 32% white, 3% black. In Montgomery, I've rarely felt unwelcome. When we go out to parks or the mall, nearly everyone I meet is friendly, no matter their skin color. We'll talk about our families, or crazy things our kids do. Sometimes, we'll even discuss contentious things, like the war in Iraq. Depeche Mode said it more than 20 years ago - people are people.
The only exception to this was in some stores and restaurants. Usually, this was just unfriendly service - and, this can't all be blamed on racial differences, as I've had woeful service from all races. The most offensive time (to me) was the store where two black customers in line behind me were checked out before me. In these cases, though, did I call my local city commissioner, or the media? Nope - I just kept my feet and dollars away from those establishments. That's the way a free society works - you're free to be a jerk, and I'm free to not give you my money.
I'm looking forward to Albuquerque. I'm not there yet, so I can't say this for certain, but I'm pretty sure that most folks out there are friendly as well. As we go around the parks, malls, restaurants, and churches of that city, we will meet Americans just like us - folks who want a safe nation, clean streets, and the best for their children. Apart from some loudmouths, Dr. King's dream is being realized every day; hopefully, common sense will begin to prevail among all the races, and the “racial offense” industry will begin to wither. If the money spent on trying to make people apologize or comply with some minutia of the law was instead spent on positive things, this nation would be much better off.
(To read previous years' columns, select the “Race” category from the sidebar.)
Monday, January 16, 2006
9:38 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Again this year, I'm combining my thoughts on these two days into one column. (If you'd like, you can review 2005's combined entry and 2004's entries for MLK's birthday and the sanctity of human life.) Much has happened over the past year in the realm of life issues and race relations, and I'd like to take a look back to see what we can learn from these recent happenings.
Recently, discussion on abortion has come to the forefront, thanks to the hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The people on the left like to pitch this as a case of women's rights, but the issue before the Supreme Court is even more basic than that. That question is, “Is there a right to ‘privacy’ in the Constitution?” In the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court “found” this previously unrecognized right deep within a “penumbra” in our nearly 200-year-old Constitution. In this specific case, we learn that the Constitution prohibits states from having laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives. (I'm curious as to whether any people have appealed laws against other types of drugs, citing this precedent.) Based on the faulty logic of Griswold, the 1973 case Roe v. Wade struck down all restrictions on abortion, viewing it as just another contraceptive method.
In last year's entry, I dealt with the medical advances over the intervening 30 years since Roe was decided. I will, though, give you a link to one of the best abortion information resources I've seen - Abortion Facts. This site has links and information on almost every aspect of reproductive health, from a worldview that values life and realizes the negative effect that abortion has had not only on the babies that die each day, but on our society's view of life, women, and appropriate sexual behavior. Also, a startling statistic from the New York Daily News - for every 100 births in NYC last year, 74 abortions were performed. That's 42.5%!
Back in March 2005, we had another fight regarding life, this time on the other side with Terri Schiavo, a lady who had been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state for several years, but who had not recorded her wishes before she died. Her husband Michael claims that she had said that she would not have wanted heroic measures used to prolong her life, and that her current nature of medical care constituted “heroic” measures. He petitioned the court to order her nursing home to remove the feeding tube that was giving her food and water. On the other side, Terri's parents did not feel that their daughter would want to starve to death; rather, they wanted Michael to divorce Terri, at which point they would become the ones responsible for continuing her care. (Of course, had he divorced her, he wouldn't get any insurance money… Hmmm…) Astoundingly, Michael won, and Terri was starved to death, passing away on March 31st. He claims that it was what she would have wanted - but, sadly, she's not here to present her side. (Here's a link to the entry I wrote at the time about Terri and her case.)
This is the case where the “pro-choice” movement morphed into the “pro-death” movement. Their true beliefs about their opinion of human life was on display for all to see. Terri Schiavo had made her choice. Choosing not to have a living will means that her care would fall back to normal medical processes - every attempt to save her life would be made. The “pro-choice” crowd, though, ignoring her choice, sided with her adulterous husband in his quest for her death. I guess they're pro-choice, as long as the choice is death.
On January 28th, 2005, Condoleezza Rice was sworn in as only the second black (and first black female) Secretary of State. It is interesting that, for all the lip service the Democrats give to people of color, it was a Republican President who has appointed both black Secretaries of State our nation has had. Throughout this past year, she has been quite busy, working hard to act as this country's face to the rest of the world. She is presiding over the difficult diplomatic processes with North Korea and Iran, two rogue countries that are dangerously close to developing nuclear weapons.
Once September rolled around, though, we saw something much less inspiring. Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, destroying Gulfport and Biloxi, Mississippi and, though it only hit New Orleans, Louisiana with a glancing blow, the water broke some of the levees around the city, and it flooded. We heard reports of stacks of bodies, rapes, and rampant looting. (Thankfully, all but the looting seems to have been vastly overreported.) Then, we have the ridiculous outburst from Kanye West during a Katrina fundraising special, claiming that our President doesn't care about black people. Preposterous! And, during a time of national disaster, an irresponsible and disrespectful thing to do. Seems it was all a publicity stunt - his album came out a few weeks later, and his name was fresh on people's minds. So, he basically exploited the same people he claimed President Bush didn't care about. Definitely not a high point…
To wrap up our mini year-in-review, let's come back to the recently completed Alito hearings. Aspersions were cast on Judge Alito's character because he had been a member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and that group had written that it opposed allowing minorities and women into Princeton. The only problem is that those lines came from a parody that was published in the Princeton student newspaper. (Look for the quotes from Dinesh D'Souza in that article.) Turns out, CAP was also concerned about the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program being banished from Princeton, and that is why Justice-to-Be Alito had joined the group. The group did oppose quotas of minority/female admissions, and they also opposed lowered admissions standards for minority/female admissions - but, they were not opposed to minorities or women based on their race or gender. (And, this insinuation from the left is getting more than a little insulting!) Also, during the hearings, one of the committee members said that they couldn't think of a single decision that Judge Alito had made that was beneficial to minorities. However, this article, written in November of 2005, shows his belief that all people are equal under the law, no matter what their skin color.
Our nation misses Dr. King's guidance. He believed that, just as God sees us all as people, men should look at men with color-blind eyes as well. I hope that, over the next few years, less focus will be placed on divisive things. And, I hope that minorities realize that while one group emphasizes our differences, there is another group that has accepted those of whatever color, and encourage them to do the things that will improve their lives.