Few Americans know that June 19, orJuneteenth, is Independence Day for many folks of African descent.
Also known as Emancipation Day or Freedom Day, it commemorates the end of slavery, the seminal event in African-American history.
President Lincoln's EmancipationProclamation took effect on Jan. 1, 1863, but the word did not spread instantly.
According to one account from published slave narratives of how the holiday began, the Emancipation Proclamation was read to slaves in Galveston, Texas, on June 19, 1865, more than two years after it officially went into effect. As word of the end of slavery spread, Juneteenth was created to commemorate that day.
Folklore tells why the news of freedom took so long to arrive.
One story is that slaves wereintentionally kept ignorant about their freedom in order to allow crops to continue being harvested.
Another has one messenger traveling by mule from the date of the Emancipation Proclamation to deliver the news, and it simply took more than two years to arrive from Washington, D.C., to Texas.
Yet another story has the messenger being murdered before he could deliver the message.
Juneteenth has been a state holiday in Texas since 1980, and it is either an official holiday or an observed day in at least 17 other states -- Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and Wyoming.
Juneteenth is also celebrated in other parts of the world, including China, Ghana, Israel and Japan, to name a few countries, according to Juneteenth.com, an educational Web site.
Why should anyone celebrate the holiday?
"With its lighthearted name andtragicomic origins, Juneteenth appeals to many Americans by celebrating the end of slavery without dwelling on its legacy," wrote Julie Moskin in a 2004 article in the New York Times.
"Juneteenth, its celebrators say, is Martin Luther King's Birthday without the grieving."
No stats prove how many people celebrate Juneteenth every year, but those who do usually treat it like most holidays: filled with parades, speakers, plenty of food, family, dancing and laughter.
Happy Juneteenth.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Biden should apologize to all black Americans
By Akilah Monifa
Joe Biden owed an apology not just to Sen. Barack Obama. He also owed an apology to previous black presidential candidates -- living or dead -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. And he owes an apology to all African-Americans.
Biden, who is white, called his fellow Democratic presidential contender "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Although Biden later issued an apology, he initially claimed he was misquoted and then tried to say that by "clean," he really meant fresh.
Biden's description of the former African-American presidential candidates revealed some of the racist thoughts that many have and don't articulate in mixed company or on the record.
I'm not calling Biden a racist, and, quite honestly, I doubt the thoughts are even conscious. But his comment uncovered the old split between the so-called "good Negro or black" and the bad one -- the house "n" word versus the field "n" word.
The controversy over the quote has centered on Biden's use of the words "clean" and "articulate," since the assumption behind it appears to be that blacks are naturally dirty and unintelligent. But his use of the word "mainstream" is almost as harmful. Is "mainstream" tantamount to "white"? Or is it that Obama is a more palatable African-American than, say, Sharpton or Jackson?
As an African American, I would not have been so publicly forgiving as Obama was at first blush when he stated, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend. But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little too unfortunate."
That is putting it mildly.
Most Americans don't want to think that they may be racist and don't want to acknowledge harboring racist thoughts. But the insidiousness of Biden's choice of words reveals far more than if he had used the "n" word.
Both Biden and Obama should do more to clear this up. We'd be a better country if they did.
Joe Biden owed an apology not just to Sen. Barack Obama. He also owed an apology to previous black presidential candidates -- living or dead -- including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton. And he owes an apology to all African-Americans.
Biden, who is white, called his fellow Democratic presidential contender "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
Although Biden later issued an apology, he initially claimed he was misquoted and then tried to say that by "clean," he really meant fresh.
Biden's description of the former African-American presidential candidates revealed some of the racist thoughts that many have and don't articulate in mixed company or on the record.
I'm not calling Biden a racist, and, quite honestly, I doubt the thoughts are even conscious. But his comment uncovered the old split between the so-called "good Negro or black" and the bad one -- the house "n" word versus the field "n" word.
The controversy over the quote has centered on Biden's use of the words "clean" and "articulate," since the assumption behind it appears to be that blacks are naturally dirty and unintelligent. But his use of the word "mainstream" is almost as harmful. Is "mainstream" tantamount to "white"? Or is it that Obama is a more palatable African-American than, say, Sharpton or Jackson?
As an African American, I would not have been so publicly forgiving as Obama was at first blush when he stated, "I didn't take it personally and I don't think he intended to offend. But the way he constructed the statement was probably a little too unfortunate."
That is putting it mildly.
Most Americans don't want to think that they may be racist and don't want to acknowledge harboring racist thoughts. But the insidiousness of Biden's choice of words reveals far more than if he had used the "n" word.
Both Biden and Obama should do more to clear this up. We'd be a better country if they did.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Pressure to Keep Quiet Extends to Team Sports
by Akilah Monifa
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Sometimes not only do I get confused about what day of the week it is, but also the year. I recently received an e-mail from a friend which directed me to an article that began: "Should gay athletes, more particularly, should gay men be accepted as teammates? Should they have the same privileges of a heterosexual person in a locker room, or the same shower privileges? Should they be allowed to sleep in the same hotel room with their teammates?"
At first I thought it was some article from the 50s dredged up and reprinted. But somewhat to my shock, but mainly my dismay, the article was written in November 2002. As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. It was at least a throw back to the 1993 U.S. military policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
As an out African American lesbian and mother, sometimes I think that the world, or at least the rest of the United States, sees life through my lenses, which are accepting of folks regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or any other identity.
But then I am snapped back in to reality. The quote above was written by Demetrious Johnson for the St. Louis American, a free weekly newspaper (circ. 68,500) covering the African American community. Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."
The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds. Far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. This guy was in the closet during his nine years of professional play, and of course long before that. In a print interview he spoke of his fear of coming out while an active player and said: "I'd wind up cut or injured. I was sure that if a GM didn't get rid of me for the sake of team chemistry, another player would intentionally hurt me, to keep up the image, because the NFL is a supermacho culture."
Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms. Certainly a lot of journalists, athletes and other folks feel that way. But actions speak louder than statements. Johnson and others do have a problem with gay athletes and for that matter, gay people.
Somehow if you are gay and talk about your relationships or even have a picture of your partner you are "flaunting your lifestyle" but it is perfectly acceptable to talk about heterosexual relationships, even inappropriate ones. Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk -- but just don't be gay.
Tuaolo came out in October 2002 in a media blitz on HBO's "Real Sports" and "Inside the NFL," CNN, and ABC's "Good Morning America." But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions.
Charles Barkley, a former professional basketball player, put it best: "First of all, there are a lot of people in here that don't like gay people. It's not just athletes. Athletes are insecure. Man, we got the testosterone rolling. We don't want to be around gay men, that's just how it is. But it's not just in the locker room. I mean, people just don't like gay people in this country. And that's sad."
Sad indeed, but Barkley is right, it's not just sports. Is there any wonder folks from all walks of life are reluctant to come out? I applaud Tuaolo for coming out and remain saddened that a 34-year-old man cannot be out as a gay man. No professional athlete has come out while playing a team sport. I don't blame them.
For until we all see that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered folks have a "life" not a "lifestyle," "sexual orientations" (as do heterosexuals) not "preferences" we will continue to be driven into the closet. And that certainly is no way to live one's life.
One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements. Another very simple thing is to question language used to describe LGBTs and apply that same language to heterosexuals. For example, one sees the term gay "lifestyle" but there is no heterosexual "lifestyle."
LGBTs are like heterosexuals in how we live our lives and form our families. Using distinguishing words lessens our lives. Journalists covering gay athlete issues or who want to seek further education should also look to the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for a style guide as well as the GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) LGBT Media Reference Guide for Fall 2002/Winter 2003.
As for Tuaolo, hopefully he will have the last laugh. He is out of football and out in life and lives with his partner and their 23-month-old twins. Thank you Esera for breaking the silence and coming out of the closet. Here's to hoping that others will see the importance of being out and not be threatened by someone else coming out.
Have You Seen Us? News organizations need to cover missing kids -- regardless of ethnicity or economics
by Akilah Monifa
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Approximately every week I receive a flyer from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. There are always two pictures of missing folks, usually children. Years ago missing children's pictures used to be on milk cartons. Rarely are any of the missing people folks of color. Likewise much media attention has recently been given to the disappearance of Elizabeth Smart, as well as the disappearance and killing of Samantha Runnion. That any person much less a child is missing, molested and/or murdered is truly tragic. But it is interesting to note the media coverage of these events and the interplay of race.
Alexis Patterson, an African-American girl, was kidnapped a month before Elizabeth Smart and has received virtually no coverage in the mainstream press. According to Charlie McCollum of the San Jose Mercury News, in the same time frame stories about Smart versus Patterson ran 1,000 to 100. Heck, even JonBenet Ramsey some five-and-a-half years later gets more press than a missing, kidnapped or murdered child of color.
So clearly the mainstream news media depictions in terms of both coverage at all and airtime do not accurately reflect what is happening. If so, only white kids are missing, kidnapped and/or murdered, and only African-American men get beat up by the police (particularly if there is a video camera present to record the beating.
What does the mainstream news media coverage of these children say about how kids of color are valued in our society? And why don't kids of color get similar coverage. Is it racism? Classism?
Of course the real answer is complicated. I certainly don't believe that there is a conspiracy to cover only white kids and not kids of color, but rather an intertwining of race, class, access and privilege. Missing children who get press coverage are more like the decision-makers of the news. Moreover it is about the destruction of our fantasies around safety and our expectations.
Are we surprised when a child of color living in the inner city gets harmed in some way? But what is the shock value of a kid like Elizabeth Smart getting kidnapped from a gated community in Salt Lake City, Utah? Salt Lake is supposed to be safe, particularly gated communities. The inner city is supposed to be dangerous, so the fact that children are harmed there isn't the breaking news.
And certainly the Smarts have available a full barrage of legal counsel and communications folk along with the access to the mainstream news media. So they can tell their story with ease and maximum print and broadcast coverage. As a general rule both race and class exclude folks of color from accessing the same press machinery.
But of course ultimately the responsibility for coverage, airtime and column inches falls back on the decision-makers of the news, almost all of whom are white. The few remaining media outlets can decide to examine their own race and class biases and look for stories beyond those easily presented to them by families of those privileged to have easy access to the press. They can go beyond Elizabeth Smart, Polly Klaas and Amber Schwartz and look for and give equal coverage to Alexis Patterson, Sherrice Iverson and countless other anonymous children of color who are missing or killed.
The privileges afforded by media access cannot be changed, but the media's self-critique and inclusion around race and class can be. It is about balance and examination. Here's to hoping that no child, regardless of color will need press coverage because they are missing, but if they do, let's not just cover the white kids.
8/12/2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
